Are Musk’s right-wing rants on Europe channeling Trump? – Asia Times

Apologies to Karl Marx, but a new” threat is disturbing Europe”, and it’s not the leftist movements that frightened 19th Century “old Europe”, as Marx called it in his famous book” The Socialist Manifesto”.

In the alarming view of the country’s contemporaneous political leaders, the threatening specter comes not from a dramatic kept movement but from a burgeoning far right.

And its knight is not a figure well-known in extreme circles. Nor is the looming danger yet European. Instead, it is Elon Musk, the high-tech witch and the world’s richest person.

The South African-born Musk has launched a blitzkrieg of democratic criticism aimed at democratic institutions on the globe in person and through information on X. He appears to prefer far-right, ultra-nationalistic and racist parties, whose progress raises anxiety of a totalitarian revival in Europe.

Musk’s statements and actions may have once been seen as democratic tirades from an oddly vocal oligarch. Nevertheless, he carries a heavy calling card: close relationship with US President-elect Donald Trump, president of Europe’s most important alliance.

Musk benefited Trump’s great graces by handing him tens of millions of dollars to aid him with his election campaign and by speaking at demonstrations in support of his candidacy.

He has since from changed his mind about the upcoming Trump presidency, which will take office on January 20. Musk has been asked to find ways to cut US government spending with a salary of$ 1.

He may purchase the lower pay: he pioneered and runs Tesla, the founding electric vehicle maker, SpaceX, a company that makes rockets that launches most US satellites into space, and Starlink, which delivers online services from low-Earth orbit satellites. Additionally, he is the owner of Twitter’s social media big X.

Another American moguls—notably Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg – have gone out of their way to welcome Trump’s vote and pay homage to him by visiting Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s beautiful Florida property.

Musk, on the other hand, got behind Trump first and took up residence at a Mar-a-Lago set he apparently rents for US$ 2, 000 a day.

Does this all mean Musk’s choices in Europe reflect Trump’s wondering? During his time in the White House, Trump frequently treated allies as ingrates who refused to contribute to NATO’s efforts to defend the globe.

Musk’s information seems broader and more angry, i. e. German politics need to be recreated in line with Trump’s” America First” idea. While fully only an assistant on budget issues, Musk’s activities have immediately spread abroad.

” That should be a worrying development for US allies, particularly in Europe, where domestic politics are already vulnerable to destabilization”, wrote Parliament Magazine, a London-based chronicle of European political affairs.

Indeed, the attacks Musk has made on the most powerful allies have suffocated a continent that is already destabilized by weak governments facing economic difficulties and a nearby conflict in Ukraine.

Elections are in Germany the following month. France has elected its third prime minister in three years. How long and how much to support Ukraine against Russian aggression is a contentious issue for the European Union as a whole.

After leaving the EU in 2016, economic issues are proving to be more than the forecasts for a post-Brexit rainbow. &nbsp,

Musk’s anti-Europe campaign began last year. He has interjected himself into&nbsp, Germany’s national elections, set for next month.

Chancellor Olaf Scholz is engaged in a battle to avoid losing ground to the far-right Alternative for Deutschland ( AfD ), the Alternative for Germany, in order to avoid a center-right challenge.

In early January, he held an online interview with Alice Weidel, the AfD leader who is running largely on an anti-migration platform. ” Only the AfD can save Germany, end of story”, Musk declared during the pair’s conversation.

He also criticised Labour Party leader Keir Starmer, the leader of the British Prime Minister, for allowing children to groom them sexually ten years ago while he was a top government prosecutor. Musk called for his ouster and suggested the US ought to “liberate” Britain from its “tyrannical government”.

He kicked off his campaign by backing anti-Muslim firebrand Tommy Robinson, who is currently serving time for libel over claims that a Syrian refugee had assaulted British school girls.

Officials from all over Europe have voiced outrage, but they have all made sure to concentrate on Musk and not Trump’s. &nbsp,

Scholz urged everyone to” stay cool,” despite noting that” Musk is supporting a party like the AfD, which is right-wing extremism, preaches rapprochement with Russia and wants to weaken transatlantic relations.”

