#US' Indo-Pacific Strategy

[xtruss]

Malaysian PM’s Remarks Reveal US’ Self-Entertaining Hegemonic Diplomacy

— Global Times | February 26, 2024

Illustration:Xia Qing/Global Times

In Simple and Clear-Cut Remarks, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim told the US, Europe and a wider range of the World that the baton of American Hegemony is Failing - Washington is increasingly incapable of dictating the choices of other Countries.

"Anwar Ibrahim questioned why Malaysia would 'pick a quarrel' with China, its largest trading partner, in response to US criticisms of his country's ties with Beijing," Financial Times (FT) reported on Sunday. "Why must I be tied to one interest? I don't buy into this strong prejudice against China, this China-phobia," he said in an interview with the FT. In the same piece, Anwar is quoted as saying, "We are a small country struggling to survive in a Complex World … I want to focus on what is best for us."

The FT was attempting to induce Anwar to toss out an answer that is expected by the West, such as, Malaysia is siding with the US, or at the very least, Malaysian relationship with the US is strong and not influenced by China. Clearly, Beyond the West's Soap Bubble, the World is Very Different. To be straightforward, it is a proof that more and more countries are not buying into the US hegemony any longer.

Southeast Asia is very close to China and is a key region in the US' "Indo-Pacific Strategy." However, the US faces the greatest difficulty in isolating China in the region. In 2000, US trade with ASEAN was more than three times that of China-ASEAN trade. By 2020, China's trade was almost double that of the US. And today, China has become the largest trading partner of almost all ASEAN countries. Larger economies of ASEAN, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam, are not willing to take sides. All of them hope to leverage the contradictions between China and the US to maximize their own interests.

Against this backdrop, US "Indo-Pacific Strategy" is now being mentioned less frequently by Americans, as it is increasingly clear this strategy is not working, Shen Yi, a Professor at Fudan University, told the Global Times.

Ganging up with partners and allies is a vital means for the US to maintain its hegemony. Traditionally, the alpha of a gang is supposed to take the lead when charging forward, while others follow and benefit from it. Yet when it comes to the current US hegemony, Washington pushes others to the forefront, exploiting them while having little to offer.

When tensions between China and the Philippines are escalating in the South China Sea, Manila has been facing warnings of a rice crisis. Has the US done anything to show strong support to the Philippines in this regard? No trace can be found in news coverage.

Malaysia is one of the most "Neutral" countries in ASEAN. It has a bitter memory of colonial aggression and the harm caused by the power games during the Cold War, it is thus very averse to great power competition and unwilling to take sides, Chen Xiangmiao, director of the World Navy Research Center at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, told the Global Times.

Chen added that Anwar is sober toward the consequences of taking sides, which would jeopardize the overall relationship and interests with one of the two major powers, and could lead ASEAN to becoming a vassal state. There are 11 members in the bloc, each country has a different level of relationship with China and the US. Hence the outcome of being coerced to take sides could also likely lead to growing divergences in the region and even the disintegration of ASEAN. From whatever perspective, Anwar embodies a highly pragmatic attitude, protecting the interests of his country and ASEAN, and his remarks represent the mainstream position of ASEAN.

The vast majority of countries make diplomatic decisions based on their own national interests. If the US wants other countries to change their diplomacy, it must show them reasons for gains and losses. In recent years, the US has not ceased putting pressure on ASEAN, Which is Firmly on the Path of Neutrality and Non-Alignment, hoping to bring ASEAN into Washington's camp. But what benefits can the US offer ASEAN?

Remember the US-ASEAN Special Summit in Washington, DC in 2022? Leaders of ASEAN went all the way to the US, to hear the US announce an investment of $150 million for all the ASEAN member countries combined. What a Chicken Feed. In December 2023, Japanese media outlet The Asahi Shimbun reported that Anwar said that when he visited the US, he was asked Why Malaysia is Tilting Toward China. He replied, "Because They're Investing More."

China is committed to common development. It focuses on Baking the Cake Bigger for Win-Win Cooperation and Mutual Prosperity. Yet the US is busy launching Anti-China and Anti-Russia Campaigns, dividing the world into different camps, disrupting international cooperation, and demanding obedience from other countries, when all others want a peaceful international environment to develop.

The US no longer has the capability to play a dominant global role, in addition, there's no global environment to allow it to do so. Its hegemonic mentality and approaches are outdated. That's why we have witnessed French President Emmanuel Macron openly urging Europe to reduce its dependence on the US; an HSBC executive slamming "Weak" UK for backing the US against China; Africa and Latin America emphasizing the rise of the Global South; India, Japan, and South Korea adjusting their distance from China, trying to please the US for their own interests while making sure their ties with China won't deteriorate rapidly to turn themselves into a pure US pawn; and most recently, Anwar's criticism of China-phobia.

Only the feet know if the shoes fit. The US has been persuading other countries that cooperating with China is not the right shoes, but other countries are telling the US now that the shoes fit comfortably, Shen said.

At the same time, the US is left alone, living in its own fantasy of hegemony, talking to itself.

[alewaanewspaper1960]

الخطابات والممارسات الأمريكية تجاه منطقة المحيطين الهندي والهادئ - من أوباما إلى بايدن (منظور بنائي)

الخطابات والممارسات الأمريكية تجاه منطقة المحيطين الهندي والهادئ – من أوباما إلى بايدن (منظور بنائي)   الخطابات والممارسات الأمريكية تجاه منطقة المحيطين الهندي والهادئ – من أوباما إلى بايدن (منظور بنائي) المؤلف: Nourhan Aboelfadl المستخلص: تطورت استراتيجية الولايات المتحدة لإعادة التوازن نحو آسيا بشكل جوهري، خاصةً في ظل تغير للتحالفات الإقليمية في المنطقة. ولذلك يستدعي التوجه الأمريكي المتقلب…

[amereid1960]

الخطابات والممارسات الأمريكية تجاه منطقة المحيطين الهندي والهادئ - من أوباما إلى بايدن (منظور بنائي)

الخطابات والممارسات الأمريكية تجاه منطقة المحيطين الهندي والهادئ – من أوباما إلى بايدن (منظور بنائي)   الخطابات والممارسات الأمريكية تجاه منطقة المحيطين الهندي والهادئ – من أوباما إلى بايدن (منظور بنائي) المؤلف: Nourhan Aboelfadl المستخلص: تطورت استراتيجية الولايات المتحدة لإعادة التوازن نحو آسيا بشكل جوهري، خاصةً في ظل تغير للتحالفات الإقليمية في المنطقة. ولذلك يستدعي التوجه الأمريكي المتقلب…

[bethanythebogwitch]

Wet Beast Wednesday: flamboyant cuttlefish

The last few animals I covered on Wet Beast Wednesday haven't been all that colorful. Let's change that by introducing the flamenco dancer of the sea: the flamboyant cuttlefish. These tiny, toxic, tentacled, tykes are some of the most visually stunning animals you can see below the waves, at least when it comes to color and displays. Let's dig in.

(Image: a flamboyant cuttlefish. It is a small, squid-like animal with a round body and a large head with four pairs of arms. One pair is thicker than the others and is being used like legs. It's body is mostly purple, with yellow and white elements. Its eyes are large and white, with pupils shaped like the letter W. End ID)

Flamboyant cuttlefish (Metasepia pfefferi) are some of the smallest cuttlefish, with the larger females reaching a whopping 6-8 cm (2.4-3 in) in length. As with all cuttlefish, they have a mantle that makes up the body, with a fin running down each side. The head attaches to the mantle and has eyes with W-shaped pupils, a beak, eight arms, and two tentacles. The arms are broadened and flattened compared to other cuttlefish, with multiple leaf-like extensions called papillae. These papillae are also found on the head and around the eyes. The tentacles are transparent and kept folded up under the tentacles. When the cuttlefish spots prey, the tentacles, which have suckers on the end, shoot out and grab it. The tentacles are elastic and can stretch, allowing the cuttlefish to grab things up to 3 body lengths away. The grabbed prey is then quickly pulled in and dispatched with a powerful and venomous bite from the beak.

