#Military Exercise 2021

[mesetacadre]

hey! this is a dumb question, but why are general secretaries elected for life?

They aren't. The procedure in democratic centralism is that a Congress is called periodically, typically every 4-5 years though that might vary, where a new Central Committee and its associated organs are elected, including the General Secretary. The Congress is the most powerful organ in a communist party, above the CC and gensec. Members of the party are chosen as delegates from their local cells, and they each have one vote, as well as having the duty to participate in the debates.

In the USSR, Lenin was actually never the general secretary, then Stalin was elected repeatedly despite him asking to step down multiple times. He died whole being gensec. Khruschev was replaced by Brezhnev in 1964. Brezhnev did die in 1982, and afterwards there were two quick successions both ended with the person holding the position dying, Andropov in 1984 and Chernenko in 1985. Gorbachev of course died 2 years ago, as he was overthrown. It is true that after Stalin the USSR had a very aged leadership, that's why Brezhnev, and especially Andropov and Chernenko died in the position.

In Cuba, before the revolution, only José Peña Vilaboa died while being first secretary and he only held it for a year or two. Fidel left office in 2011 and he died in 2016. Raúl Castro succeeded him and he left office in 2021, he's still alive. Now it's Miguel Díaz Canel who is 64.

In Vietnam, Trần Phú died while in office in 1935, then it wasn't until 6 general secretaries/first secretaries, including Hồ Chí Minh who died 9 years after leaving the position, Lê Duẩn died while in charge in 1986. No other general secretaries have died except for Nguyễn Phú Trọng who died last year.

In China, there is more of a marked difference between the state and party, but it's honestly not that hard to research. Most have not died in office.

The DPRK is a big exception, the Worker's Party of Korea, which to be clear isn't even the only party in the DPRK, has had 3 previous general secretaries (Kim Tu-Bong, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il) who have all died in office. I'm sure someone can explain this in more depth, but the Kim family was so well-regarded and initially chose as general secretaries because they were almost legendary guerilla fighters against Japanese occupation, especially Kim Il Sung. Anna Louise Strong talks about this more here in chapter 3 Government and Elections. Whatever the case, each member of the Kim family has been very involved in the WPK, and due to the accumulated experience elected.

Whichever country you were thinking of when you sent this ask, which is probably the USSR or the DPRK, nobody is chosen until death. These positions are regularly and democratically renewed or reconfirmed, and I don't think that someone being elected multiple times is undemocratic. If people are happy with how something is run, why would they change it? and besides, let me remind you the General Secretary is not that supremely powerful. All decisions in a democratic-centralism system are taken collectively, taking into account previous debates and the constant feedback from the base. Many, many people are involved who the Central Committee rely on, and the CC itself often changes members even more between congresses. Idk, the USamericans chose FDR for almost 4 terms an nobody talks about the FDR dictatorship. It's not hard to believe maybe FDR was simply a good president most people liked, and who was in charge during a crucial time. The DPRK has been under constant siege since its very creation, under sanctions and with some of the largest military bases and exercises on its border, run by the people who killed around a fifth of your people. Changing leadership often might also be conducive to instability and a rapidly-changing course, which the Korean people would understandibly not want.

Same with Stalin. He was the general secretary during a crucial time, the collectivization of work and industrialization on par with the US and western Europe, followed by the Nazi-fascist invasion, and then the very costly reconstruction.

Non-ruling democratic-centralist parties typically have a much faster rotation of general/first secretaries, you can look at a list on Wikipedia for most parties out there and you can compare with their death dates.

[utilitycaster]

this may seem needlessly finicky but I do actually believe it's important: calling Verin a himbo is just one of many examples where like, one of the cast says something off the cuff and it's not exactly the right word or it is highly contextual, and that is fine because no one is perfect especially in improv, but then it gets repeated ad infinitum within the fandom when it never really fit in the first place. We have Verin's stats and he's decently more intelligent than average with a 13 (smarter than most of Bells Hells for one; as smart as Pike); it's just he's the guy with a bachelor's degree with good grades followed by military service in a family where everyone has two PhDs - Matt said "himbo of the family" the way in a family where most people are exceptionally tall you'd call the 5'11" child the short one. In Call of the Netherdeep he appears as thoughtful and competent and promoted to a difficult position at a very young age, and in the campaign his appearance is simultaneously as a leader of troops in a dangerous mission, and someone who cares enough about poetry from a completely foreign and distant culture to have tried to learn more about it. I'm sorry, but if you're using the word "himbo" I don't think you're processing a thing about the character yourself; you're just the latest repetition in a game of telephone that's been going on since mid-2021.

And that's not deeply bad on the surface, and I'm using Verin not because he is the character most wronged by this sort of thing but because he's recent and it's really clear where the word came from and that it's not a good assessment, but something I happen to have a decent knack for is pattern recognition in language. I usually find it really easy to pick up on when someone's plagiarized because of the language and pattern shifts. I tend to remember urls and out of place words well. So I do tend to notice when everyone suddenly starts using a single turn of phrase and I tend to flag it. Sometimes that's not bad; sometimes it means everyone came to a similar conclusion and that's the best way to express that conclusion. But like, when Taliesin called the Yios episode a gas-leak episode and the entire fandom started parroting it? The line "bone-dry takes"? The fact that a lot of ship defenses I see were phrased precisely as "I have eyes"? without actually talking about the ship itself? the fact that I've seen a spike in the use of the term "ontologically evil" including in myself and not all uses are actually correct? And extending this beyond strictly language but consider any headcanon with minimal textual support that catches like wildfire (sidebar: remember how we make, or made fun of the SPREAD THIS LIKE WILDFIRE tendency on Tumblr a decade ago? same concept of repetition of a specific turn of phrase without internalizing) all sort of ping this.

And it's fine, truly, to come to fandom and turn off your brain. I know this will sound sarcastic from me, and that's because I don't personally agree, but I do strongly agree that you can do what you want in fandom and you don't have to listen to my opinions so in the end, yeah, it's fine because I am not the arbiter of "fine". But I think critical thought is a vital exercise and I think precision with language is part of it and so if you find yourself using the same exact words and thoughts as everyone else, that should, ideally, trigger a process of "but are these the right words? what do I see when I see this character and how would I describe them? do I agree with this assessment?" Fandom is an interesting and easier microcosm than reality in which to start doing that.

[seoul-bros]

Jikook Week 51 Complete (26/11-03/12/2024)

Their 51st week in the military is now complete. Today we are looking back at this week in 2021. They were on an extended visit to the USA for an intense schedule of interviews, award shows and four nights of PTD concerts in LA.

It was Autumn 2021 when I discovered BTS so I'm getting nostalgic looking back on those days and especially on this Jimin who holds a special place in my heart.

They left South Korea together on 17/11 and came back separately each with their own Christmas holiday plans. Jin, Jimin & Jungkook were the first to return on 06/12/2021 (SK time). Jikook left the airport together but were separated for COVID quarantine.

On 26/11 Jimin posted himself on the beach at sunset in California. We later found out that jikook made the trip together with Tae.

BTS held four concerts in LA on 27-28/11 and on 01-02/12. It was the first time in two years they had been able to hold a concert with a live audience and as Jimin says that first night was a reminder of how much both they and ARMY had been waiting for the opportunity to meet again face to face. He was left with a profound sense of gratitude. They were back where they belonged and were ready to enjoy every moment to the full.

Day 1 & Day 2 - Anderson Paak came to the concert on Day 1 and Megan thee Stallion performed with them on Day 2.

Day 3 & Day 4 - Halsey came to the concert on Day 3.

On Day 4 Chris Martin performed Our Universe

Throughout Jikook were together - on stage and off stage, at rehearsal and after rehearsal, exercising together late at night and relaxing at the hotel.

The dark days of the COVID pandemic were finally behind them and they were determined to do as much as they could before they would finally enlist. The LA concerts were just the start and were followed concerts in Seoul and Las Vegas in 2022. I was around for all of that but it was these concerts in LA that made me ARMY.

Cr. to OPs

Post Date: 03/12/2024

[adrl-pt]

First Russian Military Operation Outside Its Territory. Ukrainian Armed Forces Combat Operations in Kursk Region.

You are watching the news from the weekly rally at the Russian Embassy in Lisbon. Today is August 10, 2:30 PM.

