Blog Archives - CounterStrikeMedia

BATTLES THAT SHAPED THE WORLD & THE RETURN OF NATIONALISM-DEMOCRACY

2/27/2019

Rethinking Democracy Promotion And Nationalism
by Peter Berkowitz via Real Clear PoliticsThe first decade of the 21st century called into question the United States’ capacity to advance freedom and democracy abroad. The century’s second decade has provoked controversy about the relation between nationalism and liberal democracy. Greater attention to the preconditions for and impact of freedom and democracy, and to the persistence and varieties of nationalism, would contribute to the formulation of a foreign policy for the third decade of the 21st century that would be more suitable to U.S. interests and principles.

https://www.amazon.com/Moment-Battle-Twenty-Clashes-Changed/dp/B00G02D6U8/ref=tmmaudswatch0?encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

GEOGRAPHY OF NORTH KOREAN REGIONAL SECURITY AIMS

2/27/2019

THE F35 TAKES ON ICBM'S, WHILE NAVY TACKLES NEW SHIP HULLS

2/27/2019

Pentagon Developing F-35s to Kill ICBMs
By Kris Osborn, Warrior Maven: “The idea would be to use F-35 weapons and sensors to detect or destroy an ICBM launch during its initial “boost” phase of upward flight toward the boundary of the earth’s atmosphere."

Arleigh Burke Flight III Production ‘On Track’
By Otto Kreisher, USNI News: "Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight III program is on track, with the first ship under construction and two more under contract."

Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight III program is on track, with the first ship under construction and two more under contract. But making the transition from the earlier Arleigh Burke-class destroyers has required a significant number of design changes and challenges, driven mainly by the requirement to install the powerful new Raytheon AN/SPY-6 air and missile defense radar, the program manager said on Thursday. – USNI News

CHINA'S AMBITION IN THE NEAR EAST & PACIFIC, BEIJING'S TECH LIMITS

2/26/2019

China Sets a Course for the U.S.'s Pacific Domain
From Stratfor Worldview: “James Michener called the Pacific Ocean "the meeting ground for Asia and America," a world of endless ocean and "infinite specks of coral" that form a highway between east and west. Indeed, these scattered islands stretching from Papua New Guinea to Easter Island have been an important link between the two rims of the Pacific since at least the 16th century."

China’s Technology Ambitions—and Their Limits
By Gideon Lichfield, MIT Technology Review: “In November 2018 a Chinese researcher, He Jiankui, announced that he had produced the first ever gene-edited children. (MIT Technology Review was first to report that he had embarked on the attempt.) The story stunned and unnerved the world, not just because a medical taboo had been broken but because of where it had happened. It seemed to confirm China’s popular image as a country with growing technological powers and few limits on using them."

China's Rise in the Middle East: Beyond Economics
By Nicholas Lyalll, The Diplomat: “Increasing Chinese leadership in the Middle East is served by a growing interest among the region’s states to pursue the “China Model” at the expense of the “Washington Consensus” that has traditionally defined foreign economic presence in the region."

HOW NORTH KOREA IS DEFEATING TEAM TRUMP

2/26/2019

Trump meets Kim Jong Un this week. There’ll be one winner.
Nicholas Eberstadt | The New York Times
President Trump and Kim Jong Un, the ruler of North Korea, are expected to gather this week in Hanoi, Vietnam, for a second round of nuclear negotiations. Kim bested Trump at their first meeting in Singapore in June last year. And he is poised to do so again.

Nick Eberstadt explains that Kim bested Trump at their first meeting in Singapore last June, and he is poised to do so again. The reason? Kim has a strategy, and the Americans do not. Rather than pander to Kim and allow North Korea to come out ahead again, the US must resume a policy of maximum pressure worthy of the name. Learn more about what to expect here.