Starmer avoided his harshest criticism for opposition Conservative party members who refuted Musk’s claim that he had a sexual orientation issue, but he still called it a lie despite saving his harshest accusation against the accusation.

What are the politicians here doing to defend the truth? Stamer asked. ” Once we lose the anchor that truth matters, then we are on a very slippery slope”, he said.

French President Emmanuel Macron, who is trying to fight off a surging right-wing challenge in advance of 2027 elections, accused Musk&nbsp, of” supporting a new international reactionary movement and intervening directly in elections”.

Without mentioning his name, Spain’s Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez harshly criticized Musk. He said a far-right movement that “openly attacks our institutions, stirs up hatred” was being led” by the richest man on the planet”.

Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis indirectly criticized Musk for claiming that “global economic players” have become excessively involved in” shaping public opinion.”

Members of the European Parliament, meanwhile, have spoken of trying to curb X’s influence by applying anti-disinformation laws to tether its operations.

However, it will be left to Trump’s incoming cabinet to rein in Musk if Europe is hesitant to take up the matter with Trump ( possibly because it fears he may privately agree with Musk’s comments and activities ).

The secretary of state, secretary of defense, and the president’s national security advisor are typically in charge of foreign policy. If they believe that Musk is eroding American alliances and encroaching on their territory, it will be up to them to file a complaint.

But there’s no sign of that yet. No one inquired whether Musk was speaking directly to the president’s incoming administration during Senate confirmation hearings this week for two of the nominees for president: secretary of state nominee Marco Rubio, a senator from Florida who once ran for president, and defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth, a former television news commentator.

Will the outspoken billionaire listen, even if Trump eventually attempts to gag Musk? ” Even without the president-elect, he has the wealth and connections to exert his will on politics worldwide”, wrote The Atlantic Magazine this week. ” Musk is here as long as he wants to be.”

China appears to be in agreement that Musk may be a force to reckon with forever. When a law enforcing a ban on its use in the US, Singaporean sources told the Wall Street Journal that China might sell TikTok, the Chinese social media giant, to Musk. The US Congress has condemned TikTok for claiming to be under the control of China’s Communist Party.

The video-sharing app’s creator, Musk, is a naturalized version of the law, and Congress has pressed for its control. Musky has met with Chinese President Xi Jinping personally and runs a large Tesla plant in China. China officially blesses him as a “friend” of China.

Friendship may not be enough, though. The report about Musk’s potential purchase was described as “pure fiction,” according to TikTok officials. Chinese Communications Ministry, meanwhile, has said it would “firmly oppose” any forced sale of TikTok’s assets.

Continue Reading

Lebanon’s new leader faces impending national collapse – Asia Times

Lebanon’s congress elected a new leader on January 9 after a two-year political deadlock and 13 failed attempt. After his adversary, a Hezbollah-backed participant named Suleiman Frangieh, withdrew from the competition, Joseph Aoun passed the threshold for success in the second round of voting.

President Aoun laid out a number of commitments in his annual address to congress that would address the numerous crises that had brought Lebanon to the brink of collapse. But, delivering on these claims may be greatly challenging.

Aoun’s national victory is amazing. None of the political events supported him as their preferred presidential candidate, and he did not run for the office in public. So, how did Aoun come to win the presidency?

Rather than an established descendant of the social group, Aoun is a job soldier, serving as the captain of Lebanon’s military since 2017. The Lebanese Armed Forces ( LAF ), a comparatively uncommon instance of a force that is widely regarded as a symbol of Lebanon’s unity, is a rare example of one.

Despite the incidents of over 40 LAF men, Aoun successfully prevented the troops from being drawn into the subsequent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, and he was instrumental in coordinating the US and France’s successful 60-day peace in November.

A free network of regional and global players, including the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, served as the main supporters of Aoun’s presidential campaign. All of these countries consider Aoun to be their best chance to maintain the stiff ceasefire while even coordinating the restoration of Lebanon’s federal government.

By putting a cap on the number of political parties in place to provide financial assistance to Lebanon, they have used their influence.

Aoun’s victory adds to the Hezbollah’s weakening influence in Lebanon. In recent years, Hezbollah has experienced a number of political and economic missteps.