The five-day war in Georgia from August 8 to 12, 2008, was Russia's first "special operation" outside its territory. Journalist Georgy Kobaladze says that Georgian authorities commemorate the anniversary on August 7, marking the Ossetian army's attack on a Georgian village near Tskhinvali as the beginning. https://www.svoboda.org/a/kapkan-i-vtorzhenie-15-let-s-nachala-rossiysko-gruzinskoy-voyny/32538906.html

The Ossetians trace the origins of the war with Georgia back to 1989, when the USSR was collapsing. https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-45106205

After the Dagomys Agreement, Georgia maintained difficult but peaceful relations with the regions of Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region (South Ossetia). In 2008, Georgia began to consider joining NATO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE7_p7WISo4

Matthew Bryza, who was involved in the US mediation plan for this war, told Dozhd in an interview how steps to contain Russia were removed during the process of working with the German Foreign Ministry. https://youtu.be/uK6pyU5DuQM?feature=shared&t=294

The human rights organization "Human Rights Watch" in its research discusses violations of humanitarian law on both sides, including systematic arson, robbery, and beatings of residents of Georgian villages by South Ossetian forces after the withdrawal of Georgian troops. https://www.hrw.org/reports/georgia0109ruweb.pdf

In 2021, the Strasbourg court found that Russia exercised control over Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region and therefore bears responsibility for these violations. The Russian representative stated in court that the fragments of the Iskander missile used by Russia, presented by the Georgian side, were stolen, dismantled, and planted by the CIA. https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-55737376

Volunteer and activist David Katsarava said in an interview with Dozhd: "For us, the war against Ukraine is a continuation of ours." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK6pyU5DuQM

Since August 6, the Armed Forces of Ukraine have been conducting an operation in the Kursk region. The combat zone has already reached 430 square kilometers. The YouTube channel "The Insider" reported briefly on the situation: people are evacuating on their own, Putin is distributing the usual 10 thousand rubles, and Russian generals ignored reports of Ukrainian forces concentrating on the border. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbljcaYy1k

On August 9, politician Yulia Navalnaya stated: "Putin's war has finally come to Russia." She addressed those aiding Putin's war efforts: "No one will forget what you did to our country. You are working for a killer, but it's never too late to stop." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-HoR9OJ6mU

On August 7, Vladimir Osechkin held a stream on his YouTube channel in memory of Oleksandr Ishchenko, a member of the Azov regiment who was killed in Russian captivity, and called for information about this crime to be sent to him for investigation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBi3sO5Rq5M

Azov commander Svyatoslav Palamar published a forensic medical examination report on his Facebook page confirming the brutal murder and violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/FWoEAf9XxGmrShd2/

On January 12 of this year, the Memorial Human Rights Center recognized prisoners of war from the Ukrainian Azov Regiment as political prisoners, as they consider the Supreme Court's decision to recognize the Azov Regiment as a terrorist organization to be unlawful. https://memopzk.org/news/my-schitaem-politzaklyuchyonnymi-voennoplennyh-iz-ukrainskogo-polka-azov/

Proofs and links in the description. Subscribe and help!

[mariacallous]

Thousands of Lithuanians paid tribute this week to four United States soldiers who died during a training exercise while serving in the Baltic nation. Crowds lined the streets of Vilnius as hearses carrying the bodies of the deceased soldiers made their way to the Lithuanian capital city’s main cathedral for a memorial service before being flown to the United States.

The US servicemen had gone missing a week earlier during training exercises at a Lithuanian military facility close to the border with Belarus. This led to the largest search operation in modern Lithuanian history through the surrounding area of forests and swamps, with military and civilian teams being joined by colleagues from Poland, Germany, and Estonia. Tragically, the four missing United States soldiers were eventually found submerged in a peat bog together with their vehicle.

Around one thousand US soldiers have been based at Camp Herkus in Lithuania since 2021. Their presence is part of NATO’s Operation Atlantic Resolve, which involves rotational deployments of troops from member states as part of the alliance’s deterrence strategy on its eastern flank.

The recent deaths of four US soldiers have shocked and saddened the Lithuanian public, underlining the bonds between the country and the United States. For days, the search operation for the missing soldiers gripped the nation of almost three million. “For us, it is more than a duty, it is an emotion. We have experienced trials in our history and therefore we understand well what loss is, what death is, what honorable duty is,” commented Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda during events in Vilnius honoring the deceased servicemen.

[intermundia]

in general, i think engaging with star wars from a place of realpolitik and political analysis is a fun thought exercise, especially with the canon and legends lore fleshing out the world a bit beyond lucas's archetypal story. there's a whole swath of authors who have written books and comics for adults that all take the premises of the movies seriously, the work of james luceno jumps to mind, so you can choose to dig into that lore and take it seriously as well.

the politics of the saga are related to but greatly simplified from our reality, and there is much that can be said about the way that the galaxy is designed, from george's viet cong inspired rebellion to his prequels era citizens united and bush era executive overreach. i think it's a mistake to take the jedi's role in government too seriously, as they are kind of a hand-wavy organized militia answerable to the legislative branch (and later executive during the war).

they're both a symbol of how the system works at its best and its worst. under the flourishing galactic republic, they're ideal ambassadors of peacetime diplomacy, whose arrival at a conflict resolves it using negotiation and limited force, before those conflicts sprouted into inter-system military engagement. but under sidious, they're arguably willingly misused to enforce peace on a wider scale, due to sidious's design of breaking the galaxy with a civil war.

i see many, many takes that say that the jedi should not be involved in politics at all, but i really think that's missing the point. you can take how they are being used as like a health test of the body politic, they're an epiphenomenon dependent on the republic as a whole. by the era of the prequels, they were a tool of an age that no longer existed, a more civilized one, where conflict could be resolved locally.

should they not have participated? as george has said many times, they were in a bind. would you act to save civilian lives from an invading army of droids who didn't care for or actively sought collateral damage? could you live with yourself if you had the power to help but did not? it was doomed from the beginning, they were in a trap and about to die, but is it better to fight or run away?

anyway, i got slightly off topic. engaging with star wars politically can be a fun and meaningful exercise, which even academics are not immune from the lure. here are a few articles that i enjoyed reading, if anyone is interested:

Charles, M. B. (2015). Remembering and restoring the republic: Star wars and Rome. Classical World, 108(2), 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1353/clw.2015.0014 (link) Conor Casey & David Kenny (2021): How Liberty Dies in a Galaxy Far, Far Away: Star Wars, Democratic Decay, and Weak Executives, Law & Literature, DOI: 10.1080/1535685X.2021.1991610 (link) Rackaway, C. (2020). Star Wars: The Fascism Awakens: Representation and its Failure from the Weimar Republic to the Galactic Senate. Studies in the Social Sciences, 1(1), 7-22 (link)

have at them and enjoy :)

[darkmaga-returns]

The Netherlands has changed its press directive to exclude non-accredited journalists from court hearings. Beginning on June 1, 2025, only members of ONE association, the Dutch Association of Journalists, will be able to create audiovisual reports of legal cases. This ensures that the government can control the media’s narrative as it spirals into the grips of war.

How does a journalist join the Dutch Association of Journalists? They must earn a specific amount of money from a predetermined list of media companies. Your livelihood must depend on reporting according to the government’s narrative if you want access to hearings. This is an all-out attack on free speech.

 Potkaars, who personally has interviewed me numerous times, was denied membership in 2021 as they were not beholden to a media mogul or corporation that has the government’s approval. They have filed numerous lawsuits against the government to no avail. If judges deviate from the press directive, the restriction had to be recorded in a register under the old press directive. Potkaars protested twice against the failure to register a decision and was proven right in both cases ( Court of Appeal in The Hague, Court of Appeal in Amsterdam ). Journalists may not appeal against a judge’s decision to deny them access. The updated terms will permit judges to restrict press access arbitrarily without reason.

The judiciary hired an association to carry out the accreditation process. They want journalists who abide by the Digital Services Act implemented by the European Union, which requires third-party media companies to censor “misinformation” on behalf of the government.

My source has told me that the Netherlands is training its military to recover body bags as part of an annual drill. This was not required training in previous annual exercises—the Dutch are preparing for war, and the government wants to silence free speech to prevent the public from knowing the truth.

[misfitwashere]

March 27, 2025

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

MAR 28 READ IN APP

Today, Wired reported that it had found four more Venmo accounts associated with the Trump administration officials who participated in the now-infamous Signal chat about a planned military attack on the Houthis in Yemen. A payment on one of them was identified only with an eggplant emoji, which is commonly used to suggest sexual activity.

The craziness going on around us in the first two months of the second Trump administration makes a lot more sense if you remember that the goal of those currently in power was never simply to change the policies or the personnel of the U.S. government. Their goal is to dismantle the central pillars of the United States of America—government, law, business, education, culture, and so on—because they believe the very shape of those institutions serves what they call “the Left.”