What to Watch as Trump-Kim II Gets Underway // Paulina Glass
As Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong Un for the second time in Hanoi, many of the same questions that hovered over the first summit remain on the table. Here’s a roundup of our coverage and commentary on the last time Trump and Kim met, and what to expect this time around:
Let’s start last March.
“The good news is that the Trump administration has adopted an approach toward North Korea that goes beyond trading insults, or missiles. They are going to talk,” wrote Mark Bowden. “The bad news? Donald Trump intends to do it himself.” (A Trump-Kim Summit: ‘Why the Hell Not?’)
Trump’s announcement that he meet with Kim was met with skepticism yet a hint of cautious optimism that this could be a fresh opportunity to bring issues to the fore that had previously been swept aside by hardline posturing and rhetoric.
Uri Friedman wrote: “The latest diplomatic opening offers a chance to better understand the enigmatic Kim regime, curb its runaway nuclear program, and address direct threats to the United States that haven’t been central to past rounds of negotiations, such as the North’s proliferation of nuclear materials to other states and non-state actors and its further development of long-range missiles.” (What’s There to Talk About With North Korea?)
About denuclearization…
The summit hinged on the idea that Trump’s North Korea strategy up to that point was working. In April, Kim had promised South Korean President Moon Jae In to limit testing and launches, and to stop spreading nuclear technology. But Ankit Panda and Adam Mount wrote that all that sweet-talking needed to be taken with a grain of salt: “The commitment itself is hardly worth the paper it is printed on...The United States cannot accept these measures as a victory—they’re a starting point for forging a verifiable cap on Pyongyang’s arsenal.” (North Korea Is Not De-Nuclearizing)
So how did the first Trump-Kim Summit go?
Not well, Friedman wrote. The most tangible results were:

Agreement to follow up talks with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
Commitment to returning the remains of U.S. soldiers who died during the Korean War
“Chummier” bilateral relations, with ongoing dialogue instead of threatening war

Absent, of course, was a commitment to actual denuclearization. (Trump Got Nearly Nothing From Kim Jong Un and Here’s What Trump Actually Achieved With North Korea)
But according to Trump’s Twitter, it was mission accomplished. Friedman wrote, “North Korea remains very much on the cusp of being capable of striking the U.S. with long-range nuclear missiles, if it has not already reached this milestone. And it has taken no steps to reverse this basic fact. Does Trump not know this?” (Donald Trump Actually Seems to Believe He Denuclearized North Korea)
(Friedman talked about all of this as it happened on our Defense One Radio podcast. Listen here.)
A month later, Pompeo traveled to Pyongyang.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called these follow-up conversations with his North Korean counterparts “productive”; they called them “regrettable.” Kathy Gilsinan noted a sort of backsliding in diplomatic goals that seemed to be cemented by this meeting: “If anything, the shifts toward common ground are now appearing to come from the American side, with State Department statements in recent days seeming to back off the long-standing demand for North Korea’s ‘complete, verifiable, and irreversible disarmament’ in favor of ‘fully verified, final denuclearization.’” (America and North Korea Are Having Two Different Conversations)
Friedman interviewed Cheon Seong Whun, a security adviser in the conservative administration of former South Korean President Park Geun Hye, about how the U.S.’s relationship with South Korea figured into denuclearization progress with North Korea. Park advocated for “pressuring, deterring, and defending against a nuclear-armed North Korea if Kim proves unserious about giving up his nuclear weapons” in the wake of Pompeo’s visit, which showed the need for a “moment of truth” with North Korea. (America’s Moment of Truth With North Korea Is Coming)
Meanwhile, in the intelligence community...
Reports emerged in July and August that cast doubt that North Korea was actually denuclearizing in the American sense. On the contrary, Pyongyang appeared to be scaling up its missile operations and seeking ways to conceal its progress from the U.S. Friedman examined these reports’ credibility, and cautioned that they could perhaps be read in an opposite, more optimistic way. (Two Ways to Read the Newest Intelligence on North Korea)
Later that month, a second meeting between Pompeo and his North Korean counterpart was abruptly canceled due to what Trump called insufficient progress on denuclearization. (Donald Trump Sorrowfully Cancels Another North Korea Meeting)
But that quickly thawed, and Pompeo met with North Koreans again in October.
Pompeo again described the conversations as “productive” and called for another Trump-Kim summit, ASAP. Still murky: How much progress North Korea had made towards denuclearization, and further, how the U.S. would know if it were occuring. Eric M. Brewer and Jung H. Pak demystified this in an op-ed, which ultimately argued: “The steps North Korea has taken to date, which include reportedly destroying a nuclear-weapons test site and dismantling a missile-test facility, are either reversible or have little to no technical impact, given the advanced state of its nuclear and missile programs. In essence, they are low-to-no-cost moves for Pyongyang.” (Is North Korea Denuclearizing? Here’s How We’ll Tell)
Which brings us to another Trump-Kim summit.
David Maxwell writes that the stakes are even higher this time around; a misstep could unravel the recently tense U.S.-South Korea alliance. “The summit could result in a breakthrough that would give Trump the biggest foreign-policy win of his presidency — or it could mark the beginning of a strategic disaster for the United States and South Korea.” (A Strategic Disaster Looms at the 2nd Trump-Kim Summit)
Maxwell says there are three issues to watch:

South Korea’s monetary support for the U.S. troops stationed there
Pompeo’s protect-the-homeland priority recasting the North Korea threat
Trump’s general distaste for allies

THE INDUSTRIAL BASE NEEDED TO WIN GREAT POWER COMPETITION

2/26/2019

Study Looks to Define 'Industrial Base' for the Great-Power Era
// Marcus Weisgerber
Reagan Institute panel will seek to identify the technologies and workforce skills needed to confront Russia and China.

THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR BEGINS

2/21/2019

WHEN AMERICA LOSES THREE WARS AT ONCE

2/21/2019

PRC BUILDS FLEET TO TAKE TAIWAN

2/21/2019

CONFUSION IS FOUNDATION OF CHINESE STRATEGIC THOUGHT

2/21/2019

The Chinese Military Speaks to Itself, Revealing Doubts
By Dennis J. Blasko, War on the Rocks: "A large body of evidence in China’s official military and party media indicates the nation’s senior civilian and uniformed leaders recognize significant shortcomings in the warfighting and command capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)."

BREAKING DOWN SILOS WITH DIGITAL MEDIUMS: 21ST CENTURY MAN IS NOMADIC, DEFEAT OF SPECIALIZATION

2/17/2019

Strategy from the Ground Level:
Why the Experience of the U.S. Civil War Soldier Matters
By Alexandre F. Caillot, Strategy Bridge: "The lessons derived from America’s bloodiest conflict are not an isolated product of the Victorian Era—they remain just as relevant for military organizations in the twenty-first century. Strategists today should note the enduring relationship between the soldiers’ ground-level perspective and their own high-level planning."

Hybrid Warfare Represents a Threat to American Innovation
By James “Spider” Marks, RealCLearDefense: "Russia’s “investment” in Venezuelan oil, Iran’s manipulation of the Syrian War and China’s exploitation of technology all share a common theme: they represent the latest in a string of attacks against western civilization."

http://www.amazon.com/Silo-Effect-Expertise-Breaking-Barriers/dp/1451644736/ref=sr11?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460855658&sr=1-1&keywords=SILOS+TETT

HOOVER'S STRATEGIKA: DEFENSE OF EUROPE & how us policy should tackle russia

2/13/2019

Russia Reset Redux Not the Answer to Increased Chinese-Russian Cooperation

European Defense
By Angelo M. Codevilla
Europe was never a full partner in its own defense. The very question—Will Europe ever fully partner with the U.S., or will the European Union and NATO continue to downplay the necessity of military readiness?—is no longer meaningful as posed, because the political energies of Europe’s elites are absorbed as they try to fend off attacks on their legitimacy by broad sectors of their population.

NATO Renewed (Coming Soon To A Theater Of War Near You)
By Ralph Peters
Clio, the muse of history, has a fabulous sense of irony: As the human pageant unfolds, she delights in confounding our intentions and expectations. Thus, two public enemies of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (whose acronym, NATO, sounds like another Greek deity) promise to be the unwitting saviors of the alliance, rescuing it from complacency, lethargy, and diminishing relevance.

Urging More From Our NATO Allies
By Robert G. Kaufman
The United States should never expect to achieve full burden-sharing with the European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Even in the most balanced alliances, the most powerful member will pay some premium for ensuring its credibility and effectiveness. The United States can strive plausibly to minimize but not eliminate the massive degree of free riding and strategic incoherence that has become politically untenable and strategically unwise.

RELATED COMMENTARY
The European Alliance That Never Was
By Angelo M. Codevilla

Europe Is Alert to the Dangers It Faces
By Kori Schake

Even Amidst Change, Europe Still Relies on the U.S. for Defense
By Barry Strauss

Europe Lacks the Will to Defend Itself
By Bing West
Read the full issue here.

Strategika's Issue 53 (U.S. Engagement with Russia).

Nyet to the Reset
by Robert G. Kaufman
Any reset with Putin’s increasingly illiberal and expansionist Russia is a triumph of hope over experience. Unrealistic realists underestimate the importance of ideology and regime type in assessing Russia’s calculus of its ambitions and interest.