In the 2022 general election, Hezbollah and its allies lost their political majority. And finally, in 2024, Israel appears to have weakened Hezbollah’s defense system, including killing its chief Hassan Nasrallah and some older numbers.

The new ousting of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has even deprived Hezbollah of a powerful ally, while the team’s primary sponsor, Iran, is in no position to keep its levels of financing. Due to US-led international sanctions, which have been in place to stop Tehran’s program from developing nuclear weapons, Iran’s ability to support Hezbollah has decreased considerably.

Lebanon’s former president, Michel Aoun ( not related to Joseph Aoun ) was a longtime ally of Hezbollah. The team had hoped that by backing Frangieh’s candidacy, it may install another ally in the presidential palace. However, Frangieh withdrew and announced his support for Aoun along with a number of other politicians.

In his first speech as chairman, Aoun stated:” My mission will highlight the government’s right to control hands”. Although Aoun did not specifically mention Hezbollah, it was assumed that he would try to destroy the organization. While the majority of MPs praised Aoun’s speech, the politicians of Hezbollah sat motionless.

Off to a good start

Aoun has lofty goals for his administration. However, these goals may prove challenging to fulfill. Due to its mostly symbolic figurehead status, the presidency’s authority has tight limitations.

The position of president is mainly to service Lebanon’s power-sharing method. 18 dynasty communities are guaranteed representation in parliament thanks to this method. The leader is reserved for Maronite Christians, while the primary minister must be from the Sunni Muslim area, and the home speaker may be Shia to prevent any group from monopolizing political power.

President Aoun has pledged to reform the power-sharing state. According to research, Lebanon’s state has the Middle East’s lowest level of trust. The Palestinian power-sharing system is susceptible to disorganized political institutions, plan deadlock and regular rounds of collapse. Power-sharing officials are infamous for vote-buying and fraud.

Aoun is off to a good start. A few days after his interview, he convened congress to appoint a new prime minister, Nawaf Salam, the present mind of the International Court of Justice. Salam’s validation is a surprise because, like Aoun, he is not seen as sponsor of any of the major political parties in the country.

The absence of the customary horse-trading among the principal parties to decide on a new prime minister more underlines Hezbollah’s weakening, which was unable to oust Najib Mikati as its preferred candidate.

Hezbollah legislators accused their political competitors of trying to remove them and fragment the country in response to Salam’s visit. Salman has a long record of calling for state reform and combating widespread fraud.

Aoun and Salam today face many difficulties in delivering on the hoped-filled feeling that so many Syrian think following their meetings. They will need to appoint a authorities as soon as possible to ensure social stability and review a budget. The World Bank has ranked Lebanon among the “most significant problems shows seen globally since the middle of the 20th century” for its dire financial situation.

Supervising an extension of the current ceasefire agreement with Israel, which ends on January 25 is another urgent priority. According to the current agreement, Israeli troops must retreat to their side of the border.

Aoun and Salam form a pairing that gives real hope for a period of sustained stability and reconstruction with the support of the army, significant sections of the Lebanese population, and powerful international players.

Finding a way to create a political consensus in Lebanon will be challenging, especially if the new president and prime minister chart a course that will cause them to clash with Hezbollah.

John Nagle is a professor in sociology, Queen’s University Belfast. Drew Mikhael is a scholar at the Center for the Study of Ethnic Conflict, Queen’s University Belfast.

This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Eye on Trump, China needs Europe now more than ever – Asia Times

Donald Trump has a talent for confounding and intimidating China. During his first national campaign, he accused China of “raping” the US through unjust trade practices. However, Trump also referred to Chinese President Xi Jinping as a” good friend” in his first year as US leader.

Throughout the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump suggested he may be hard on China in a second word and then, days away from his being leader, little looks likely to change.

Trump has endorsed Marco Rubio as secretary of state and Mark Waltz as national security adviser, and has suggested he could raise taxes on all Foreign items up to 60 %. Both are” China hawks,” who think Washington may take a tougher stance against Beijing and see China as a threat to US national security.