(Image: a flamboyant cuttlefish. This one is covered with brown and white stripes with yellow highlights and pink arms. Another one is in the background. End ID)

The most impressive thing of note about the flamboyant cuttlefish it its color. All cuttlefish, squid, and octopi have chromatophores, cells that contain pigment. By activating and deactivating chromatophores, these animals can quickly and radically alter their color at will. Flamboyant cuttlefish got their name from the extremely colorful displays they pun on, flaring their arms and turning their bodies a variety of colors including moving stripes of brown, white, red, and yellow. These displays are a form of aposematic signaling. Aposematic signaling is a type of display where an animal advertises to predators that it is not worth trying to eat. Aposematic coloration is a common form of this, where an animal uses bright colors to alert predators that it is venomous and/or poisonous. Flamboyant cuttlefish happen to be both. It was one thought that flamboyant cuttlefish were one of only 3 species of venomous cephalopod. Turns out almost every cephalopod is venomous, those three (the flamboyant cuttlefish and 2 species of blue-ringed octopus) are just the only ones potentially harmful to humans. It is likely that the common ancestor of all cephalopods was venomous and remnants of that venom persist in its descendants, even those that don't actively use venom as a major part of their survival strategy. Flamboyant cuttlefish also have poisonous flesh, which is rather rare amongst cephalopods. If the display is not enough, flamboyant cuttlefish also have the common cephalopod defense of releasing a cloud of ink to blind predators while they flee. Most pictures you will see of flamboyant cuttlefish have them doing a threat display in response to the presence of the photographer. When not threatened, they spend most of their time brown or sandy to blend in with the sediment. A flamboyant cuttlefish can switch from its camouflage colors to its threat display in 700 milliseconds.

(Image: a camouflaged flamboyant cuttlefish. It's body is the color of sand, making it look like a sandy rock. Its translucent tentacles are extended. End ID)

Flamboyant cuttlefish live in tropical ares of the Indo-Pacific from southern New Guinea to western Australia. The blue-ringed octopi mentioned above also live in Australia, because of course they do. All cuttlefish have an internal shell called a cuttlebone that is used to regulate buoyancy. The flamboyant cuttlefish's cuttlebone is unusually small, meaning they have trouble swimming. Instead, they use a modified pair of arms to walk over the sediment in a movement called ambling. Scientists didn't have to give it a name that cute, but they did, and that is why we love them. The cuttlefish prefer to occupy open areas with muddy or sandy sediment, but will also live in the rubbley outskirts of reefs. They are active during the day, unlike most cuttlefish, which are nocturnal. They hunt small fish and crustaceans.

(GIF: a flamboyant cuttlefish with its threat colors ambling across sand in a walking motion. Stripes on white and brown move down its back. End ID)

As with most cephalopods, the flamboyant cuttlefish is semelparous, meaning they mate only once in their lives. During mating season, males will attempt to attract mates by performing s series of displays. These displays use both color changes and movement of the arms to demonstrate reproductive fitness. Known displays include waving arms, splaying out tree arms, and moving forward to touch the female's arms. This can go on for over an hour. Females are very selective and will only mate with males that put on a good performance. When multiple males compete for a female, the males can show their courtship colors on one side of the body while showing an aggression display on the other side. When the female chooses a mate, she will signal it by splaying out her arms. The male then moves forward and inserts a modified arm called the heterocotylus into a hole in her mantle and deposits a packet of sperm. The whole process takes a few seconds. The male will stay to guard his mate after the mating, though unlike other cuttlefish species, he leaves before she lays her eggs. The female searches for a secluded place to lay her eggs, such as under a rock or in a coconut shell. She lays the eggs and covers them with a protective coating before leaving. Cuttlefish provide no parental care and the juveniles are born fully independent.

(Image: two flamboyant cuttlefish mating. The large female has her arms extended, allowing a much smaller males access to she can mate. End ID)

Flamboyant Cuttlefish are classified as data deficient by the IUCN, meaning there is not enough data to determine if they are endangered or not. There is no fishery for the species and it is currently unknown what their conservation needs are. Flamboyant cuttlefish are sometimes found in public aquariums and Montery Bay Aquarium has set up a captive breeding program.

(Image: flamboyant cuttlefish eggs. They are spherical and transparent. Visible within is a well-developed embryo, which looks like a miniature adult. End ID)

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

July 10, 2024

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

JUL 11, 2024

“In 1949, when leaders of 12 countries, including President Truman, came together in this very room, history was watching,” President Joe Biden said yesterday evening at the opening of the 2024 NATO Summit, being held from July 9 through July 12, in Washington, D.C. 

“It had been four years since the surrender of the Axis powers and the end of the most devastating world war the world had ever, ever known,” Biden continued.

“Here, these 12 leaders gathered to make a sacred pledge to defend each other against aggression, provide their collective security, and to answer threats as one, because they knew to prevent future wars, to protect democracies, to lay the groundwork for a lasting peace and prosperity, they needed a new approach. They needed to combine their strengths. They needed an alliance.”

That alliance was the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the “single greatest, most effective defensive alliance in the history of the world,” as Biden said. 

The NATO collective defense agreement has stabilized the world for the past 75 years thanks to its provision in Article 5 that each of the NATO allies will consider an attack on one as an attack on all, and respond accordingly. 

Biden looked back at the alliance’s 75 years. “Together, we rebuilt Europe from the ruins of war, held high the torch of liberty during long decades of the Cold War,” he said. “When former adversaries became fellow democracies, we welcomed them into the Alliance. When war broke out in the Balkans, we intervened to restore peace and stop ethnic cleansing. And when the United States was attacked on September 11th, our NATO Allies—all of you—stood with us, invoking Article 5 for the first time in NATO history, treating an attack on us as an attack on all of us—a breathtaking display of friendship that the American people will never ever, ever forget.”

Biden celebrated that the alliance has continually adapted to a changing world and noted that it has changed its strategies to stay ahead of threats and reached out to new partners to become more effective. Biden noted that leaders from countries in the Indo-Pacific region had joined the leaders of the 32 NATO countries at this year’s summit. So did the leaders of NATO’s partner countries, including Ukraine, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, and the European Union. “They’re here because they have a stake in our success and we have a stake in theirs,” Biden said.

The promise of collective defense was daunting for opponents in 1949, when the treaty had 12 signatories: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. It is even more daunting now that there are 32, with both Finland and Sweden having joined the alliance after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Together, the NATO countries can marshal about 3,370,000 active-duty military personnel and have a collective defense budget of more than $1.2 trillion. 

In addition, as Jim Garamone of Department of Defense News noted, the NATO countries share intelligence, training, tactics, and equipment, as well as agreements for permitting the use of airspace and bases. “[O]ur commitment is broad and deep,” Biden said. “[W]e’re willing, and we’re able to deter aggression and defend every inch of NATO territory across every domain: land, air, sea, cyber, and space.”

When NATO formed, the main concern of the countries backing it was resisting Soviet aggression, but with the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russian president Vladimir Putin, NATO turned to resisting Russian aggression. “[H]istory calls for our collective strength,” Biden said. “Autocrats want to overturn global order, which has by and large kept for nearly 80 years and counting.”

Biden called out Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine and recalled that NATO had built a global coalition to stand behind Ukraine, providing weapons and aid while also moving troops into the surrounding NATO countries. He announced that the U.S., Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, and Italy are donating more air defense equipment. 

“All the Allies knew that before this war, Putin thought NATO would break,” Biden said. “Today, NATO is stronger than it’s ever been in its history.” Biden noted that the world is in a pivotal moment, and reminded his listeners: “The fact that NATO remains the bulwark of global security did not happen by accident. It wasn’t inevitable. Again and again, at critical moments, we chose unity over disunion, progress over retreat, freedom over tyranny, and hope over fear.

Again and again, we stood behind our shared vision of a peaceful and prosperous transatlantic community.”