A Russian Reset? Not Unless We Want To Declare Defeat.
by Peter Mansoor
It is no secret that U.S.-Russia relations are at their lowest ebb since the end of the end of the Cold War in 1989. Spurred on by President Vladimir Putin’s nationalist impulses, Russia has invaded two neighboring states, Georgia and Ukraine, seized the Crimean Peninsula, and interfered in elections in the United States and various European nations. Russian cyber warriors arguably made a difference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, won by Donald Trump by the slimmest of margins—just 80,000 votes in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Russian agents have used nerve agent in assassination attempts on British soil.

Another Reset with Russia? Sure, If We Accept the Unacceptable.
by Hy Rothstein
Any reset with Russia must first assess whether Russia’s policy interests are reconcilable with the interests of the U.S. and NATO. For President Putin and Russian elites, the collapse of the Soviet Union was the worst calamity of the 20th century. Russians have always felt a deep-seated and occasionally real sense of vulnerability from the West. For many Russians, the security dilemma is very real. Moreover, after the end of the Cold War, NATO expansion increased this perception of vulnerability beyond Russian defenses to economic and political domains as well.

Read the full issue here.

YALE'S GRAND STRATEGY DIRECTOR CHARLES HILL SPEAKS BIOGRAPHICALLY, ADDRESSES WORLD ORDER & EXAMINING US NUCLEAR COMMAND AND CONTROL ISSUES

2/13/2019

Ep. 211: Charlie's Wars With Charles Hill
with Charles Hill via Q & A, Hosted by Jay NordlingerHoover Institution fellow Charles Hill talks about his upbringing in New Jersey, his life in the arena, his career in the academy, and the fate of the world.

Whither Nuclear Command, Control & Communications?
By Colin Clark, Breaking Defense: “Most of the system that allows the president to launch nuclear weapons and to know what the enemy is doing with theirs is ancient. No one yet agrees what it must replaced with. And no one knows how much it will cost, although late last month the Congressional Budget Office issued an estimate of $77 billion."

COLIN GRAY'S LATEST: THE US & GLOBAL ORDER

2/12/2019

The United States and World Order
By Colin S. Gray, National Institute for Public Policy: “With very few exceptions the United States plays a dominant leadership role just about everywhere. This condition warrants the description hegemonic (from the Greek) so considerable is the country’s lead internationally in most of the true foundations of power. With few exceptions, this American dominance has been a source of enormous net benefit to the world at large. In common with many other powers, even the United States has a few notable weaknesses, some of them, when regarded ironically, being largely a consequence of its relative greatness.”

The future of arms control is global
(War On The Rocks) In the United States, discussion of Indo-Pacific nuclear weapons issues often centers on how existing and developing nuclear weapon capabilities in the region affect U.S. strategic calculations.

Confusion in the Pivot: The Muddled Shift from Peripheral War to Great Power Competition by Benjamin Denison

WILL AUSTRALIA GO TO CHINA? HOW CHINESE AMBITIONS TO DESTROY "THE QUAD" ARE WORKING; NET ASSESSMENT & ARMS CONTROL FOR THE INDO-PACIFIC

2/10/2019

Confronting the Flaws in America's Indo-Pacific Strategy by Jean-Loup Samaan

Building The Air Force We Need To Meet Chinese And Russian Threats
(Forbes) For the first time in a generation, America’s global interests are at risk.

"Australia’s Great Strategic Transition

Australia is about to embark upon only its second strategic “course correction” since Federation in 1901. But it has yet to determine a destination, or to plot a course.

Analysis. By the Canberra staff of GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs. Few question the place of Australia in the strategic firmament. It is an economically and militarily strong part of “the West”. And yet it is now, for only the second time in its independent history, beginning to move onto a new strategic path.

It is a path yet to be plotted to a destination yet to be envisioned. It is only the second time in the country’s independent history — in the 116 years since Federation in 1901 — that it has so clearly begun such a move.

What are the headline aspects?

• Australia’s relationship with the US has already changed, and will change further. It is — although the US may not yet recognize it — evolving into a more balanced relationship;

• Australia will be forced to seek a far more nuanced balance among a variety of allies, neighbors, and trading partners;

• Australia will be forced to seek more balanced trading and economic models, given the evolution away from zero-architecture globalism;

• Australia will have to move rapidly away from its belief that it can be sustained primarily by a service economy;

• Australia will need to define its identity and grand strategic objectives or else face growing internal polarization and focused Indo-Pacific challenges.