Beijing has tried to adjust to a more difficult US weather, which may be a reason for its recent increases in business with Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East. Thus, China may become looking to join the West, at least the non-US portion of it, for a range of economic, social and security factors.

Given that Canada is rich in oil, fuel, and iron, the Chinese government might look to Ottawa as a solution to help match China’s electricity needs. It could even warm up to Canberra, as Australia has abundant lithium, which is crucial for making electric vehicles ( EVs ).

China might need to strengthen its connection with the EU in the end, though. The EU holds the distinction of being China’s second-largest buying companion, and export to the EU have soared in the past few years.

This occurred as Beijing pivoted away from manufacturing the “old three” export – home equipment, furniture and clothes – to the tech-intensive “new three”,, which are electric cars, lithium-ion chargers and solar cell.

China’s fresh materials

Since the “new three” indicate an important part in China’s economic development, the EU, as a major consumer of quite products, represents a vital market for China. However, the EU is not an easy earn for China.

Since late October 2024, Beijing has accused Beijing of unfairly subsidizing Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers and has imposed tariffs of up to 45.3 % on these products. There are indications that this is happening, but China does include a lot of room to improve relations with the European Union.

However, the latest controversy over China’s prospective involvement with anchor drag in the Baltic Sea to harm communication cables will not have improved things.

Luckily for China, the EU is not a united front. Voting patterns for Taiwanese electric vehicle tariffs in 2024 reveal an intriguing truth: ten nations backed them, five were opposed, and 12 stopped.

Beijing might affect Brussels ‘ anti-immigration and fence-sitters by lowering entry restrictions for Taiwanese businesses entering the Chinese market and lowering subsidies for Taiwanese businesses competing in Europe.

China and Russia have a” no limits” partnership, which has raised questions for both the West and particularly Europe. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, NATO declared:” The People’s Republic of China’s stated passions and forceful policies challenge our passions, surveillance and values”.

Growing concerns over China’s activities in Europe and Asia may have prompted NATO to invite Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea ( known as the Asia Pacific 4 or AP4), to NATO’s June 2022 summit.

There are becoming more frequent discussions and meetings between the two sides, despite European officials rejecting a formal alliance between NATO and Asian states.

Beijing may assist in resolving one of Europe’s most contentious geopolitical issues, the Ukraine-Russian war, by resolving those concerns, though that seems unlikely. However, an effort to broker a peace agreement might help to lessen the Western’s perception of the” Chinese threat.”

interacting with US

China and the US will continue to communicate. The Western superpower continues to be a technological, economic, and military powerhouse despite being the third-largest trading partner of China after the Association of Southeast Asian Nations ( ASEAN ) and the EU.

Former US president John F Kennedy once wrote:” When written in Chinese, the word” crisis “is composed of two characters – one represents danger and one represents opportunity”.

Trump’s potential impact on China’s economy might not be as significant as first thought if China plays its cards correctly. Trump, after all, is not always predictable.

The University of Nottingham’s assistant professor of business economics is Chee Meng Tan.

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Empty Biden threats, ‘smokescreen’ policy enabled Gaza horrors – Asia Times

This article was first published by ProPublica, a Pulitzer Prize-winning analytical news website.

Reporting features

  • Costs of silence:  Experts claim that Biden’s inaction led to widespread violence for human rights violations, including preventing aid deliveries even after obvious US warnings.
  • Empty challenges: &nbsp, Since October 7, 2023, Biden has repeatedly issued challenges that Israel ignored. US authorities tried to maintain consequences — but they don’t.
  • Internal dissention: The State Department ignored its own researchers and acted decisively on leaks. Some individual rights authorities said they were prevented from pursuing proof of Israeli crimes.

A smaller group of senior US animal rights officials met with a top established at President Joe Biden’s State Department in early November to produce one last, unwavering appeal: We must keep our word.

Weeks before, Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the management delivered their most obvious order however to Israel, demanding the Israel Defense Forces allow hundreds more trucksloads of food and medicine into Gaza every day— or more. British law and Biden’s personal laws prohibit hands sales to countries that restrict humanitarian assistance. Israel had 30 times to act.