Their definition of “the Left” includes all Americans, Republicans and Independents as well as Democrats, who believe the government has a role to play in regulating business, providing a basic social safety net, promoting infrastructure, and protecting civil rights and who support the institutional structures Americans have built since World War II.

In place of those structures, today’s MAGA leaders intend to create their own new institutions, shaped by their own people, whose ideological purity trumps their abilities. As Vice President J.D. Vance explained in a 2021 interview, he and his ilk believe that American “conservatives…have lost every major powerful institution in the country, except for maybe churches and religious institutions, which of course are weaker now than they’ve ever been. We’ve lost big business. We’ve lost finance. We’ve lost the culture. We’ve lost the academy. And if we’re going to actually really effect real change in the country, it will require us completely replacing the existing ruling class with another ruling class…. I don’t think there’s sort of a compromise that we’re going to come with the people who currently actually control the country. Unless we overthrow them in some way, we’re going to keep losing.” “We really need to be really ruthless when it comes to the exercise of power,” he said.

This plan is central to Project 2025, the plan President Donald Trump insisted before the election he knew nothing about but which, now that he’s in office, has provided the blueprint for a large majority of the administration’s actions. Project 2025 author Russell Vought, who is now Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, called for a “conservative President” to “use…the vast powers of the executive branch” aggressively “to send power away from Washington and back to America’s families, faith communities, local governments, and states.”

Last month, journalist Gil Duran of The Nerd Reich noted that Curtis Yarvin, a thinker popular with the technological elite currently aligned with the religious extremists at Project 2025, laid out a plan in 2022 to gut the U.S. government and replace it with a dictatorship. This would be a “reboot” of the country, Yarvin wrote, and it would require a “full power start,” a reference to restarting a stalled starship by jumping to full power, which risks destroying the ship.

Yarvin called for “giving absolute sovereignty to a single organization,” headed by the equivalent of the rogue chief executive officer of a corporation who would destroy the public institutions of the democratic government. Trump—whom Yarvin dismissed as weak—would give power to that CEO, who would “run the executive branch without any interference from the Congress or courts…. Most existing important institutions, public and private, will be shut down and replaced with new and efficient systems.” Once loyalists have replaced civil servants in a new ideological “army,” the CEO “will throw it directly against the administrative state—not bothering with confirmed appointments, just using temporary appointments as needed. The job of this landing force is not to govern.” The new regime must take over the country and “perform the real functions of the old, and ideally perform them much better.” It must “seize all points of power, without respect for paper protections.”

Earlier this month, Yarvin cheered on the idea of hacking existing infrastructure “to operate in an unusual way that its designers, its previous operators, or both, did not expect,” and complimented DOGE for the way it has hacked into existing bureaucracies. The key performance indicator of DOGE, he wrote, “is its ability to take power from the libs, then keep it.”

Far from saving money for the United States, as Jacob Bogage at the Washington Post reported on March 22, billionaire Elon Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” has cost the government $500 billion, 10% of what the Internal Revenue Service took in last year. Bogage reports that the administration has demolished the IRS, firing nearly 20,000 employees, especially in the divisions that focus on enforcement, and dropping investigations of corporations and the richest taxpayers. Officials project that these changes will result in more tax evasion, and they are expecting a sharp drop in tax revenue this spring.

If the administration is working not to save money but rather to destroy the government, the cuts that threaten the well-being of American citizens make more sense. Today, Emily Davies and Jeff Stein of the Washington Postreported that Trump officials are looking for cuts of between 8% and 50% of the employees in federal agencies. They obtained an internal White House document that calls for the Department of Housing and Urban Development to be cut in half, the Interior Department to lose nearly 25% of its workforce, and the Internal Revenue Service to lose about one third of its people. The Justice Department is set to lose 8% of its workforce, the National Science Foundation 28%, the Commerce Department 30%, and the Small Business Administration 43%.

Cuts to the government have led to the Social Security Administration’s website crashing four times in ten days this month, and there are not enough workers to answer phones. Yesterday, Sahil Kapur and Julie Tsirkin of NBC News reported that lawmakers, including Senate Finance subcommittee on Social Security chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA), have been kept in the dark as the men working for DOGE have cut SSA phone services and instituted new rules requiring that beneficiaries without access to the internet prove their identity with an in-person visit to an SSA office.

Washington Post reporters Lisa Rein and Hannah Natanson warn that “Social Security is breaking down.” Senator Angus King (I-ME) told them: “What’s going on is the destruction of the agency from the inside out, and it’s accelerating…. What they’re doing now is unconscionable.”

In a televised Cabinet meeting on Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said she planned to “eliminate FEMA,” the Federal Emergency Management Agency that responds to national emergencies like hurricanes. This news comes on top of Trump’s executive order last week calling for the Department of Education to be shuttered, along with cuts of about half of its workforce.

Yesterday, Apoorva Mandavilli, Margot Sanger-Katz, and Jan Hoffman reported in the New York Times that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has suddenly cancelled more than $12 billion in federal grants to states. That money supported mental health services, addiction treatment, and programs to track infectious diseases. Today HHS announced it will be cutting 10,000 employees on top of the 10,000 who have already left and the more than 5,000 probationary workers who were fired last month. These cuts will include 3,500 full-time employees from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and 2,400 employees from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

In addition to slashing and burning through government agencies, the administration is trying to undermine the rule of law. Trump has signed executive orders suspending security clearances for law firms that represent Democratic clients and barring the government from hiring employees from those firms.

Trump and his team have challenged the judges who have ruled against Trump, working to destroy faith in the courts. House speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) has suggested that Republicans in Congress could eliminate some federal courts, telling reporters: “We do have the authority over the federal courts, as you know. We can eliminate an entire district court. We have power of funding over the courts and all these other things.”

Trump’s administration is also working to take over colleges and universities, beginning with a high-profile fight against Columbia University in which the administration withheld $400 million in grants, allegedly over antisemitism at the school, until the university bent to the administration's will. Columbia’s leaders did so, only to have the administration say the changes are only “early steps” and that Columbia “must continue to show they are serious in their resolve to end anti-Semitism…through permanent and structural reform. Other universities…should expect the same level of scrutiny and swiftness of action if they don’t act to protect their students and stop anti-Semitic behavior on campus,” a member of the administration said.

Chillingly, on Tuesday federal authorities in plain clothes took Tufts University international student Rumeysa Ozturk into custody on the street in Somerville, Massachusetts, saying she had “engaged in activities in support of Hamas,” apparently a reference to a pro-Palestinian op-ed she had written for the Tufts newspaper. On Wednesday the Department of Homeland Security said she was being held at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement center in Louisiana.

The administration is also working to reshape American culture according to their vision. The project of stripping words like “climate crisis,” “diversity,” “health disparity,” “peanut allergies,” “science-based,” “segregation,” “stereotypes,” and “understudied” from government communications are an explicit attempt to reshape the way Americans think. Today, in an executive order “restoring truth and sanity to American history,” Trump tried to change the ways in which Americans understand our history, too. He called for Vance, who as vice president serves on the Smithsonian Board of Regents, “to work to eliminate improper, divisive, or anti-American ideology from the Smithsonian and its museums, education and research centers, and the National Zoo.”

The problem for those who embrace this vision of America is that it is not popular. Before the election, only 4% of voters liked Project 2025, and it has not gained in popularity as the dramatic cuts to the government have hurt farmers by killing grain purchases for foreign aid, cut funding for cancer research, and thrown people out of work. Because Republican-dominated counties rely more heavily on government programs than Democratic-dominated counties do, cuts to government services are hitting Republican voters particularly hard.

On Tuesday, Democrat James Andrew Malone won a special election for a state senate seat in a Pennsylvania district that Trump won in November with 57% of the vote. Today, Trump was forced to withdraw New York Republican representative Elise Stefanik’s name from consideration for ambassador to the United Nations out of concern that a Democrat might win her vacant seat, although Trump won her district in 2024 by 21 points.

—

[akookminsupporter]

I was thinking about how, in the last few months or maybe since 2021, Jimin has been exercising with more dedication and discipline. I remember him mentioning taking up running and trying boxing. Considering the state of his hands in the months leading up to enlistment, I think he succeeded. I wonder if he was also preparing for military service, specifically for the division he would be in.

Many fans thought that due to his muscular pains he might not be able to fulfill regular military service and instead would serve like Yoongi is doing, however, Jimin obviously knew for a while what kind of military service he would undergo. So, maybe he decided to further prepare his body for what was to come.