Significantly, the strategic evolution of Australia is not overtly linked to changes which were announced in July 2017 in Canberra, creating some new framework elements for Australia’s national security and intelligence communities. It is a sea-change, nonetheless, even though it has yet to be formally recognized by the Government, the Defence community, or the public.

Rather, the changes being evidenced in the national security system are unconsciously reflective of (and reflexive to) the transforming context, not the other way around.

The first shift, from strategic dependence on and alliance with the United Kingdom, to dependence on and alliance with the United States, reached a tipping point in about 1962. The signs of that shift began to be evident in World War II, as Britain’s position East of Suez began to crumble (particularly with the lost of Singapore by February 15, 1942). By May 8, 1942, with the US-Australian forces fighting the Battle of the Coral Sea, the course had become, perhaps, inevitable.

The Future of Arms Control is Global: Reconsidering Nuclear Issues in the Indo-Pacific by Andy Weber and Christine Parthemore

Say It With Statues: Brick-and-Mortar Revisionism in Orban's Hungary by Vivian S. Walker

New Net Assessment: To Intervene or Not to Intervene? That is the Question by Melanie Marlowe, Bryan McGrath, and Christopher Preble

The Fundamentals of the Quad
By Walter Lohman, The Strategist (ASPI): “The most important thing that unites the Quad countries, however, is an awareness that managing the rise of China is the defining challenge of our era.

GREGORY COPLEY, EDITOR DEFENSE AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON TRUMP'S ASIAN STRATEGY

2/7/2019

CHINA'S OFFICIAL NUCLEAR POLICY MAY CHANGE & HOW US NUCLEAR DETERRENT IS FAILING

2/7/2019

Is China about to abandon its ‘no first use’ nuclear weapons policy?
(South China Morning Post) China might come under pressure to reconsider its long-standing “no first use” nuclear policy as it engages in a maritime arms race with the United States, analysts have warned.

Strengthening the Nuclear Order
By Rod Lyon, The Strategist (ASPI): “The current nuclear order, at least as we’ve come to understand it since 1945, is fraying. That might not matter if a post-nuclear world were close, but the world’s in no shape to make the sudden leap towards nuclear abolition."

THE QUAD SUPPORTS US BASED RULES FOR INTERNATIONAL ORDER, THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE RUSSIAN PULLOUT FROM AFGHANISTAN

2/7/2019

Quad Supports U.S. Goal to Preserve Rules-Based Order
By Derek Grossman, The Strategist (ASPI): “Washington’s key objective when contending with Beijing in the Indo-Pacific is to preserve the liberal international order that has been in place since the end of World War II."

30-Year Anniversary of Soviet Withdrawal From Afghanistan
By Franz-Stefan Gady, The Diplomat: “The withdrawal of the Soviet 40th Army from Afghanistan from 1988 to 1989 was a militarily successful operation save one mistake."

Inflated Counts of Civilian Casualties Collateral of Modern War
By Rodger Shanahan, the interpreter: “Such is the nature of modern conflict in built-up urban areas. When there is a complex, multi-division assault on a large urban area against an entrenched enemy, with multiple methods of fire and close air support, making a determination afterwards about what ordnance collapsed what building is nigh on impossible."

THE FUTURE OF ASIAN INTERNATIONAL ORDER, INDIA'S MODERNIZATION BUDGET FAILS & THE VITALITY OF PROTECTING GEOGRAPHIC CHOKEPOINTS AGAINST US ADVERSARIES

2/6/2019

Protecting Chokepoints Remains a Key Strategic Challenge
By Austin Bay, StrategyPage: “Chokepoints matter, economically and militarily. Most of the world's trade passes through nine maritime chokepoints: Hormuz, Malacca Straits, Mandeb, Suez, Gibraltar, Cape Horn, Cape of Good Hope, Panama Canal and the Turkish Straits. The Danish Straits also matter -- especially to Russia.”

Competition with China and the Future of the Asian International Order by David M. Edelstein

India’s new defense budget falls way short for modernization plans
(Defense News) India’s defense budget for 2019 included a marginal 6.87 percent bump to $49.68 billion, which is unlikely to meet modernization demands or ‘Make in India’ manufacturing increases.