In the quarter that followed, the IDF was accused of vehemently defying the US, its most important ally. According to charitable organizations, the Israeli military “tightened its hold,” continued to encircle urgently needed help trucks, and forced 100, 000 Palestinians from North Gaza, compounding what had already become a terrible problems” to its worst stage since the war began,” according to the organizations.

Some attendees at the November meet — officials who help direct the State Department’s efforts to promote racial collateral, religious freedom and various high-minded principles of democracy — said the United States ‘ global credibility had been seriously damaged by Biden’s unfailing support of Israel. If there was ever a time to hold Israel responsible, one adviser at the conference told Tom Sullivan, the State Department’s consultant and a senior policy adviser to Blinken, it was now.

However, the choice had already been made. Sullivan said the date would probably pass without motion and Biden had remain sending shipments of bombs uninterrupted, according to two people who were in the meeting.

Those in the room inflated. ” Don’t our law, policy and morals demand it”? an attendee said to me later, reflecting on the decision once again to capitulate. What justifies this approach, exactly? There is no explanation they can articulate”.

Soon after the 30-day deadline was up, Blinken declared that Israelis had started following his instructions in good faith, all because of the pressure the US had put up.

That choice was immediately called into question. On November 14, a UN committee said that Israel’s methods in Gaza, including its use of starvation as a weapon, were” consistent with genocide”. Amnesty International went further and discovered that a genocide was taking place. The International Criminal Court also issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former defense minister for the war crime of deliberately starving civilians, among other allegations. The warrants and the US and Israeli governments have rejected the genocide determination.

The October red line was the last one Biden laid down, but it wasn’t the first. His administration issued multiple threats, warnings and admonishments to Israel about its conduct after October 7, 2023, when the Palestinian militant group Hamas attacked Israel, killed some 1, 200 people and took more than 250 hostages.

Government officials are concerned that the Israelis feel isolated as a result of Biden’s repeated, pointless threats.

Trump, who has made a raft of pro-Israel nominations, made it clear he wanted the war in Gaza to end before he took office and threatened that” all hell will break out” if Hamas did not release its hostages by then.

Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire deal on Wednesday after months of negotiations. While it will become clear over the next days and months exactly what the contours of the agreement are, why it happened now and who deserves the most credit, it’s plausible that Trump’s imminent ascension to the White House was its own form of a red line. Early reports suggest the deal looks similar to what has been on the table for months, raising the possibility that if the Biden administration had followed through on its tough words, a deal could have been reached earlier, saving lives.

Ghaith al-Omari, a senior fellow at The Washington Institute with a focus on US-Israel relations and a former official with the Palestinian Authority who provided advice on prior peace negotiations, said” Netanyahu’s conclusion was that Biden doesn’t have enough oomph to make him pay a price.” ” Part of it is that Netanyahu learned there is no cost to saying’ No’ to the current president”.

The world’s most powerful countries have long used the so-called red lines as a prominent foreign policy tool. They are communicated publicly in pronouncements by senior officials and privately by emissaries. They amount to rules of the road for friends and adversaries — you can go this far but no further.

Current and former US officials said the failure to enforce those lines in recent years has had consequences. One frequently cited example arose in 2012 when President Barack Obama told the Syrian government that using chemical weapons against its own people would change his calculus about directly intervening. Obama backpedaled and ultimately chose not to invade when Bashar al-Assad, the then president of Syria, launched rockets with chemical gas that killed hundreds of civilians anyway, according to critics, which increased the civil war’s soaring as local extremists seized on by recruiting locals.

Authorities in and outside government said the acquiescence to Israel as it prosecuted a brutal war will likely be regarded as one the most consequential foreign policy decisions of the Biden presidency. They say it undermines America’s ability to influence events in the Middle East while “destroying the entire edifice of international law that was put into place after WWII”, as Omer Bartov, a renowned]Israeli-American scholar of genocide, put it. Former State Department assistant secretary for the Middle East bureau, Jeffrey Feltman, expressed his concern that the majority of the Muslim world now views the US as “ineffective at best or complicit at worst in the large-scale civilian destruction and death.”