He assured the attendees that an “overwhelming bipartisan majority of Americans understand that NATO makes us all safer…. The American people know that all the progress we’ve made in the past 75 years has happened behind the shield of NATO,” understanding that without it, we would face “another war in Europe, American troops fighting and dying, dictators spreading chaos, economic collapse, catastrophe.” He assured allies that Americans understand our “sacred obligation” to NATO, and quoted Republican president Ronald Reagan, who said: “If our fellow democracies are not secure, we cannot be secure. If you are threatened, we are threatened. And if you are not at peace, we cannot be at peace.”

And then Biden surprised NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, the former Norwegian prime minister who is stepping down from his NATO position after serving since 2014, with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. “Today, NATO is stronger, smarter, and more energized than when you began,” Biden said. “And a billion people across Europe and North America and, indeed, the whole world will reap the rewards of your labor for years to come in the form of security, opportunity, and greater freedoms.”

Today, Biden reiterated the theme that alliances happen not “by chance but by choice.” Before the attendees got to work, he explained that the NATO countries must strengthen their home industrial bases and capacity in order to produce critical defense equipment more quickly, a deficiency made clear in the struggle to get armaments to Ukraine. Such readiness will strengthen security, he said, as well as creating “stronger supply chains, a stronger economy, stronger military, and a stronger nation.” 

The Washington Summit Declaration released today reaffirms NATO as “the unique, essential, and indispensable transatlantic forum to consult, coordinate, and act on all matters related to our individual and collective security,” saying “[o]ur commitment to defend one another and every inch of Allied territory at all times, as enshrined in Article 5…is iron-clad.” 

It warns that “Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security” and pledges “unwavering solidarity” with Ukraine. It says that “Ukraine’s future is in NATO” and calls out Belarus, North Korea, Iran, and China for enabling Putin’s war. Indeed, the declaration calls out China even more directly, warning that it “continues to pose systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security,” especially by flooding other countries with disinformation. 

Russian aggression is a deep concern for NATO countries; so is Trump, who worked to take the U.S. out of NATO when he was in office, vowed he will accomplish that in a second term, and in February 2024 told an audience that if he thought NATO countries weren’t contributing enough to their own defense he would tell Russia to “do whatever the hell they want.” (Biden noted yesterday that when he took office, only nine NATO countries met their target goal of spending 2% of their gross domestic product on their defense, while this year, 23 will.) 

Biden was key to rebuilding the NATO alliance after Trump weakened it, and the leaders at the NATO summit told foreign policy journalist for The Daily Beast David Rothkopf that they were “not concerned with Biden’s ability to play a leading role in NATO during his second term.” They “express confidence in his judgment” and “have a great deal of confidence in the foreign policy team around him.” But they worry about Trump. 

Shortly after Biden gave his powerful speech opening the summit, Trump had his first public event since the June 27 CNN event, at his Doral golf club. It was a wandering rant packed, as usual, with wild lies, but he did touch on the topic of NATO. “I didn’t even know what the hell NATO was too much before, but it didn’t take me long to figure it out, like about two minutes,” he said. Trump’s former national security advisor John Bolton told a reporter that Trump’s willingness to undermine NATO is “a demonstration of the lack of seriousness of the way Trump treats the alliance, because he doesn't understand it."

Following the NATO summit, Hungary’s right-wing prime minister, Viktor Orbán, who remains an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin, will visit former president Trump at Mar-a-Lago, just days after meeting with Putin in Moscow and with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing. There is speculation that Orbán is acting as an intermediary between Trump and Putin, for whom the destruction of NATO is a key goal.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[zvaigzdelasas]

12 Sep 23

On September 4, the Japanese Supreme Court ruled that Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki is legally obligated to approve the relocation of a U.S. military base from the Okinawan district of Ginowan to Henoko district in the prefecture’s Nago city. The decision follows Tamaki’s years-long legal battle to prevent the relocation after landfill work, which began in 2018, unearthed the fact that a significant portion of the sea floor where the base is being built was too soft to support the original construction plan. In April 2020, the Japanese Defense Ministry’s Okinawa Bureau attempted to submit a revised building plan to account for the soft ground, which civil engineers described as “soft as mayonnaise,” but that was rejected by Tamaki in November 2021, after he claimed there was “insufficient research” into whether the revised plan would be feasible. Previous geological surveys indicated that the seabed was so soft that the base is likely to continuously sink. Tamaki claimed that “it was unacceptable to proceed with the construction of a new base that has no prospect of being completed.”[...]

Tamaki won a second four-year term in September 2022 by defeating Sakima Atsushi, who had the backing of the Liberal Democratic Party, which controls Japan’s government. Notably, Sakima was supportive of the U.S. base in Henoko. Tamaki’s re-election, while expected, thus highlighted how contentious the U.S. military still remains for the local populace given the unequal burden placed on Okinawa by U.S. bases.

While only accounting for 0.6 percent of Japan’s territory, the prefecture houses 70 percent of the 50,000 U.S. troops in the country[...] Okinawa has a crucial role in both Washington and Tokyo’s security posture toward China[...]

Despite that, many Okinawans have called for a reduction of military personnel on the island. A 2022-2023 public opinion poll conducted by researchers at several universities, including the University of the Ryukyus, found that nearly 70 percent of local residents think the heavy concentration of U.S. military personnel in Okinawa is “unfair.”[...]

the fortification of Japan’s defenses through Okinawa is also being used to counter [...] Russia and North Korea.[....]

it is highly unlikely that the Japanese prime minister will give in to the demands of the Okinawan people for a reduce U.S. military presence. This will ensure that anti-U.S. military sentiment will remain high on the island as Japan-U.S. security cooperation continues to strengthen.

14 Sep 23

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

A few weeks ago, when we were having the Visa discussions, you said you suspected that the US military might have some role in securing whatever Harry's visa status is. With this Nigeria visit announcement coming from the Nigerian Dept of defence do you think that suspicion has more meat now? Last week Harry also did that random award announcing for a US army vet while wearing his medals. He seems to be doing a lot of these weird things lately, almost acting like an ambassador for the US army which is just so odd.

Why do you think the army is going with this? What's the basis for having a high profile foreign prince who served in the foreign army being a face of US military? Surely someone in the higher up ranks must find this odd and unsuitable.

The army, pretty much being an arm of the country's govt and security services (even if independent) does not need a face or a brand ambassador. Especially, when these gigs are more beneficial to the person acting important rather than the army itself.

What could Harry possibly bring to the table??

No, I don't think the US military had anything to do with the Nigeria visit. That was all exclusively Harry and Invictus Games / Archewell / whatever charity sponsored them. Largely because if the US military was involved, they'd have sent an American representative, not a British national living in the US.

I suspect why the US military is entertaining Harry may have to do with declining enlistment numbers. They may see him as someone who can help recruit younger generations. The military does do this from time to time - they get worried about declining enlistment so they get schemey and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Don't get me wrong; we still have a huge military, but the enlistment numbers today is a steep 40% drop from the enlistment numbers of the 1980s, and for an all-volunteer force, that's concerning.

It doesn't make any sense to me. The US military has never had celebrity ambassadors like this. They've always used their base commanders, flag officers, joint chiefs, secretaries, other politicians with a military background, etc. for that kind of recognition and acknowledgement. The celebrities are really only used for entertaining troops that are deployed to combat in USO tours (which Meghan participated in during her Suits days).

I know the US military is concerned about Russian, Chinese, and North Korean aggression in the Indo-Pacific but they wouldn't be partnering with an ex-prince to do their negotiations and contribute to their national defense strategy.

This is utterly bizarre and something I can't figure out. I have no idea what the US military's goal with this is.

[usafphantom2]

Boeing Is Evaluating The F-15EX As Successor Of The EA-18G Growler

The new “Wild Weasel” variant of the F-15EX would make use of both existing capabilities of the aircraft, as well as new ones integrated from the Growler.