[usafphantom2]

VX-9 ‘Vampires’ F/A-18F Super Hornet Brandishes Heavy Air-to-Air Loadout During Gray Flag 2024

David Cenciotti

AIM-174

The heavy loadout, featuring four AIM-174s, three AIM-120s and two AIM-9s, first spotted on “Vandy 1” at the beginning of September, was not a one-off test.

In September, we reported on a U.S. Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet from VX-9 “Vampires” showcasing an unprecedented air-to-air loadout, featuring four CATM-174B, three CATM-120, and two CATM-9X missiles, along with a targeting pod and an IRST (Infrared Search and Track) mounted on an external fuel tank. What made the photos taken at Naval Air Station Point Mugu especially notable was that the heavy loadout was carried by “Vandy 1,” BuNo 166673—the flagship of the Vampires squadron. This aircraft sports a unique black livery celebrating the squadron’s 30th anniversary, inspired by the classic livery of VX-4 commander’s F-4s and F-14s, which previously bore the “Vandy 1” callsign.

The heavy loadout, featuring four AIM-174s, three AIM-120s and two AIM-9s, first spotted on “Vandy 1” at the beginning of September, was not a one-off test.AIM-174B

Interestingly, this configuration wasn’t a one-time test. On September 24, 2024, “Vandy 1,” again equipped with the same extensive air-to-air loadout, joined a VX-9 F-35C and a 422nd TES F-15E in a photo session over the Point Mugu Sea Range, marking the conclusion of the Gray Flag 2024 exercise.

From September 17-23, Gray Flag 2024 brought together U.S. and allied forces, alongside academic and industry collaborators, for a large-scale, joint testing event hosted by Naval Test Wing Pacific and VX-9 at Naval Base Ventura County in Point Mugu, California. This year’s event saw participation from over 3,000 personnel across the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force, executing more than 60 test initiatives. With roughly 600 aircraft sorties and more than 26 distinct systems tested on the ground, Gray Flag highlighted the vast scope of multi-domain capabilities under rigorous evaluation. Conducted on the expansive 36,000-square-mile Point Mugu Sea Range, operated by the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD), the event used Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) test elements to simulate advanced, multi-domain combat scenarios in a controlled, realistic environment.

“Gray Flag 2024 was an unparalleled opportunity to bring together diverse branches of the military, academic institutions, science and technology experts, and allied forces,” said Capt. David Halpern, Naval Test Wing Pacific commodore.

The range of participants enabled realistic evaluation of system interoperability, informing future requirements and tactics across domains. Importantly, allied involvement was integral to the event, reflecting the coalition-based approach crucial to real-world operations. Rear Adm. Keith Hash, commander of NAWCWD and Chief of Test at Naval Air Systems Command, emphasized that integrating and operating with allies remains a strategic priority:

“The U.S. Navy operates within a global warfighting ecosystem. To deter aggression and uphold freedom of the seas, we need to test alongside our partners, just as we operate with them.”

AIM-174B

As we’ve detailed in recent months, the AIM-174B missile is a variant of the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) repurposed for air-to-air engagements. Originally designed as the RIM-174 Standard Extended Range Active Missile (ERAM), the SM-6 serves as the U.S. Navy’s primary long-range anti-air and anti-missile defense solution, integrated with the Aegis Combat System on Navy vessels.

The SM-6 ERAM is a key asset in the Navy’s long-range air defense strategy. Derived from the RIM-156A SM-2ER Block IV airframe and equipped with an active radar seeker from the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the SM-6 is capable of reaching Mach 3.5 and has a range of 200 nautical miles in its ship-based form.

While traditionally ship-launched, the SM-6 has been tested in air-launched configurations as early as 2018 and again in 2021 on other VX-31 Super Hornets, but only this year has its deployment accelerated, with further involvement from operational units.

In April 2024, an F/A-18 was spotted carrying the AIM-174, then, on Jul. 2, 2024, an F/A-18E Super Hornet belonging to the VFA-192 “Golden Dragons” was photographed taxiing at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, carrying two AIM-174B missiles marking the first appearance of the missile on a frontline platform during RIMPAC 2024. At the beginning of September, images of VX-9’s Super Hornet carrying four AIM-174s mounted on both inner and middle hardpoints, along with AIM-120s set a new benchmark for its air-to-air load capacity. Additionally, the ASG-34A IRST integrated on the fuel tank complemented the Super Hornet’s radar, providing advanced tracking capability in electronic warfare or radar-denied settings.

While details on the air-launched AIM-174B’s maximum range remain unclear, it is likely to exceed the surface-launched version when launched at altitude and speed, positioning it among the longest-range air-to-air weapons in the U.S. inventory and filling the void left by the retirement of the AIM-54 Phoenix.

Officially acknowledged in July as operationally deployed with CVW-2 aboard the USS Carl Vinson, the AIM-174B’s availability in IOC (Initial Operating Capability) extends the U.S. Navy’s reach in long-range engagement. Although publicly seen with only inert and training versions, live missiles are likely already available in the fleet.

As we explained in a previous post:

With the induction of the AIM-174B into service, the U.S. Navy joins a number of air arms capable of deploying an extra-long-range beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM), like the MBDA Meteor, the Russian R-37M and Chinese PL-15 and PL-21. In fact, the AIM-174B enables the U.S. Navy Super Hornets to engage targets at much greater distances than is currently possible with the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Integrated with the E-2D, F-35, and AEGIS within the Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) system, the AIM-174B would extend the Navy’s capability to intercept aerial targets at ranges comparable to (if not greater than) those achieved against naval targets using the baseline SM-6.

In essence, this new missile fills the gap left by the retirement of the AIM-54 Phoenix. The AIM-54 was a long-range air-to-air missile used by the U.S. Navy’s F-14 Tomcat and retired in 2004 alongside the F-14. Known for its impressive range of over 100 nautical miles and multiple-target engagement capability, the AIM-54 left a significant void in long-range engagement capabilities.

While there wasn’t a direct replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix in terms of range, the U.S. military has been developing advanced air-to-air missiles to enhance its fighter aircraft capabilities. The AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM) is one such development intended to replace the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Although not a direct replacement for the AIM-54 Phoenix, the AIM-260 aims to offer improved range and performance compared to the AIM-120.

@TheAviationist .com

[littleharpethcrossfit]

Sunday, 25 August, 2024.

Class is at 1 PM. It will be HOT and dry.

Miss Esther was your Coach.

Warmup #1

Big Shane led you in some mobility exercises.

Warmup #2

50 Ab-Mat Sit-ups with Med-Ball

or GHD's 15 / 15 / 15

Strength

Military Press..........2 / 2 / 2 / 2

Push Press.........3 / 3 / 3 / 3

MP / PP

Bernie=155 / 185.....Shane=145 / 185.....Ed=125 / 165 Nathan=125/145.....Herb=115 / 115.....Tim=105/135.....Tom=100/115 Cheri=80/90 .....Alicia=75/95.....Linda=70 / 70.....Sue=65/75 Nathalie=55/65.....Maddi=55/55.....Jackie=45/55.....Sandy=35/45 Average Dave/Chris=did something

WOD

400 Body-weights

SOLO..........Vested ?

Run 400 / Row-Ski 500 / Bike 1000m

40 / 30 / 20 / 10

Pull-Ups

Push-Ups

Squats

Back Raises

Run 400 / Row-Ski 500 / Bike 1000m

LHCF Record

Larry: 15:10 (no one was vested)

December 2021

Bernie=17:55 (1/2).....Sue=18:19.....Nathan=18:54 (1/2).....Alicia=19:12 (3/4).....Shane=20:07 (RX).....Herb=22:10.....Tim=22:12 RX Tom=22:45.....Ed=25:39.....Nathalie=28:04.....Sandy=28:50 Jackie=33:00 (extra runs)..... Chris/Linda/Cheri/Average Dave/Maddi (1/3)=did something Coach=present

Notes:

Jackie brought Daughter Nathalie, who does volleyball at BHS and attends a gym that has obviously exposed her to barbells. Jackie should be very proud of Nathalie because she is the entire perfect package, a real 10+ Unicorn. She has been accepted to West Point, which proves there is still hope for our country and its children. Great job, Jackie !!

Maddi came. She was very late, but at least she was here. She did much of the workout and let us admire her sweet Golden Lab. Maddi leaves for California next week, leaving a trail of broken hearts in Middle Tennessee, some of whom are elderly old men.

Due to your Coaches illness, LHCF will only have 2 weekend workouts for the next several weeks. Esther and Linda will Coach those workouts. I will be unable to attend the Barn area because Average Dave always hawks lugee's and slings snot rockets in the pine straw and since I will be immunosuppressed, whatever contagions he is carrying would surely kill me dead. I'm not feeling so hot already.