Biden’s warnings over the past year have also been explicit. The president vowed to stop providing Israelis with offensive bombs if they launched a significant invasion into Rafah, a city in the south of the country, last spring. He also told Netanyahu the US was going to rethink support for the war unless he took new steps to protect civilians and aid workers after the IDF blew up a World Central Kitchen caravan. And Blinken signaled that he would blacklist a notorious IDF unit for the death of a Palestinian-American in the West Bank if the soldiers involved were not brought to justice.

Israel repeatedly crossed the Biden administration’s red lines, according to interviews with government officials and outside experts. Each time, the US yielded and continued to send Israel’s military deadly weapons of war, approving more than$ 17.9 billion in military assistance since late 2023, by some estimates. The State Department recently disclosed to Congress a proposed$ 8 billion deal to sell Israeli munitions and artillery shells.

” It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the red lines have all just been a smokescreen”, said Stephen Walt, a professor of international affairs at Harvard Kennedy School and a preeminent authority on US policy in the region. ” The Biden administration decided to be all in and merely pretended that it was trying to do something about it”.

Blinken disputed this in a recent interview with The New York Times, saying that Netanyahu has listened to him by softening Israel’s most aggressive tactics, including in Rafah. He also argued there was a cost to even questioning the IDF openly. Hasas has resisted agreeing to a ceasefire and the release of hostages, according to Blinken,” when there has been public daylight between the United States and Israel and the perception that pressure is growing on Israel.”

He acknowledged that not enough humanitarian assistance has been reaching civilians and said the Israelis initially resisted the idea of allowing any food and medicine into Gaza— which would be a war crime— but Netanyahu relented in response to US pressure behind the scenes. Blinken backtracked later in the interview and suggested that the blocking of aid was not Israeli policy. He told the Times,” There’s a very different question about what was the intention.”

For this story, ProPublica spoke with scores of current and former officials throughout the year and read through government memos, cables and emails, many of which have not been reported previously. The interviews and records reveal why Biden and his top advisers resisted changing his policy despite the release of fresh evidence of Israeli abuses.

Throughout the contentious year inside the State Department, senior leaders repeatedly disregarded their own experts. They cracked down on leaks by threatening criminal investigations and classifying material that was critical of Israel. Some of the top Middle Eastern diplomats at the organization privately complained that Biden’s National Security Council had hampered them. The council also distributed a list of banned phrases, including any version of” State of Palestine” that didn’t have the word “future” first. Two human rights officials claimed they were unable to look into allegations of abuses in Gaza and the West Bank.

The State Department did not make Blinken available for an interview, but the agency’s top spokesperson, Matthew Miller, said in a statement that Blinken welcomes internal dissent and has incorporated it into his policymaking. ” The Department continues to encourage individuals to make their opinions known through appropriate channels”, he added. Miller disputed Miller’s claim that the agency has classified information for a reason other than national security.

Over the past year, reports have documented physical and sexual abuse in Israeli prisons, using Palestinians as human shields and razing residential buildings and hospitals. UNICEF once reported that at one point in the conflict, more than 10 children on average needed amputations every day. Israeli soldiers have videotaped themselves burning food supplies and ransacking homes. One IDF group reportedly said,” Our job is to flatten Gaza”.

Israel’s supporters, including those on the National Security Council, acknowledge the horrifying human trafficking, but claim that American weapons have helped it advance western interests in the area and shield itself from other foes. Indeed, Netanyahu has significantly diminished Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, killing many of the groups ‘ leaders. Then, late last year, when rebel fighters removed Assad from Syria, Iran’s” axis of resistance” suffered the most severe blow.

US Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew told the Times of Israel he worried that a generation of young Americans will harbor anti-Israel sentiments into the future. He said he wished that Israel had done a better job at communicating how carefully it undertook combat decisions and calling attention to its humanitarian successes to counter a narrative in the American press that he considers biased.

Lew said,” The media that is presenting a pro-Hamas perspective is out right away telling a story.” ” It tells a story that is, over time, shown not to be completely accurate.’ 35 children were killed. Well, it wasn’t 35 children. It was many fewer”.

He continued,” The children who were killed turned out to be the children of Hamas fighters.”