Stefano D'Urso

F-15EX Growler

An F-15EX Eagle II prepares to taxi for a training mission at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, Nov. 15, 2023. An upgraded version of the F-15 fourth-generation fighter jet, the F-15EX boasts a new electronic warfare system and an open mission systems architecture with advanced battle management systems. (U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Elizabeth Tan)

As the production line of the F/A-18 is about to close, Boeing is studying whether the F-15EX Eagle II can be equipped to become the successor of the EA-18G Growler. The new “Wild Weasel” variant of the F-15EX would make use of both existing capabilities of the aircraft, as well as new ones integrated from the Growler.

“We are evaluating the technical feasibility of combining EA-18G-like capabilities with the F-15EX platform,” said Rob Novotny, Boeing’s executive director for Fighters Business Development. Novotny added that the study is still in the initial stage, but the company is already eyeing opportunities both for NATO members and the Indo-Pacific.

The move is due to the planned stop to the production of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in 2027, which in turn means the production of the EA-18G Growler will also end. On the other hand, the production of the Advanced Eagle is expected to continue for many years and leaves the door open to a new specialized variant for Electronic Warfare (EW).

“Modern aerial combat requires command of the electromagnetic spectrum, and this platform would lead the way into the next decade or two,” Novotny said. He also pointed out that the Eagle II offers several design advantages, including the aircraft’s range, speed, computing power and payload capacity.

F-15EX Growler

An F-15EX assigned to the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron. (U.S. Air Force photo by 2nd Lt. Mary Begy)

One could argue that a low-observable, or stealth, aircraft like the F-35 could be better suited for the job, however Novotny mentioned that stealth shouldn’t be understood strictly in terms of low-observable coatings. In fact, similarly to the Growler, such capabilities could be also replicated by using advanced EW functions.

“Stealth means, to me, I can go to a place where the enemy doesn’t want me to go, and I can operate in their environment, achieve my objective, and not be targeted,” said Novotny.

The F-15EX is already equipped with advanced EW capabilities thanks to the Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS), but it also has the ability to carry the AGM-88 High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs). In addition to these, Boeing is exploring also the possibility to integrate the AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) and the Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) pods. Still, there’s no naval variant of the Eagle II, therefore, it looks like such a successor of the EA-18G could not operate from the flight deck of an aircraft carrier unlike the Growler.

U.S. Navy EA-18G Growlers assigned to the Electronic Attack Squadron 138 (VAQ-138) fly in formation over the Pacific Ocean, June 24, 2024. The EA-18G’s vast array of sensors and weapons provides the warfighter with a lethal and survivable weapon system to counter current and emerging threats. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Tylir Meyer)

The F-15EX and the existing EW capabilities

The new F-15EX, developed from the F-15QA that was the most advanced Eagle variant, comes from a series of needs mainly emerged after the National Defense Strategy directed the U.S. armed services to adapt to the new threats from China and Russia. The aircraft, while extremely similar to the QA variant, features some US-only capabilities like the new AN/ALQ-250 Eagle Passive Active Warning Survivability System (EPAWSS) electronic warfare and electronic surveillance system and Open Mission Systems (OMS) architecture.

The F-15EX’s systems are powered by the Advanced Display Core Processor II, reportedly the fastest mission computer ever installed on a fighter jet, and the Operational Flight Program Suite 9.1X, a customized variant of the Suite 9 used on the F-15C and F-15E, designed to ensure full interoperability of the new aircraft with the “legacy Eagles”.

The F-15EX is equipped with the AN/APG-82(V)1 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, developed from the APG-63(V)3 AESA radar of the F-15C and the APG-79 AESA radar of the F/A-18E/F. This radar allows the Eagle II to simultaneously detect, identify and track multiple air and surface targets at longer ranges compared to mechanical radars, facilitating persistent target observation and information sharing for a better decision-making process.

EPAWSS, an US-only system that will be retrofitted also to the F-15E, provides full-spectrum EW capabilities, including radar warning, geolocation, situational awareness, and self-protection to the F-15. Because of this, the system enables freedom of maneuver and deeper penetration into battlespaces protected by modern integrated air defense systems.

F-15EX Growler

U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Richard Turner, 40th Flight Test Squadron commander flies 40 FLTS Senior Enlisted Leader, MSgt Tristan McIntire during a test sortie in the F-15EX Eagle II over the Gulf of Mexico on Jun. 14, 2022. Assigned to the 96th Test Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., the F-15EX Eagle II is the Air Force’s newest 4th generation fighter being tested at the 40 FLTS. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. John McRell)

EPAWSS is fully integrated with radar warning, geo-location and increased chaff and flare capability to detect and defeat surface and airborne threats in signal-dense and highly contested environments. The system is currently not integrated with the AN/AAR-57A(V) Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) designed to detect infrared threats, even if the F-15EX features the same mounting points used for these sensors on the F-15QA and F-15SA.

Chaff and flares capacity has been increased by 50%, with four more dispensers added in the EPAWSS fairings behind the tail fins (two for each fairing), for a total of 12 dispenser housing 360 cartridges. This improvement is important as in modern scenarios chaff and flares are often released preemptively to counter MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defense System), meaning that now the Eagle will have more countermeasures available for a better protection.

EPAWSS also integrates cognitive electronic warfare to better discriminate the signals received by the system. This capability was demonstrated during the Northern Edge 2023 large force exercise test event, which tested EPAWSS’ ability to rapidly respond to previously unencountered electromagnetic threats. The tests challenged the system’s ability to process in-mission sensor data, create exquisite techniques, and optimize waveforms in real time.

As for the kinetic capabilities, the F-15EX can carry the AGM-88 HARM on outboard wing stations 1 and 9. This capability is reportedly a product of the fly-by-wire upgrade funded by the Royal Saudi Air Force during the development of the F-15SA.

An F-15EX Eagle II from the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron, 53rd Wing, takes flight out of Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, April 11, 2024, with U.S. Air Force Chief Master Sgt. David Wolfe, command chief of Air Combat Command, and Maj. Scott Addy, 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron, F-15 division chief. The F-15EX is the first Air Force aircraft to be tested and fielded from beginning to end, through combined developmental and operational tests. (U.S. Air Force photo by Capt. Lindsey Brewer)

The EA-18G and the capabilities it could pass to the F-15EX

Based off of the F/A-18F, the Growler is a highly specialized Electronic Attack variant of the Super Hornet. The most noticeable difference with the baseline SH is the presence of the wingtip pods housing the ALQ-218 signals receiver suite, which helps to detect and geolocate emitters and signals.

The AN/ALQ-218 is a high performance RWR/ESM/ELINT system that allows the aircraft collect data about sources of radio frequency (RF) emissions: with this sensor, the EA-18G can “sniff” hostile radio signals to update the EOB (Electronic Order of Battle) of the combat theater where the aircraft is employed.

The EA-18G is equipped with an airborne electronic attack (AEA) avionics suite that has evolved from the EA-6B’s Improved Capability III (ICAP III) AEA system. In the future, with the Block II Growler upgrade and the NGJ (Next Generation Jamming) pods, the Growlers will also have Cyber Attack capabilities that will allow the EA-18Gs to “hack” or inject malware into enemy network.

The NGJ program aims to give the EA-18G fleet advanced airborne electronic attack capabilities through three frequency-focused increments – high-band, mid-band and low-band: in other words, the Growlers will replace the TJS pods operating in the 509 MHz to 18 GHz waveband, using three different pods, designated NGJ-LB (also known as Block/Increment 2), NGJ-MB (Capability Block/Increment 1), and NGJ-HB (Block/Increment 3) and directed specifically against the low- (100 MHz to 2 GHz waveband), mid- (2 GHz to 6 GHz), and high-band (6 GHz to 18 GHz) sections of the overall threat spectrum.

NGJ-MB is a high-capacity and power airborne electronic attack weapon system designed for the EA-18G electronic attack aircraft that was designed to carry out the usual job of denying, degrading and disrupting threat radars and communication devices, from an extended range and with enhanced ability than the previous AN/ALQ-99 tactical jamming pods, developed for the EA-6B Prowler.