India Is Going Big on New Fighters; Lockheed, Boeing Pledge Indian Plants
Boeing, Lockheed, Dassault Aviation of France, the European Eurofighter consortium, Sweden’s Saab, and United Aircraft Corporation of Russia are all jockeying for position for an Indian fighter contract worth $15 billion for 110 planes, and an $8 billion navy program of around 60 aircraft.

SELF DECEPTION & THE CONSPIRACY OF OPTIMISM: NEMESIS OF CREATIVITY AND EFFECTIVENESS

2/3/2019

Self-Deception and the 'Conspiracy of Optimism' by Charles Vandepeer

SHOOTING DOWN HYPER-SONIC MISSILES, A LOOK AT IRAN'S NEW CRUISE MISSILE & THE NAVY'S D5 MISSILE

2/3/2019

DoD Wants Help To Spot — & Kill — Mobile Missiles

The Best Defense Ever? Busting Myths About the Trump Administration’s Missile Defense Review by Joan Johnson-Freese and David Burbach

Pentagon Studies Post-INF Weapons, Shooting Down Hypersonics
The Pentagon has almost completed a study of how to shoot down hypersonic missiles. It’s also developing new offensive weapons — conventional, not nuclear — whose deployment will become legal with the end of the INF Treaty.

Trump Scraps Cold War Nuclear Treaty, US Moving To Build New Missiles

Iran’s “New” Land-Attack Cruise Missile In Context
An overemphasis by the West on seeking to check Tehran’s ballistic missile program has led to inattention to Iran’s cruise missile capabilities and intentions. Over the weekend, Iran unveiled and test-launched a "new" land-attack cruise missile, dubbed the Hoveizah, days in advance of the Islamic Republic's 40th anniversary.

5 Reasons the Navy's D5 Missile Is the Most Important Weapon in the U.S. Arsenal
By Loren Thompson, Forbes: “Last week, the Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs office awarded Lockheed Martin a $560 million modification to a pre-existing contract for production and support of the Trident II D5 missile. Almost nobody outside the Navy and Lockheed’s missiles and space unit noticed. Dozens of such agreements have been completed over the years."

Iran’s “New” Land-Attack Cruise Missile In Context

STEPHEN BRYEN Canceling INF Treaty makes sense
The 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear (INF) Treaty, agreed by US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, has been suspended by both the United States and Russia. Vladimir Putin says he will not negotiate the matter, and the treaty’s six-month notice clause

DOUGLAS BARRIE: SPACE DEFENSE

THOMAS BUSSING: RAYTHEON MISSILE DEFENSE, STRATEGIEST

JAMES ACTON: NUCLEAR MISSILE DEFENSE

DR. MICHAEL PILLSBURY

HENRY ROWEN
File Size:	78 kb
File Type:	pdf

CHARLES WOLF JR.
File Size:	665 kb
File Type:	pdf

ANDREW MASHALL 'YODA'
File Size:	1471 kb
File Type:	pdf

AMERICA NEEDS NEW ALLIANCES

why_america_needs_new_alliances_-_wsj.pdf
File Size:	158 kb
File Type:	pdf

POLYBIUS & ANCIENT GRAND STRATEGY
File Size:	2040 kb
File Type:	pdf

CENTER FOR POLITICAL & MILITARY POWER

SUN TZU ISN'T WORKING FOR CHINA ANYMORE

SUN TZU ISN'T WORKING FOR CHINA
File Size:	285 kb
File Type:	pdf

THE QURAN & MORAL STRATEGY FOR THE LONG WAR

WHEN WAR WITHOUT END, FINALLY ENDS

WHEN WAR WITHOUT END, FINALLY ENDS
File Size:	4995 kb
File Type:	pdf

THUCYDIDES & THE LONG WAR PROBLEM

HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR

WHAT HAPPENED DURING PELOPONNESIAN WAR
File Size:	547 kb
File Type:	pdf

THUCYDIDES TRAP IS GREAT POWER COMPETITION

THUCYDIDES TRAP = GREAT POWER COMPETITION
File Size:	2228 kb
File Type:	pdf

CENTER STRATEGIC, BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS: U.S. GRAND STRATEGY

DAVID P. GOLDMAN COLUMN ASIA TIMES

HOW BEST TO UNDERSTAND U.S. - CHINA RELATIONS

STRATEGY BRIDGE

Winning World War IV David P. Goldman.pdf
File Size:	4315 kb
File Type:	pdf

THE NEW ASIAN OBSERVER

Tweets by WilliamHolland

Archives

July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
February 2016
June 2015

Categories