The repercussions for the United States and the region will play out for years. Polls show Arab Americans are becoming more hostile toward their own government in Muslim-majority nations like Indonesia, the third-largest democracy in the world. Russia, before its black eye in Syria, and China have both sought to capitalize by entering business and defense deals with Arab nations. By the summer, State Department analysts in the Middle East sent cables to Washington expressing concerns that the IDF’s conduct would only inflame tensions in the West Bank and galvanize young Palestinians to take up arms against Israel. According to intelligence officials, terrorist organizations are recruiting based on the region’s anti-American sentiment, which they claim is at its highest level in recent memory.

The Israeli government did not answer detailed questions, but a spokesperson for the embassy in Washington, D. C., broadly defended Israel’s relationship with the US,” two allies who have been working together to push back against extremist, destabilizing actors”. According to the spokesperson, Israel is a country of laws, and its actions over the past 15 months “benefit the interests of the free world and the United States, opening up an opportunity for a better future for the Middle East in the wake of the tragic war started by Hamas.”

Next week, Trump will inherit a demoralized State Department, part of the federal bureaucracy from which he has pledged to cull disloyal employees. Grappling with the near-daily images of carnage in Gaza, many across the US government have become disenchanted with the lofty ideas they thought they represented.

One senior diplomat said,” This is the human rights atrocity of our time.” ” I work for the department that’s responsible for this policy. I consented to this. … I don’t deserve sympathy for it”.

The southern city of Rafah was supposed to be a safe haven for hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who the IDF had forced from their homes in the north at the start of the war. When Biden learned that Netanyahu intended to invade the city this spring, he reaffirmed that if the Israelis succeeded in doing so, the US would stop providing them with offensive weapons.

” It is a red line”, Biden had said, marking the first high-profile warning from the US

Netanyahu still launched an invasion in May. Israeli tanks rolled into the city and the IDF dropped bombs on Hamas targets, including a refugee camp, killing dozens of civilians. Biden responded by pausing a shipment of 2, 000-pound bombs but otherwise resumed military support.

In response to the Geneva Conventions, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to halt its assault on the city in late May. Behind the scenes, State Department lawyers scrambled to come up with a legal basis on which Israel could continue smaller attacks in Rafah. In a May 24 email, the lawyers claimed that” there is room to argue that more scaled back/targeted operations, combined with better humanitarian efforts, would not meet that threshold.” While it’s not unreasonable for government lawyers to defend a close ally, critics say the cable illustrates the extreme deference the US affords Israel.

” The State Department has a whole raft of highly paid, very good lawyers to explain,’ Actually this is not illegal,’ when in fact it is”, said Ari Tolany, an arms trade authority and director at the Center for International Policy, a Washington-based think tank. Rules for thee and not for me

The administration says that it restrained Israel’s attack in Rafah. Lew claimed in a recent interview that the operation ultimately left fewer civilian casualties than expected. ” It was done in a way that limited or really eliminated the friction between the United States and Israel”, he added,” but also led to a much better outcome”.

Several experts told me international law is effectively discretionary for some countries. Aaron Miller, a career State Department diplomat who worked for decades as an advisor on Arab-Israeli negotiations, said,” American policy ignores it when it’s inconvenient and adheres to it when it’s convenient.” ” The US does not leverage or bring sustainable, credible, serious pressure to bear on any of its allies and partners”, he added,” not just Israel”.

Miller and others point out that the barbaric Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, sparked bipartisan support for Israel and made it much simpler for Biden to avoid holding the Israelis accountable for their retaliation.

There are other likely reasons for Biden’s unwillingness to impose any realistic limitations on Israel’s use of American weaponry since Oct. 7. For one, his career-long affinity for Israel — its security, people and the idea of a friendly democracy in the Middle East — is shared by many of the most powerful people in the country. The only thing that would remain is our commitment to our aid, I don’t even call it aid, our cooperation with Israel, Nancy Pelosi said in 2018, weeks before taking up her position as House speaker. That rationale aligned with the Democrats ‘ political goals during an election when they were wary of taking risks and upsetting large portions of the electorate, including the immensely powerful Israel lobby.