The NGJ-MB, also known as the AN/ALQ-249(V)1 pod, uses directional emitters and AESA (active electronically scanned array) technology and an all-digital back end. It also has digital and software-based tech embedded in the design, which increases the ability to jam and allows for rapid beam steering and advanced jammer modulation.

While the NGJ-MB pod will “cover the majority of critical threats”, NGJ-LB will be extremely important to provide cover to stealth aircraft, threatened by the emerging counter-stealth Low Band radars, engaging enemy threats from increased stand-off distances and employing increased capacity (number of jamming assignments).

Loaded with external fuel tanks [and NGJ pods, ndr], an EA-18G Growler attached to the U.S. Navy’s Air Test and Evaluation Squadron Nine (VX-9) — the Vampires — goes airborne at Naval Base Ventura County Point Mugu in Southern California on Aug. 10, 2023, on its way to the adjacent Point Mugu Sea Range for a training exercise. The Growler is a two-seat variant of the carrier-based F/A-18 Super Hornet that is designed for electronic warfare. (U.S. Navy photo by Eric Parsons/Released)

NGJ-MB will replace one of high-band ALQ-99 pods that Growlers carry under each wing, while the NGJ-LB will replace the low-band pod that the aircraft carry on the centerline store position under the fuselage (the third one, a high-band pod, being developed as part of the so-called Increment III, will be carried on the left wing).

The Growler is also capable of carrying the HARM (High speed Anti-Radiation Missile) and AARGM (Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile); these weapons are designed to seek out threat weapons systems and emitters, guiding on their energy, and destroy them. However, the EA-18G is expected to integrate also the new AARGM-ER.

The AARGM-ER is the evolution of the latest variant of the AGM-88 HARM (High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile), the AGM-88E AARGM, a medium-range air-to-ground missile employed for Suppression and/or Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD). The AGM-88E is the result of a cooperative program with the Italian Air Force started in 2005 and developed as an upgrade and compliment to the AGM-88B/C. The AARGM program designed and produced a new Guidance Section and modified the existing Control Section, which are coupled with the legacy HARM Rocket Motor and Warhead Section, wings and fins.

The new Guidance Section features a passive anti-radiation homing receiver, satellite and inertial navigation system and a millimeter wave radar for terminal guidance, with the added ability to send images of the target via a satellite link before impact. The purpose of these new Guidance Section is to improve the effectiveness of the legacy HARM, especially against enemy radar and communications sites that would shut down to confuse incoming anti-radiation missiles (counter-shutdown capability) or pop-up threats.

As stated by the U.S. Navy, AARGM baseline capabilities include an expanded target set, counter-shutdown capability, advanced signals processing for improved detection and locating, geographic specificity providing aircrew the opportunity to define missile-impact zones and impact-avoidance zones, and a weapon impact-assessment broadcast capability providing for battle damage assessment cueing.

The AARGM-ER builds up on these capabilities to obtain an even more advanced weapon that is being integrated on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler and it is compatible for a future integration on all the variants of the F-35 Lightning II. The AARGM-ER combines the Guidance Section and Control Section of the AGM-88E with a new, larger rocket motor and a new warhead. The control surfaces have been redesigned too, obtaining aerodynamic strakes along the sides for increased lift and low-drag tail surfaces. The missile will reportedly have roughly double the range and speed of the AGM-88E.

About Stefano D'Urso

Stefano D'Urso is a freelance journalist and contributor to TheAviationist based in Lecce, Italy. A graduate in Industral Engineering he's also studying to achieve a Master Degree in Aerospace Engineering. Electronic Warfare, Loitering Munitions and OSINT techniques applied to the world of military operations and current conflicts are among his areas of expertise.

@TheAviationist.com

[darkmaga-retard]

"All they talk about is me."

John Ellis

Sep 17, 2024

1. Some very good news first. Researchers at the University of Waterloo have designed an energy-efficient device that produces drinking water from seawater using an evaporation process driven largely by the sun. Desalination is critical for many coastal and island nations to provide access to fresh water, given water scarcity concerns due to rapid population growth and increasing global water consumption. Roughly 2.2 billion people worldwide have no access to clean water, emphasizing the urgent need for new technologies to generate fresh water, according to the UN World Water Development Report 2024. The link to the researcher’s work is here. (Sources: sciencedaily.com, data.unicef.org, nature.com)

2. The number of Ukrainians and Russians killed or wounded in the grinding 2½-year war has reached roughly one million, a staggering toll that two countries struggling with shrinking prewar populations will pay far into the future. Determining the exact number of dead and wounded in the conflict has been difficult, with Russia and Ukraine declining to release official estimates or, at times, putting out figures that are widely mistrusted. A confidential Ukrainian estimate from earlier this year put the number of dead Ukrainian troops at 80,000 and the wounded at 400,000, according to people familiar with the matter. Western intelligence estimates of Russian casualties vary, with some putting the number of dead as high as nearly 200,000 and wounded at around 400,000. (Source: wsj.com)

3. The United States is amassing an arsenal of abundant and easily made anti-ship weapons as part of American efforts to deter China in the Indo-Pacific region and gear up U.S. forces there. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has pushed U.S. thinking toward a new philosophy - "affordable mass," as one missile industry CEO put it, speaking on condition of anonymity, referring to having plenty of relatively cheap weapons at the ready. "It's a natural counter to what China has been doing," said Euan Graham, a senior analyst with the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think tank, referring to the Chinese arsenal of ships and conventional ballistic missiles including those designed to attack vessels. (Source: reuters.com)

4. Moldy armor and expired ammunition were among “unserviceable” US military equipment delivered to Taiwan recently, and the island’s defence ministry says it is looking into the issue. The items in question were delivered between November and March under the US Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA). The shipments included 120 water-damaged pallets containing more than 3,000 body armour plates and 500 tactical vests that were “soaking wet and covered in mould”, according to the US Office of Inspector General (OIG), which launched an investigation after the matter was flagged by the Taiwanese defence ministry. Additionally, some of the 2.7 million rounds of poorly packaged ammunition were manufactured in 1983 and had expired, the US Department of Defence oversight agency said. (Source: scmp.com)

5. The Commission on the National Defense Strategy released its final report to Congress and the President in July. Walter Mead comments on its disturbing conclusions:

The U.S. faces the “most serious and most challenging” threats since 1945, including the real risk of “near-term major war.” The report warns: “The nation was last prepared for such a fight during the Cold War, which ended 35 years ago. It is not prepared today.” Worse, “China and Russia’s ‘no-limits’ partnership, formed in February 2022 just days before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, has only deepened and broadened to include a military and economic partnership with Iran and North Korea. . . . This new alignment of nations opposed to U.S. interests creates a real risk, if not likelihood, that conflict anywhere could become a multitheater or global war.” Should such a conflict break out, “the Commission finds that the U.S. military lacks both the capabilities and the capacity required to be confident it can deter and prevail in combat.” (Sources: wsj.com, armed-services.senate.gov, italics mine)

[mariacallous]

Thanks to global warming, there is less ice at the top of the world. And less ice, paradoxically, means a surge in demand for icebreakers, the specialty ships that are seen as the must-have currency to be a player in a melting world.

It’s that time again, when the very real warming in the Arctic—four times greater than the rest of the world—is exceeded only by superheated predictions of a coming great-power clash in the High North. Russia’s been rattling Arctic sabers for years and is now being joined by China. There are renewed worries about a resource scramble, new shipping lanes where ice floes used to be, greater military competition, and as always, the icebreaker gap that periodically frazzles U.S. policymakers.

Russia has scores of icebreakers, specially designed ships that crush ice with their hulls or shear through it to clear lanes of open water, including numerous nuclear-powered ones and one (soon two) armed with deck guns. China has four, as well as a super-advanced one on the way. The United States has just one heavy icebreaker—the half-century-old Polar Star, which is out of its annual dry dock after its Antarctic run—and one medium icebreaker, which is out of action for now after catching fire last month. This summer, there are no U.S. missions in the Arctic; China has three.