The next workout is Saturday, 31 August, 2024 at 0930. Hopefully you will be celebrating my 80th birthday and all the exercises will be for 80 reps.

[beardedmrbean]

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba is set to meet with Donald Trump at the White House on Friday, as the Japanese leader hopes to cement ties with the country's primary foreign partner.

US and Japanese officials said economic and security concerns - particularly North Korea - will be high on the agenda, along with advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence.

Ishiba and Japanese officials said that the main purpose of the visit, however, is to forge personal ties with Trump - who had a warm relationship with former PM Shinzo Abe during his first term.

The visit marks the first by an Asian leader to the White House since Trump's second administration began in January.

The White House visit is the second by a foreign leader during the new administration, following Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's whirlwind trip earlier this week.

"It will be our first face-to-face talks," Ishiba told reporters before leaving for Washington. "I would like to focus on building a personal relationship of trust between the two of us."

During Trump's first term from 2017 to 2021, he grew close to then-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, bonding over golf. Abe resigned in 2020 and was assassinated two years later.

Japanese officials said that Ishiba made "every possible preparation" for his meeting with Trump, including seeking advice from Abe's widow - who attended the inauguration as a guest of Melania Trump - and from his predecessor, Fumio Kishida.

Senior Trump administration officials described the visit as primarily focused on "peace and prosperity" in the Pacific. Trump is likely to bring up realistic training exercises between the US military and Japan's Self-Defence Forces, as well as cooperation on defence investment.

The White House said that semiconductors and artificial intelligence also would be on the agenda.

From the Japanese perspective, Ishiba is expected to underscore Japan's role as a major economic partner for the US, and highlight that Japan has been the top foreign investor in the US for five consecutive years.

Among multinational firms, Japanese companies are the largest job creators in 10 states and the second largest in another six.

In Kentucky alone, Japanese companies employ more than 45,000 people, primarily in auto equipment manufacturing.

Defence and security discussions also are likely, including Japan's recent commitment to raise defence spending to 2% - far below the 5% that Trump has called for among Nato allies - as well as the US commitment to Taiwan's defence and mutual concerns about North Korea.

Japanese officials consider North Korea's growing military ties with Russia worrisome, particularly the prospect of Russian missile technology being transferred to their ally.

Trump administration officials said it shares Japan's "commitment" to a de-nuclearised North Korea.

[fatehbaz]

The franc CFA (originally denoting Colonies françaises d’Afrique) is the official currency of Senegal and most other former French colonies in Africa, from before national independence through the present-day. This monetary system and its history are the subjects of a new book by Fanny Pigeaud and Ndongo Samba Sylla, Africa’s Last Colonial Currency (2021), translated by Thomas Fazi from a 2018 French edition. The book brings to the attention of Anglophone readers the peculiar institutions through which the French Republic continues to exercise colonial rule over nominally independent African states. France’s recent “counterterrorism” operations across the Sahel region (supported and rivaled in scope by the United States’ Africa Command, AFRICOM) represent only one phase in what the Black Alliance for Peace (2020) has called France’s “active and aggressive military presence in Africa for years.” [...] One of Pigeaud and Sylla’s commitments and achievements is to show how “French ‘soft’ monetary power is inseparable from its ‘hard’ military power” (2021: 99). In their telling, the CFA franc has for decades been France’s secret weapon in “Françafrique,” the zone in Africa where France, its representatives, and its monetary system have never really left. [...]

---

The franc CFA was born in Paris on the 25th of December, 1945 [...]. The embattled empire was compelled to “loosen its grip” in Africa [in the midst of anticolonial fervor outside of Europe, and with rise of “decolonization” in metropolitan/European public discourses] [...]. Consequently, argue Pigeaud and Sylla, the creation of the CFA franc was “actually designed to allow France to regain control of its colonies” (13). What Minister Pleven called generosity might better be called a swindle. [...] French goods-for-export, now priced in a devalued currency (made cheaper), would find easy markets in the colonies [...]. African goods - especially important raw materials, from uranium to cocoa, priced too expensively for domestic consumption [...] -- would find buyers more exclusively in France [...]. In effect, the new CFA monetary policies re-consolidated France’s imperial economy even as the monopoly regime of the colonial pact could be formally retired in recognition of demands for change from colonial subjects. [...] [T]he egalitarian parlance of community and cooperation modernized French colonial authority, making it more invisible rather than marking its end. [...]

---

Most importantly, France has held up a guarantee of unlimited convertibility between CFA francs and French currency [as its so-called most benevolent feature] [...]. [But] CFA francs can only ever be converted into France’s currency [...] before being exchanged for other currencies [...]. In 1994, in conjunction with the International Monetary Fund and against the wishes of most African leaders, French authorities adjusted the franc zone exchange rate for the first time, devaluing the CFA franc by half. This blanket devaluation was the shock through which structural adjustment was forced upon Françafrique [...]. 

And the devaluation proved, to Pigeaud and Sylla, that France’s “‘guarantee of unlimited convertibility’ was an intellectual and political fraud” (74). Nevertheless, French authorities have continually held up - that is, brandished and exploited - this guarantee, without honoring it. [...] Pigeaud and Sylla do not mince words: “France uses its presumed role of ‘guarantor’ as a pretext and as a tool to blackmail its former colonies in order to keep them in its orbit, both economically and politically” (38). [...] In that respect, the CFA franc system has ensured [...] the stabilization of raw material exportation and goods importation, hierarchy and indirect rule, [...] accumulation and mass impoverishment, in short, the colonial order.

---

And all along, France has found - or compelled, coerced, and more-or-less directly put in place - useful political partners in Françafrique. [...]

The CFA franc has been central to the French strategy of decolonization-in-name-only. [...]

When and where demands for self-determination and changes to the monetary system (usually more minor than exit or abolition) have been strongest, from charismatic leaders or from below, they have been met with a retaliatory response from France and its African partners, frequently going so far as “destabilisation campaigns and even assassinations and coups d’état” (40). [...]

The first case is exemplary. In 1958, Ahmed Sékou Touré helped lead Guinea to independence [...]. Guinea was alone in voting down De Gaulle’s “Community” proposal [...], and [...] the new state established its own national currency and central bank by 1960. [...] [T]he decision was ultimately made to make Guinea a cautionary tale for the rest of Françafrique. French counter-intelligence officials plotted and hired out a series of mercenary attacks (“with the aim of creating a climate of insecurity and, if possible, overthrowing Sékou Touré,” recalled one such operative), in conjunction with “Operation Persil,” a scheme to flood the Guinean economy with false Guinean bills, successfully bringing about a devastating crash (43). [...] Yet, Sékou Touré was never removed, only ostracized - unlike Sylvanus Olympio in Togo or Modiba Keita in Mali, others whose (initially minor) desired changes to the CFA status quo were refused and rebuffed and who were then deposed in French-linked coups. [...]

So too the Cameroonian economist Joseph Tchundjang Pouemi, an even more overlooked figure since his death at the age of 47 in 1984. Pouemi’s experience working at the IMF [International Monetary Fund] in the 1970s led him to recognize that the leaders of the international monetary system would “repress any government that tries to offer their country a minimum of wellbeing” (60) and could do so especially easily in Françafrique because of the CFA franc.

---

All text above by: Matt Schneider. “Africa’s Last Colonial Currency Review.” Society and Space [Book Reviews section of the online Magazine format]. 29 November 2021. [Bold emphasis and some paragraph breaks/contractions added by me. Presented here for commentary, teaching, criticism purposes.]

[mariacallous]

Geopolitical storm clouds are gathering at the far reaches of Pax Americana, and yet there is remarkably little sign that the U.S. government or the American people have awoken to the mounting dangers. The threat posed by China and Russia and their rogue nation allies rated only passing mention in last year’s presidential campaign, for instance, which in typical fashion revolved around domestic issues such as the economy and inflation. Asked to choose among five issues in an NBC exit poll, only 4 percent of the voters surveyed during last year’s presidential election named foreign policy as a priority.

President Donald Trump has talked a lot about restoring strong U.S. leadership in an increasingly unstable world, but in its first two months, his administration has mostly sown chaos at home and doubt abroad about the reliability of the United States as an ally.

The administration’s ready-fire-aim approach to national security and world affairs stands in stark contrast to the sense of very real urgency felt at the United States’ geographic military commands, which are positioned forward around the globe.

In essence, these military headquarters are sentries on the far battlements of the U.S.-led, post-World War II international order. From their vantage point, Washington’s military and security forces already find themselves stretched thin by intense combat operations, hybrid and proxy warfare, and tense military standoffs with an increasingly cohesive “axis of autocracies” that is spread out over six time zones that span the globe.