The United States and a pair of Arctic NATO allies, Canada and Finland, have announced an ambitious plan to team up and build scores of icebreakers. U.S. officials have touted the so-called ICE Pact, announced on the sidelines of July’s NATO summit, as a mix of friendshoring and industrial policy, leavened with a dose of great-power competition fought with rivets and ratchets, not rockets. 

But the looming competition in the Arctic is not like that facing the United States in other oceans or battlefields. The United States has immense strategic interests and challenges in the warmer waters of the Western Pacific, the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, and the rest. If the still-chilly waters of the High North get short shrift in Washington, it’s because whatever may come to pass there takes a back seat to things that are happening in the wider world. The U.S. Defense Department’s new Arctic Strategy essentially boils down to a watch-and-monitor approach to an arena that for two decades has been the perennial next great-power flash point.

“Why do we have trouble seeing ourselves as an Arctic nation in anything like the same way as Russia does? One of the reasons is that Russia gets a significant and growing share of its GDP from the Arctic; we do not,” said Rebecca Pincus, director of the Polar Institute at the Wilson Center. 

“The United States is clearly focused on the Indo-Pacific and Europe, so the Arctic is not top of mind—so why the obsession with icebreakers?” said Pincus, who previously worked on Arctic issues at the Pentagon.

The short answer is that all the Arctic nations—there are eight, and seven of them are in NATO—have the icebreakers they need, except for the United States. The long answer is that there seems to be a looming great-power competition up north, and the only way to play is to have the chips, or ships. But the even longer answer is that there is only one gambler at the table—Russia—and it has a very definite tell that can be exploited.

If the competition in the Arctic boils down to another front in the rivalry with Russia (and China is at best a self-proclaimed “near-Arctic state,” despite its frequent polar forays), then the fight should be in Russian shipyards and vulnerable Arctic facilities, not in American ones. The better strategy to combat Russia in the Arctic, Pincus suggested, happens to be the one that the United States and Europe are already employing: making it harder for Moscow to profitably ply the icy waters, not just easier for Washington to do so.

More icebreakers for the United States would not be a bad thing. For years, the United States Coast Guard has said that it requires a minimum of six icebreakers to adequately handle multiple missions a year to both poles, and only a generous accounting of ships on hand can tally even one-third of that minimum; now the service wants eight or nine. 

Icebreakers are used up north to support several research missions every summer, as well as for practicing oil-spill response and environmental monitoring. On the far side of the world, the United States has to break in once a year to resupply its Antarctic research station at McMurdo, for which really heavy icebreakers are needed. 

The problem is that, while the United States can build some very complex ships such as nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, it cannot quite manage to build icebreakers despite years of trying. The Polar Star was built in the 1970s; the Healy, the U.S. medium icebreaker, was built in the 1990s. Since then it’s been dry ice.

In that sense, the new Icebreaker Collaboration Effort, or ICE Pact, makes some sense. Finland and Canada are best in class at building that very particular kind of ship; Finland alone has built more than half of all the icebreakers afloat. For a country like the United States that is now hoping that its much-delayed Polar Security Cutter, the new generation of icebreakers, will arrive only about five years late and over budget, getting some professional help is smart. 

“Icebreakers have been a key Finnish know-how for a long time. Now that we are part of NATO, this is one thing that Finland can provide—we are tops in the world in designing and building icebreakers,” said Mika Hovilainen, the CEO of Aker Arctic, the world’s leading designer of icebreakers.

What’s not clear about the ICE Pact, though, is what it will actually deliver or how it will work; the outlines of the collaboration pact as announced so far do not tackle the fundamental challenges that have bedeviled decades of U.S. efforts to build the kind of ship that China turns out inside of two years. 

Foreign shipyards, for starters, are off-limits for U.S. Coast Guard and naval vessels, yet they are the ones with the specialized workforces. U.S. shipyards, bereft of investment, workers, work orders, and even dry docks, have enough trouble even building the congressionally mandated number of nuclear submarines, let alone a new class of vessel. Misguided adventures, such as choosing an unproven German design for the new polar cutter rather than a tested blueprint, only add to the woes. 

The ICE Pact, Pincus said, is a little bit like AUKUS, the three-way deal among Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom to bring nuclear submarine technology down under. “Except this time, we’re the Australians,” she said of the United States. “What price are we going to have to pay for their expertise?”

Why does the country that invented the nuclear aircraft carrier find it so difficult to build a ship that can drive straight into a six-foot chunk of ice and keep going? It turns out that icebreakers, like nuclear carriers and subs, are very complicated to design and build, and practice does indeed make perfect. Icebreakers need not only specially strengthened hulls, with different attributes depending on whether they will crush the ice or shear it, but also massive engines and absolute all-weather systems. 

Aker Arctic, for instance, spent a decade working on hull-strength analysis to figure out just where an icebreaker needs to be strong and where designers can save steel. That matters enormously when building a ship that is explicitly designed to steer straight for what everything else afloat avoids.

“We are gaining that kind of experience with icebreakers, because we design icebreakers all the time,” Hovilainen said. “We have a lot of standard solutions, we know what works, and we can apply that to new projects. If you have to reinvent the wheel in all areas of the ship, it is going to be super complex.”

Perhaps the new ICE Pact will indeed deliver a collaborative arrangement that helps build the estimated 70 to 90 icebreakers that U.S. officials say Western allies need in the years ahead. But the point about the looming Arctic challenge isn’t to build more Western icebreakers—which mostly carry scientists and science projects—but to make sure that the main Arctic rival of the United States and its NATO allies can’t really take advantage of any ice that it breaks. The United States aspires to be an Arctic nation, or at least Alaska lawmakers do; Russia genuinely is. And that presents not so much a threat as an opportunity.

In 2020, Russian President Vladimir Putin updated his already ambitious plans for the Russian Arctic by 2035. He added some new hits such as “protecting sovereignty and territorial integrity,” but he kept the old favorites, including the two most important: tapping Arctic resources to drive Russian economic growth and turning the northern coast of Siberia into a shipping lane worthy of the name.

The Russian Arctic does have mind-boggling amounts of oil and natural gas. (The U.S. and Canadian Arctic has lots, too, but it’s easier and cheaper to frack in North Dakota than to drill in the Chukchi Sea.) Tapping those oil and gas reserves is challenging enough, but Russia has been able to do it, to an extent, despite a decade of Western sanctions that have handicapped some of its frontier energy projects. The tricky part is to move that gas from the frozen north to thirsty markets in Asia: Arctic ice may be melting, but that doesn’t mean those are warm-water ports or easy to navigate.

Especially after the onset of the war in Ukraine, which largely foreclosed European energy export markets to Russia, Arctic energy and its shipping routes to the east have become a key strategic priority for Putin. The Yamal Peninsula in northwest Siberia is the epicenter of Russia’s newfound trade in liquefied natural gas, or LNG; since piping it to Europe is no longer an option, and China is proving a hard bargainer on piped gas headed east, freezing it and shipping it out is the future for Russian energy.

For Putin, the so-called Northern Sea Route (NSR)—the would-be shipping lane across the top of Russia—is the embodiment of his end-run around Europe and toward a full embrace with China. Moscow has visions of the route becoming a genuine global sea lane to rival such routes as the Suez Canal or the Panama Canal, no matter the fact that container ships cannot and will not save a few days’ journey by venturing into shallow, ice-filled, foggy waters that Russia calls its own and taxes as such. In 2023, the NSR had its best year yet, shipping a whopping 36 million metric tons. The Suez Canal, when not disrupted by Houthis, transits that much cargo in a week.

There is one vulnerability, though. About half the traffic on the NSR is LNG exports. Shipping gas through ice floes requires icebreaking LNG tankers. Those were previously being built for Russia in South Korea, but the Ukraine war put paid to that, with Seoul canceling the pending delivery of new ice-class tankers. (Western dry docks are still servicing the existing fleet, though.) Russia is trying to build some of its own, and probably can, but it may struggle to master some of the advanced cargo containment technology that was a Western monopoly, Hovilainen said.

That is part of an evolving Western strategy to strike at the Russian weakness in the Arctic. Just after the invasion of Ukraine, Western sanctions poleaxed the big LNG liquefaction facility in the Yamal Peninsula, which was reliant on Western technology. Novatek, the private Russian company plowing ahead, now hopes to jury-rig a solution to get its gas super-chilled and super-moving by 2026, but it is employing unproven workarounds. The facility upped production and even started exports this summer but is still running below capacity.

The West has found other chinks in the armor. This summer, the European Union, in its 14th sanctions package on Russia, specifically targeted Russian transshipment of LNG in European ports—Moscow would use precious ice tankers to ship gas south, then move the gas to a regular tanker for export overseas. With that trade foreclosed, Russia’s hard-worked LNG tanker fleet will have to make the full run from Siberia to the final destination and back again, essentially cutting its energy-export capacity.

Or take the latest Western step to hit Russia. In late August, the United States went after Russia’s LNG shadow fleet with new sanctions. The latest sanctions not only intensify the pressure on Russian gas production and liquefaction in the Arctic, but they also take aim at the fleet of specialized tankers that Moscow needs to build up in order to get its product to its last remaining big market. The goal, the U.S. State Department said, is to “further disrupt” both production and export of Arctic LNG, especially relevant now that the big plant in Yamal is up and running again.

If there is a great-power competition in the Arctic, it is only existential for one of the players. And the recipe for success is not building more icebreakers, welcome as they may be, but making sure that those in Russian hands are opening leads to nowhere.

“We are pressuring Russia with economic tools in the Arctic, which is a cost-effective means of pursuing our goals. Russia’s icebreaker fleet is all about energy exports to Asia,” Pincus said. “That’s why the sanctions are smart. If we can sustain them, and the Russian Arctic oil and gas reserves and facilities become stranded assets, then what is the Arctic to Russia? That could end up starving the NSR.”

[xtruss]

Global Times Editorial: North Atlantic Terrorist Organization’s (NATO’s) Hidden Agenda Against China Exposed In Advance By “Braindead Puppet Lithuania 🇱🇹!”

— Global Times | July 07, 2023

Illustration: Liu Rui/Global Times

North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO) is set to hold a summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, next week. As the host country, Lithuania appears both excited and impatient. A significant part of this sentiment is reflected in its provocation of China. At the same time, several other NATO members also appear to have coordinated in their approach to Taiwan Island. These have all exposed the coming NATO Summit's Malicious Intentions Toward China. This cannot be ignored by the Chinese people, who must remain vigilant.

About a week before the summit, Lithuania, mimicking the US, announced its so-called Indo-Pacific Strategy. The most eye-catching part of this 16-page "strategy" is its statement on the Taiwan question, emphasizing "the development of economic relations with Taiwan is one of Lithuania's strategic priorities." It even shamelessly drew a "red line," claiming that the status quo in the Taiwan Straits "cannot be changed via the use of force or coercion."

This is another display of Lithuania's "tough talk" and arrogance, after the country and Taiwan island mutually established representative offices, which led to a sharp deterioration in Lithuania's relations with China. If there had been no one to back it up, Lithuania would not have been able to provoke China for this long, nor would it have been so brazen in doing so.

It is bizarre that a Baltic country with a population of less than 3 million, located in the direct radiation zone of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, has come up with an Indo-Pacific Strategy. Many of its wordings for the strategy are familiar, as if they have been directly taken from the US rhetoric toward China, only this time they are being voiced from Lithuania. What is even more jaw-dropping is that Lithuanian foreign minister claimed that "with the Strategy having been approved, Lithuania now finds itself among global leaders 😂😂😂." Only someone completely lacking self-awareness could make such a statement. Lithuania is by no means a "global leader," but the incident has become one of the biggest international laughing stocks of the year.

Amid the era of great changes, Lithuania's radical foreign policy is somewhat representative. This Lithuanian government seems to have been gripped by an excessive fear toward Russia, lacking a sense of security, and behaving abnormally. The US and NATO, on the other hand, seem to be the piece of wood that a drowning Lithuania clings onto.

The more the Lithuanian government becomes psychologically dependent on the US and NATO, the stronger impulse it has to take the lead for the US and NATO to prove its own value. The US has repeatedly signaled its support for Lithuania on issues related to China, leading Lithuania all the way into the dark. However, Lithuania fails to realize that it has unwittingly handed over its destiny to others, and fear and unease are the essential sources of energy driving Washington's geopolitical chariot.

North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO) Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium 🇧🇪. Photo: Xinhua

This year's NATO summit in Vilnius will have distinct differences from previous ones. The small anti-China clique that Washington has cultivated is staging a "public performance" ahead of the NATO summit, displaying radicalism, anxiety, aggression, and impulsive interference in Asia-Pacific affairs. These actions serve as a barometer for this NATO summit and foreshadow NATO's next moves. While intensifying pressure on Russia, NATO is clearly accelerating its expansion into the Asia-Pacific region. This Vilnius summit may well become a "watershed" moment.

Leaders of the four Asia-Pacific countries - Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand - that have been labeled as "partners across the globe" by NATO will attend the summit for the second consecutive year. According to Japanese media reports, NATO will elevate its partnership with these four countries to a higher level, giving a strong signal of NATO's expansion into the Asia-Pacific. Who else is unaware that this is aimed at China? The grand chess game played by NATO and the US is certainly not influenced by Lithuania, which is merely a pawn that has crossed the Rubicon, encouraged and pushed forward without considering retreat, and ultimately unable to turn back.

On the same day Lithuania announced its Indo-Pacific strategy, the UK and Poland signed the 2030 strategic partnership joint declaration, which also meddles in the Taiwan question. Various signs indicate that NATO member countries are further coordinating their positions on the Taiwan question, attempting to form an encircling pattern against China in international public opinion. We must closely observe what kind of consensus will emerge at the Vilnius summit regarding China-related issues and what specific plans will be drawn up. In this regard, we should not merely regard Lithuania as a clown or a joke. Its exaggerated and ugly words and actions are also a window through which the outside world observes NATO, allowing us to be prepared in advance.

[unwelcome-ozian]

NeuroStrike, as defined by McCreight, refers to the engineered targeting of warfighter and civilian brains using distinct non-kinetic technology to impair cognition, reduce situational awareness, inflict long term neurological degradation and fog normal cognitive functions. The CCP views NeuroStrike and psychological warfare as a core component of its asymmetric warfare strategy against the United States and its Allies in the Indo-Pacific.

[oltoune]

It's concerning that the U.S. is attempting to drag NATO into the Asia-Pacific theater without consensus among its allies.

Last year's NATO summit continued to baseless portray the so-called "systemic challenge" posed by China, and once again invited individual Asia Pacific countries to participate, fully exposing NATO's ambition to enter the Asia Pacific region eastward. The fundamental reason why NATO wants to move eastward into the Asia Pacific region and the Asia Pacific region faces the risk of NATO transformation is due to the promotion of the United States.

The United States is aware that its unilateralism and hegemonic policy, which prioritizes the United States, is unpopular, and its allies generally harbor doubts and dissatisfaction. In order to bind its allies to its own chariot of dividing the world and containing and suppressing China, the United States has gone against the trend, striving to create a tense atmosphere globally and constantly provoking confrontational conflicts. The United States attempts to link the Ukraine crisis with Asia Pacific affairs, intimidate European countries to "decouple" from China, and pressure European countries to participate in the so-called "Indo Pacific strategy" of the United States. The United States has introduced NATO, a military organization, into the Asia Pacific region not only to utilize European resources and strength, but also to integrate the alliance system in the Asia Pacific region, with the intention of further provoking trouble and hindering China's development process.