Listen closely to the warnings from these outposts, and you can detect the sound of alarms clanging while the United States continues listing even as geopolitical storm clouds darken.

From the hillside headquarters of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in Honolulu, commanders can gaze down on the tranquil waters of Pearl Harbor, where the surface of the water has an oily sheen resulting from persistent leakage from the once mighty battleship USS Arizona, sunk by Japanese bombs more than 80 years ago. The locals refer to the sheen as “black tears,” in memory of the 1,102 U.S. service members still entombed in the wreckage below.

Pearl Harbor is a place for quiet contemplation, and from the nearby vantage point of Indo-Pacific Command, it is impossible not to reflect on the dangers that accumulate when rising powers—such as 1930s-era Japan and Germany—confront status quo powers—such as that era’s Great Britain and the United States.

Today, the Indo-Pacific Command is consumed by the meteoric rise of another superpower in Asia—one whose bullying and provocations toward the United States and its regional allies have increased in rough proportion to a military expansion that recently retired leader of the command Admiral John Aquilino characterized as “the largest military buildup that we’re seeing in history, both conventional and nuclear.”

China’s massive defense manufacturing base now churns out weapons systems at a pace estimated at five to six times as fast as its anemic U.S. counterpart. Beijing already boasts not only the world’s largest navy, but also a shipbuilding capacity roughly 230 times that of the United States, according to Office of Naval Intelligence estimates.

Not coincidentally, in the past year alone, China’s armed forces have held live-fire exercises bracketing Taiwan, a democratic country that the Chinese Communist Party considers a breakaway province. Beijing’s People’s Liberation Army also regularly attacks the ships of the Philippines—a U.S. treaty ally—near contested islands. According to the Pentagon, since the fall of 2021 there have been more than 180 incidents of Chinese warplanes performing “coercive and risky” maneuvers targeting U.S. military aircraft in international airspace.

In congressional testimony in May 2024, Aquilino, then the head of Indo-Pacific Command, said that “all indications point to” the Chinese military meeting leader Xi Jinping’s deadline of being ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027.

Given that three of China’s standing war plans are built around that Taiwan scenario, the Pentagon has held classified war games testing the U.S. military’s readiness for such a contingency dating back a decade. Many Americans are not even aware that those secret war games consistently indicate that U.S. forces would not only lose that war, but also that they would lose it fast.

Contemplating the growing disparity in defense industrial capacity and Beijing’s aggressive claim of hegemony over the entire South China Sea, then- U.S. Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall III summarized conventional wisdom in September 2023 while speaking at a conference: “China is preparing for war, and specifically for a war with the United States.”

Remarkably, the theater-wide view from the village of Mons, Belgium, home to NATO’s sprawling Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), is equally alarming.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 set off the largest conflict in Europe since World War II, is now in its fourth bloody year. During that time, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that Putin has transitioned the Russian economy to a near-total wartime footing, spending an estimated 7.1 percent of the country’s GDP on defense in 2024.

Despite mounting a large military resupply mission to help keep Ukraine in the fight, the United States and its NATO allies have been continually deterred from more decisive support by a level of nuclear weapons saber-rattling and brinkmanship by Moscow that the world has not seen since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. That brinksmanship escalated dramatically in November 2024, after Russia attacked Ukraine for the first time with a new type of intermediate-range ballistic missile that is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead as well as conventional ones.

The virulently anti-Western axis of autocracies that has come to Russia’s aid in its aggression against Ukraine and its challenge to the supposed U.S.-led, rules-based international order is increasingly alarming to U.S. security officials. China has lived up to its “no limits” partnership with Russia, which was announced just before the invasion, rescuing it from the isolation of Western sanctions with bilateral trade that soared to a record $240 billion in 2023. Beijing acts as a willing buyer for Russian oil while supplying Moscow with subcomponents such as drone and missile engines as well as the semiconductors that are critical to its burgeoning defense industry.

Despite its own conflict with Israel, the theocratic regime in Iran has also stepped in with shipments of ballistic missiles and thousands of lethal Shahed drones for Moscow’s war against its democratic neighbor.

The rogue regime in the so-called hermit kingdom of North Korea, a de facto nuclear weapons state and the most insular dictatorship in the world, has likewise provided Russia with short-range ballistic missiles and what South Korean authorities have estimated as 8 million artillery shells. And in a dramatic escalation of the conflict, U.S. intelligence officials revealed in late 2024 that Pyongyang had also sent an estimated 12,000 special forces troops to fight alongside their Russian counterparts against Ukraine. U.S. officials believe that in return, Moscow is sharing advanced air defense systems with Pyongyang.

In response to Western support for Ukraine, Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency has also greatly intensified its hybrid war against Europe, resulting in what Western intelligence officials characterize as a “an unprecedented rise” in acts of sabotage, arson, cyberattacks and attempted assassinations on NATO soil. In an article in Financial Times, the heads of the CIA and Britain’s MI6 described Russian intelligence activity as a “reckless campaign of sabotage across Europe.”

Western efforts to keep Ukraine supplied, even with fundamental war materials such as standard munitions and low-tech drones, have also revealed glaring deficiencies in industrial capacity in the once-vaunted U.S. “arsenal of democracy.” According to NATO intelligence estimates, Russia is on track to annually produce nearly three times as many artillery shells as the United States and its European allies combined (with 3 million shells versus 1.2 million, respectively). Russia has also dramatically increased its production of relatively cheap drones. Its close ally Beijing already dominates the worldwide market for commercial drones, with just one Chinese company accounting for approximately 70 percent of global production.

The view of the Middle East from the U.S. Central Command Forward Headquarters at al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar is no more reassuring. The war against Israel that the Gaza-based Hamas militant group launched to devastating effect on Oct. 7, 2023, quickly revealed itself as a coordinated attack on the United States’ closest ally in the region by Iran-led proxies that constitute Tehran’s so-called axis of resistance, which comprises Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria, and Houthi rebels in Yemen. The resulting war thus rapidly spread throughout the volatile region, including in the form of rare direct attacks between Israeli and Iran proper.

From the outset of the conflict, the U.S. military surged forces to come to Israel’s defense, with the Biden administration dispatching two aircraft carrier battle groups beginning in fall 2023. As a result, U.S. warships and aircraft were involved in the most intensive combat operations at sea since World War II, helping to protect Israel from missile attacks by Iran and its proxies, responding to attacks on U.S. bases and ships in the region, and engaging with Iran-aligned Houthi rebels in Yemen in an attempt to thwart their attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.

While Iran and its axis of resistance have been seriously weakened by the conflict, the intense strains of recent combat deployments on a historically small and overstretched U.S. military have been exposed for all to see. Defense Department officials have admitted struggling to find sufficient air defense systems to protect their allies in both the Middle East and Europe, and they are running short of key munitions such as surface-to-air missiles.

In late 2024, the Pentagon also announced the withdrawal of the last U.S. aircraft carrier deployed in the region. Asked about the redeployments and the gaps in presence they represent, Gen. Charles Brown Jr., the recently sacked chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that the Defense Department had no choice but to “step back and take a look” at spiking demand and the impact of extended deployments on U.S. forces, “not just in the Middle East, but really around the world.”

Back home, the Trump administration continues to signal a realignment away from the United States’ traditional role as the so-called leader of the free world, even recently voting with Russia and North Korea at the United Nations against resolutions condemning Moscow for its invasion of Ukraine. For its part, Congress continues in its nearly unbroken, decadelong streak of failing to pass a defense budget on time, severely curtailing efforts to stabilize acquisition programs and reorient the Pentagon’s strategic direction to confront rapidly growing threats.

In a report published in December and titled “Restoring Freedom’s Forge,” Republican Sen. Roger Wicker, the new chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, took note of the urgency of this moment. “Over the last four decades, the defense acquisition system has ground to a virtual halt, buried under a mountain of statutes and regulations from Congress and the Pentagon,” he wrote.

And a congressionally mandated Commission on the National Defense Strategy (NDS) report released in July 2024 backed that conclusion with its own stark warning: “The threats the United States faces are the most serious and most challenging the nation has encountered since 1945 and include the potential for near-term major war,” the report began, noting that the United States has not fought such a global conflict since World War II, nearly 80 years ago, and last prepared for such a contingency during the Cold War, 35 years ago. “It is not prepared today,” the authors added.

Retired Rep. Jane Harman, the former chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee, also served as the chair of the recent NDS Commission review.