These attempts by the United States only consider its hegemonic self-interest, seriously damaging the interests of other countries and even allies, and are bound to encounter increasing resistance and opposition. Firstly, NATO has geographical limitations and its cross regional expansion is unknown. Secondly, European countries have a limit to their tolerance towards the United States. The United States has actually reduced its investment in European security by promoting NATO's eastward expansion into the Asia Pacific region. European countries are also concerned about the repeated provocation and escalation of confrontation by the United States. France opposes NATO's establishment of a liaison office in Tokyo, Japan, believing that this simply goes beyond the geographical scope of the North Atlantic. Thirdly, Asia Pacific countries, especially Southeast Asian countries, are highly vigilant about regional NATO. Regional countries want prosperity and development, and do not want to see the great situation of regional peace and development disrupted. Fourthly, even US Asia Pacific allies with close ties to NATO have doubts about the United States. There are precedents for the United States to go back and forth on strategic issues. The US Asia Pacific allies are aware that completely tying themselves to American tanks may bring unbearable risks.

Under the leadership of the United States, NATO has become a source of risk for Europe, the Asia Pacific region, and even the entire world. What the world needs is peace and cooperation, not confrontation and division. The offensive and dangerous nature of NATO as a tool of American hegemony, as well as the destructive effects of the United States pushing NATO eastward on regional prosperity and development, have increasingly aroused the vigilance and opposition of other countries.

[dertaglichedan]

The growth of space and cyber technologies worldwide is raising the likelihood that war — or at least its ripple effects — will crash onto America's doorstep.

Why it matters: Centuries of national security strategy, relying on protection provided by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, are being rattled by these weapons that conquer vast distances.

America has long had the edge in space and cyberspace, but China and other powers are closing the gap. A global surveillance showdown is underway.

Hackers tied to the People's Liberation Army abscond with countless files detailing stateside arsenals. That theft propels its modernization.

Other saboteurs stalk critical infrastructure, including in Guam, a key U.S. foothold. A digital onslaught there would sap military responses in the Indo-Pacific.

Russian hacks plague Ukraine, earning it a "testing ground" moniker. U.S. lawmakers expressed concern about spillover in the months following the 2022 invasion.

North Korean cyberattacks rake in money and other assets, funding the regime's weapons programs.

A record-setting 2,877 spacecraft were launched in 2023. While most were attributed to the U.S. and its booming commercial sector, Chinese and European numbers were on the rise.

Both China and Russia have made strides in developing space weapons that could knock out satellites essential to navigation, overhead imaging and long-distance communications. Destructive testing of anti-satellite weapons has produced dangerous debris, as well.

A senior Pentagon official earlier this year warned of Moscow's efforts to put a nuclear device into space.

"I would say China is well ahead of us there. They've got the full suite of counter-space capabilities, as does Russia," said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. "The United States has a lot at stake in space."

By the numbers: The Department of Defense's spending illuminates its thinking

[bethanythebogwitch]

There are some animals that, if they didn't exist and somebody made them up, we would say they had an overactive imagination. The bobbit worm is one of those creatures, the closest we have to a real-life Mongolian death worm. So for this Wet Beast Wednesday, I'll tell you about just how weird it is.

(image: a rare full-body shot of a bobbit worm)

Before we start, I want to go on a brief tangent. What exactly is a worm? Well it turns out that like fish, worms aren't real. At least they aren't from a taxonomist's perspective. In common parlance, we refer to any long, skinny, and (usually) legless invertebrate as a worm. In taxonomy, that is far too broad of a category, especially as lots of animal lineages would have started out as something a lot like a worm and you can't stop being what your evolutionary ancestors were. Instead, taxonomists classify worms into multiple distinct phyla that independently converged onto the worm body plan, including the platyhelminths, nematodes, nemerteans, and annelids. The bobbit worm (Eunice aphroditos) is an annelid, which are known for their multiple body segments. More specifically, it is a polychaete or bristle worm, which are known for having a pair of fleshy protrusions called parapodia on each body segment, which have chitinous bristles called chaetae growing from them. There is some debate that the bobbit worm may actually be a species complex, which is when multiple related species are mistakenly classified as a single species.

(image: a bobbit worm found in an aquarium)

Bobbit worms are the largest of the polychaetes, with the largest known specimen being 299 cm (9.81 ft) long. They are also rather skinny, usually reaching no more than 2.5 cm (1 in) wide. Bobbit worms have a wide range of coloration, ranging from brown to black and often with a rainbow of other colors going down their bodies. You might not notice this, however, because they spend most of their time burrowing under the sand in their Indo-Pacific coral reef habitats. This provides protection from predators and is important to their hunting strategy. Bobbit worms will stick their heads out of the sand and wait while their 5 antennae use chemosensitive and light-sensing cells to detect when fish pass by. When a fish comes too close, the worm strikes. They use a set of retractable jaws that are razor sharp and come together like scissors to bite the fish. This bit is strong enough to cut small fish in half. It is rumored that this is the source of their name, from the Lorena Bobbit case. I will not elaborate further, google it if you don't know. Those fish that are not killed immediately will find themselves bleeding out and paralyzed from venom injected through the jaws as they are dragged into the worm's burrow to be eaten. There are some reports that the wom's chaetae are also venomous and that handling them barehanded can cause permenent numbness, but this does not appear to be the scientific consensus. The worms will also feed on seaweed and other algae, making them omnivorous.

(gif: a bobbit worm catching a fish)

The borrows made by bobbit worms are dug out of the sediment and coated with mucus. The worm uses its chaetae to move in and out of the burrow. The mucus if filled with nutrients that bacteria, particularly sulfate-reducing bacteria, absolutely love. This allows iron sulfides to accumulate in the mucus. When exposed to oxygen in the water, usually at the opening of the burrow, the sulfides will become iron hydroxides. These help reinforce the burrow's opening. Bobbit worms rarely leave their burrows and will retreat at the first sign of danger, making it very hard to spot them in the wild. Several fossilized burrows have been found, one dating to 20 million years ago. Another burrow of a similar animal, possibly an ancient relative of the bobbits, was found dating to 400 millions years ago.

(image: a bobbit worm head with jaws extended)

Bobbit worms reproduce externally. At night, a female will emerge from her burrow and release pheromones that attract males. She will then release her eggs into the water. The males will follow by releasing sperm, allowing for fertilizations. The majority of larvae will die before reaching adulthood. There are rumors that females withh bite off the male's genitals to feed to her young, but this is not true. Bobbit worms can also reproduce asexually by splitting. When handles, a bobbit worm can split itself into multiple sections, each of which can grow into another identical worm. This is a common adaptation in polychaetes as it allows them to survive if a part of them is eaten.

(image: a bobbit worm just sitting there, menacingly)

Bobbit worms have become a nuisance species in aquariums. They are usually introduced as tiny larvae clinging to rocks brought in for decoration or shelter. Once in an aquarium, the worms can grow rapidly and will eat any fish in the tank. Removing them can be very difficult due to their size, regenerative abilities, and reclusive nature. One famous case that introduced a lot of the internet to the worms was that of the Newquay aquarium in England. Aquarium staff were confused when a lot of the fish were vanishing from one tank and the coral was damaged. They tried laying traps, but the intruder ate the fishhooks they used and could bite through 20 lb fishing line. Finally, they lured it out with food, finding a 4 foot long bobbit worm that they named Barry. Barry became a hit online and was moved to his own tank. There apparently were plans to put him on exhibit, but I can't find confirmation that this ever happened. Given that this happened in 2009 and the bobbit worm lifespan is 3-5 years, I am sorry to tell you that Barry has passed away. RIP, king.

(image: Barry after being removed from the tank. His drab color is thought to be the result of poor nutrition)

Because of how reclusive they are, bobbit worms are an understudied species. Attempts to raise them in laboratories have mostly failed, so there is a lot we don't know about their reproduction, development, and behavior. We also don't know if they need any conservation efforts.

How many times in this series am I going to be able to use cards from this series? (image: the bobbit worm card from Weird n' Wild Creatures)