In the event of a conflict with China or Russia, Harman noted in a recent interview with the Defense Writers Group, “there will be a major cyberattack on our critical infrastructure. When the lights go out in our cities, and our ports close, and our transportation systems melt down, people will start to pay attention. So maybe we can help them pay attention” ahead of what would surely be a catastrophe.

[une-sanz-pluis]

Hey, hope you're having a good day. For a good while now I've been intensely fixated on the House of Lancaster, but I feel as though there's a major gap in my knowledge when it comes to John of Gaunt, Henry IV, and Henry V. Could you possibly suggest some further reading/research on them? I've got Red Prince by Helen Carr and I haven't read all of it but I think it's pretty good so far, same with Chris Given-Wilson's book on Henry IV

Hi! I can definitely do that for you - if there's any specific areas of their personality, relationship, life or reign, please let me know so I can be more targeted in my suggestions. I'm just going to focus on books to keep this manageable. All books are given in order of publication, not in order of preference.

John of Gaunt

There are only four book-length biographies about John of Gaunt that I'm aware of:

Sydney Armitage-Smith, John of Gaunt (1904)

Anthony Goodman, John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power in Fourteenth-Century Europe (1992)

Helen Carr, The Red Prince (2021)

Kathryn Warner, John of Gaunt: Son of One King, Father of Another (2022)

To be completely honest, I've only read Goodman's in full though I've looked at the others in passing. Goodman's is on the academic, political biography side of things, which is reflected in the price (if you're looking to own a copy, I'd definitely recommend getting it second-hand rather than new) and language (it can be quite dense). If your interest is in Gaunt's personal life, Goodman doesn't spend much time on that (though I felt like I had more of a sense of Gaunt's personality when I finished reading it). It is a bit dated, obviously, so you'll have to keep that in mind. If you're interested in Gaunt's Castilian campaign, this was really impressive on that score - I feel a lot of English-centric histories tend to gloss over it.

Armitage-Smith's is from early 1900s so if you do read it, be aware that there's going to be some information that's out of date and the considerable risk of some Victorian/Edwardian attitudes seeping in. Despite the datedness, this does seem to be the standard biography on Gaunt (Goodman's being a more academic study, focusing heavily on the practice of power). From what I've seen, Armitage-Smith doesn't focus too much on Gaunt's personal life. It is also, helpfully, free to read on the Internet Archive.

You've already got Carr's biography so I won't talk about that except to say that Carr is heavily biased towards Gaunt, always presenting him in the most favourable light (I also heartily disagree with her opinion on Richard II). Kathryn Warner's biography is the most recently published and her intention was to focus more on Gaunt's personal life rather than his politics, military career or religious interests but while it is lacking on those fronts, it's still a straight forward biography. I have several issues with Warner as a historian and find she's much stronger on Edward II's reign than on later figures. I'd say it's probably worth reading if you're still wanting to know more about Gaunt but it wouldn't be my top pick.

If you're looking for work specifically on Katherine Swynford, there are three non-fiction books (or rather one 30 page booklet and two books):

Anthony Goodman, Katherine Swynford (1994)

Jeanette Lucroft, Katherine Swynford: The History of a Medieval Mistress (2006)

Alison Weir, Mistress of the Monarchy: The Life of Katherine Swynford, Duchess of Lancaster

If you're really interested in Katherine, I'd say all three are worth looking at. I haven't read Goodman's myself (it's out of print and secondhand copies are expensive) but he's an academic historian whose work I've got a lot of time for. I really loved Lucroft's book but it's more of historiographical approach to Katherine than a biographical, so if that doesn't interest you, it's skippable. Alison Weir is Alison Weir so the scholarship underpinning her biography is seriously lacking and because so little is known about Katherine, there's a lot of filler, so it's more "Katherine and her world", but it does have value in that it centres Katherine and her life and is the only in-print, straight-forward biography.

Henry IV

Ian Mortimer, The Fears of Henry IV (2007)

Chris Given-Wilson, Henry IV (2016)

There are a couple of older biographies of Henry but these two are ones most referred to. If you just want one, you've already got my top recommendation. Given-Wilson's is the most recent and far and away the most scholarly of the two, and he incorporates all of the new research Mortimer did while filtering out the bullshit and over-interpretation Mortimer fills his biography with. I personally find Given-Wilson very readable and even-handed. I am very, very impressed by his coverage of Mary de Bohun, Henry's first wife, too.

I don't like Ian Mortimer as a historian and I've talked about my issues with his work and attitude to history in detail on my personal blog here (it is a very long post). But Mortimer's biography is pretty well regarded and does sometimes include more detail than Given-Wilson, so if you end up wanting another biography of Henry, I'd pick up The Fears of Henry IV. However, while Mortimer's research is generally sound (though there are errors and gaps in his work), his interpretations are often heavily, heavily skewed towards his thesis that Henry IV was The Greatest Man Ever To Exist, Ever.

There are a few other books about Henry that are worth looking at, though some are based on more specific areas of his reign and if their subject doesn't interest you, I'd consider them skippable:

James Hamilton Wylie, The History of England Under Henry the Fourth (four volumes, 1884-1898)

Peter McNiven, Heresy and Politics in the Reign of Henry IV: The Burning of John Badby (1987)

Paul Strohm, England's Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of Legitimation, 1399-1422 (1998)

Henry IV: The Establishment of the Regime (essays, 2003)

The Reign of Henry IV: Rebellion and Survival (essays, 2008)

Jenni Nuttall, The Creation of Lancastrian Kingship: Literature, Language and Politics in Late Medieval England (2007)

Wylie is by far and away the most detailed and painstaking exploration of Henry IV's reign, though as the title suggests this is less of a focus on Henry but on the events of his reign. Wylie is not the most careful with his sources and he was writing in the Victorian era so it is very old work but there's still a lot of value there. The two essay collections are well worth looking at, covering a broad array of subjects. McNiven's is a good overview of the response to Lollardy (a heretical movement) in Henry's reign and Strohm and Nuttall focus on the propagandistic efforts of the Lancastrians to legitimise their claim to the throne.

There isn't any book-length biography on Mary de Bohun, Henry's first wife (and I'm not sure one could be written), but for Joan of Navarre, Elena Woodacre's Joan of Navarre: Infanta, Duchess, Queen, Witch? (2022) is highly recommended.

Finally, the Penguin Monarch for Henry IV (Catherine Nall, Henry IV: The Afflicted King) is due out in late 2024 and I've been eagerly looking forward to getting my hands on it... for several years. They keep pushing back the publication.

Henry V

There are a lot of books about Henry V so I'm going to try to be as concise as possible and only list the "must reads".

Biographies

Christopher Allmand, Henry V (1992)

Anne Curry, Henry V: From Playboy Prince To Warrior King (2015)

Allmand's biography is the standard academic biography. Like Chris Given-Wilson's Henry IV, it's part of the Yale Monarch series but it's from an older run where the book was divided into two sections, the first being a chronological biography and the second being a thematic study on elements of their kingship. It's very much worth the read but it's dense and heavy going and very much skewed towards the political, not personal. Because it's from the nineties, there's some outdated information (the birthday debate is gone into, Henry's wounding at Shrewsbury is very briskly dealt with) too. Anne Curry's biography is probably the best starting place. It's a solid biography with scholarly underpinnings without being too scholarly, and as part of the Penguin Monarchs series, it's short (under 150 pages) and was published very recently. There's some compression, obviously, but Curry also has insights about Henry's life that you won't find elsewhere. So I'd read Curry first, pick up Allmand if you want more later. If you want another biographical treatment, I'd say John Matusiak's Henry V (2012) orTeresa Cole's Henry V: The Life of the Warrior King and the Battle of Agincourt (2015) are worth looking at with caveats (Matusiak's writing is pretty dense and he dabbles in misogyny, ableism and fatphobia; Cole is the first biography I read of Henry and I loved it at the time but looking back, there's some outdated information that's obviously because she hadn't read the more recent research on Henry IV and Henry V).

Kingship

James Hamilton Wylie, The Reign of Henry the Fifth (three volumes, 1914-1929)

Henry V: The Practice of Kingship (essays, 1984)

Henry V: New Interpretations (essays, 2013)

Katherine J. Lewis, Kingship and Masculinity In Late Medieval England (2013)

Malcolm Vale, Henry V: The Conscience of a King (2016)

Vale has written my absolute favourite book on Henry. It's not a biography so much as a study of Henry and his kingship with the intention of looking beyond the image of the warrior king. It's the perfect riposte to the revisionist studies that vilify Henry and incredibly revealing but not the best introduction to his life and reign.

The Practice of Kingship has the same problem that older works have but it's a very solid, very insightful collection of essays that I keep turning back to; New Interpretations is also very good. Lewis's Kingship and Masculinity is a study of Henry V and Henry VI through a gender-studies lens and is another of my top recs.

Wylie's The Reign of Henry the Fifth is very similar in approach to his work on Henry IV's reign - it's not about Henry V so much as his reign - and the same strengths and weaknesses apply, with one extra caveat. Wylie died in 1914 with the third volume unfinished so it's not as complete as it should be, but still well worth the look.

Agincourt

Anne Curry, Agincourt: A New History (2000)

Juliet Barker, Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle that Made England (2005)

The Battle of Agincourt: Sources & Interpretations (2009)

It's hard to discuss Henry V without talking about Agincourt, of course. Curry is the foremost expert on Agincourt and did a lot of groundbreaking, new research that shifted our perception of the battle and cut through some of the legends; this is published in Agincourt: A New History. This is a dryer, more scholarly read than Barker's but very much worth looking at. Barker's a very readable account in the pop history style that does tend to be recced by scholars as a very readable account. She incorporates Curry's new research but doesn't wholly agree with it so it's very interesting to see the two in conversation with each other. I'd personally start with Barker and then move onto Curry if you want more Agincourt.

Sources and Interpretations is, pretty obviously, a sourcebook for the battle itself from medieval (contemporary and near-contemporary) and early modern accounts. It's concerned with the battle only, not the broader campaign (so there's nothing on the Siege of Harfleur) but it's very valuable for collecting all the various accounts together and also providing an overview about the reliability of each source.

Michael Livingston published Agincourt: The Battle of the Scarred King this year which I haven't gotten around to reading though I'm looking forward to it. He does seem to be interested in cutting through the mythology of the battle, most notably arguing that the traditional location of the battle is not where the battle was actually fought.

Miscellaneous

T. B. Pugh, Henry V and the Southampton Plot (1988)

This is out of print but the best overview of the Southampton Plot (the plot that was led by Richard, Earl of Cambridge and occurred just before Henry was due to sail to France for the 1415 campaign). It's obviously old so some information is out-of-date and I don't always agree with the conclusions but if you want to know about the plot or the plotters, this is the book to pick up. There is another book, 1415: The Plot by Bryan R. Dunleavy, but that one skews heavily away from Henry and his reign to anticipate the Wars of the Roses.

Paul Strohm, England's Empty Throne: Usurpation and the Language of Legitimation, 1399-1422 (1998)

Strohm is a literary scholar that is looking at the processes of legitimisation the Lancastrians used. Obviously, this focuses a lot on Richard II's deposition and Henry IV's response to it but he also explores Henry V's efforts to legitimise his own rule, including his patronage of Lydgate and Hoccleve, responses to the Oldcastle rebellion and the Southampton Plot, the reburial of Richard II and his patronage. There are things Strohm says that I don't find believable or likely, such as his oft-cited assertion that the Southampton Plot was a "mock-up" invented by Henry V to give the conspirators something to confess to, but that doesn't detract from his wider points.

As Prince of Wales

Because Henry played such a prominent role in his father's reign, pretty much all of the recommendations I gave for Henry IV also have a lot of information about Henry V as Prince of Wales. I'd ignore Ian Mortimer because he treats Henry V very strangely in relation to Henry IV (I have a blog/rant about that) and is very weird about Henry V in general (if I had a hall of shame section on this post, his book on Henry V would be there). I think Peter McNiven's Heresy and Politics is very much worth reading, since he goes into some detail about Henry V's responses to Lollardy as Prince of Wales.

Catherine de Valois

The best biographic treatment of Catherine is Katherine J. Lewis's chapter on her in Later Plantagenet and the Wars of the Roses Consorts. The entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is also quite solid.

The Sister Queens by Mary McGrigor is the only book-length biography written about Catherine is the one she shares with Isabelle de Valois, her eldest sister and fellow Queen of England. I absolutely do not recommend this. It reads like the most trashy and melodramatic novel about Catherine, this time written by an author who seems most invested in the invention of new love interests for Catherine and Isabelle (she claims James I of Scotland was actually in love with Catherine, not Joan Beaufort). It's also chronologically confused, full of typos and unsourced quotes. Isabeau of Bavaria's depiction is a replication of the outdated misogynistic stereotype, as is the depiction of Eleanor Cobham (bizarrely called "Elizabeth" on several occasions).

[warningsine]

After two and a half years of fighting and several broken agreements, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda have put a temporary halt in the conflict between the Congolese army and the Rwandan-backed M23 rebellion in eastern Congo's North Kivu province.

M23 rebels launched the offensive in the mineral-rich region at the end of 2021. Since then, they have seized large swathes of territory in an effort to gain a share of North Kivu's major deposits of copper, gold and diamonds.

Angola, which has been mediating to resolve the conflict, announced the peace deal on Tuesday after talks in Luanda, adding that the truce would come into effect from midnight on Sunday. 

Uganda and Kenya have previously been involved in mediating peace talks between the warring parties.

Troops from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) were last year deployed to eastern Congo to neutralize the M23 rebel group — but they struggled to restore peace and security to the restive region.

'Hypocrisy' in the mediation process

The fresh deal comes as a humanitarian truce between the M23 rebels and government forces obtained through the United States was due to expire on August 3.

However, analysts are sceptic about the new deal because previous truces inked by both countries were never respected for more than a few weeks.

Justine Masika, an activist living in the province of North Kivu, believes that there is too much hypocrisy in these various mediation processes. She told DW that the parties involved in the conflict have too many interests and the well-being of the population is not their priority.

"The truce has been declared, but the problem we still have in this conflict in eastern DRC is that the parties to the conflict don't respect the agreements they've signed."

"There are still papers that are signed but they continue the war and the population continues to die every day."

The UN estimates that fighting in North Kivu province has displaced more than 1.7 million people, driving up the number displaced in Congo by multiple conflicts to a record 7.2 million.

A UN Security Council report revealed that 3,000 to 4,000 Rwandan soldiers have been fighting alongside the M23, indicating that Kigali exercises "de facto control" over the group's operations.

Rwandan President Paul Kagame has not explicitly denied the presence of Rwandan forces in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). However, he has openly stated his readiness to take a "defensive" stance to protect Rwanda's interests.

Political scientist Christian Moleka believes that, like many peace initiatives, this one is limited by the fact that there are not enough elements of pressure that can be exerted on Rwanda.

"By tacitly signing the ceasefire agreement, Rwanda is presenting itself as a co-belligerent, because only those involved in a military operation can sign a ceasefire. So its signature confirms the fact that Rwanda is a player on the ground," he said.

However, Moleka said this signature is not binding on the M23.

"As much as Rwanda can sign the ceasefire, the M23 can disassociate itself from it, especially as the Luanda process does not include the M23 in its dynamics," he said, adding that Nairobi was the second mechanism offering the M23 a political way out.

Angola's president hailed as 'champion of peace'

Although some are sceptical on the new agreement, Angolan President Joao Lourenco is being referred to as the 'Champion of Peace' in this conflict.

Soy Komba, an Angolan specialist in international relations, told DW that Angola has been playing the role of mediation in a very intelligent way.

"The conflict between these two countries also affects Angola, because we have a very large territorial border with the DRC," Komba said. "If instability persists, there is also a disadvantage for our country, because refugees from this conflict can also cross the border into Angola."

He emphasized that the potential influx of refugees from the conflict into Angola has been a key motivator for the Angolan president’s active mediation efforts.

Augustin Muhesi, who teaches political science in eastern Congo, is optimistic but cautious about the new truce, which he said was the result of the diplomatic ballet in the region.

"People who have been at loggerheads for a long time won't return to good feelings in a day, but it's already a process that presents analogies but also breaks with what may have happened," Muhesi told DW.

Cease-fires welcomed by the West

Former colonial power Belgium has welcomed the cease-fire agreed between both countries but urged all sides to stick to the deal. 

In a statement, Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib thanked "Angola for its crucial role, and encouraged the parties to uphold their commitments."

"This step is essential to ease the suffering of the population and lead to a resolution of the conflict in Eastern DRC," he added.

France, the European Union, and the United States hailed the signing of the latest agreement on Wednesday.

"We hope this agreement will help create the conditions for de-escalation of tensions between the DRC and Rwanda and enable the safe return of those internally displaced to their homes," said Stephane Dujarric, the spokesperson for UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

Eastern Congo has been racked by fighting for 30 years, involving both local and foreign-based armed groups, tracing back to the regional wars of the 1990s.