Officials from the State Department’s Middle East and communications divisions created a list of proposed public statements shortly after the ICJ’s order to address the Rafah invasion to state their concern for city residents. But Matthew Miller, the State Department spokesperson, nixed almost all of them. He told the officials in a May 24 email that those on the White House’s National Security Council “aren’t going to clear” any recognition of the ruling or criticism of Israel.

That signaled early on that the State Department was putting policy into the backseat. In its place, the NSC — largely led by Jake Sullivan, Brett McGurk and Amos Hochstein — assumed a larger role. State Department officials repeatedly told me they felt marginalized this past year despite the NSC having grown significantly in size and influence over the past few decades.

” The NSC has final say over our messaging”, one diplomat said. ” All any of us can do is what they’ll allow us to do”.

The NSC did not schedule an interview with its senior leaders or respond to inquiries from ProPublica. Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser and brother to the State Department’s counselor, said recently it was difficult, for much of the past year,” to get the Israeli government to align with a lot of what President Biden publicly has been saying” about Gaza.

According to Sullivan, there are too many civilian casualties there, and Israel is frequently under both public and private pressure to improve the flow of humanitarian aid. ” We believe Israel has a responsibility — as a democracy, as a country committed to the basic principle of the value of innocent life, and as a member of the international community that has obligations under international humanitarian law — that it do the utmost to protect and minimize harm to civilians”.

During another internal State Department meeting in March, top regional diplomats voiced their frustrations about messaging and appearances. According to the notes from the conversation, Hady Amr, one of the government’s highest-ranking authorities on Palestinian affairs, said he was reluctant to speak up to large crowds about the administration’s Israel policy and that he had taken issue with a lot of it. He warned colleagues that the sentiment in Muslim communities was turning. Amr told them that the war has been” catastrophically bad for the US” from a public diplomacy perspective ( Amr did not respond to requests for comment ).

Another attendee at the meeting said they had been effectively sidelined by the NSC. A third said it was a huge amount of effort to even get permission to use the word” condemn” when talking about Israeli settlers demolishing Palestinians ‘ homes in the West Bank.

Such sanitizing language started to be used frequently. Alex Smith, a former contractor with the US Agency for International Development, said that at one point the State Department distributed NSC’s list of phrases that he and others weren’t allowed to use on internal presentations. For instance, they were meant to say “non-Israeli residents of Jerusalem” instead of” Palestinian residents of Jerusalem.” Another official told Smith in an email,” I would recommend not discussing]international humanitarian law ] at all without extensive clearances”.

A USAID spokesperson said in an email that the agency couldn’t discuss personnel matters, but the list of terms was given to the agency by the State Department as early as 2022, before the war in Gaza. According to the spokesperson, the list includes the” suggested terms that are in line with US diplomatic protocol.”

Deference to Israel is not new. When Israel is accused of violating human rights, the US has looked the other way for decades.

One of the most conspicuous paper tigers in American foreign policy is the Leahy Law, experts say. Passed more than 25 years ago, the law’s authors intended to force foreign governments to hold their own accountable for violations like torture or extrajudicial killings— or their military assistance would be restricted. The law made it possible to precisely target specific units when they faced credible allegations, preventing the US from having to detach entire nations from US-funded weapons and training. It’s essentially a blacklist.

Almost immediately, according to records, Israel received special treatment. In March 1998, IDF soldiers fired on journalists covering demonstrations in the West Bank city of Hebron. Congress asked the State Department, then led by Madeleine Albright, to take action under the new law. More than two years later, State Department officials wrote a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the law’s namesake, informing the US Embassy that the soldiers were disciplined after the incident, but was unable to provide further information. ” It is the Department’s conclusion that there are insufficient grounds on which to conclude that the units involved committed gross violations of human rights”.

Despite numerous allegations made to the State Department, the US government has never disqualified an Israeli military unit under the law despite the fact that the nation has taken action across the globe in South America, the Pacific Rim, and elsewhere.

In 2020, the agency even set up a special council, called the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum, to assess accusations against the country’s military and police units. The forum is composed of State Department officials with expertise in human rights, arms transfers and the Middle East who review public allegations of human rights abuses before making referrals to the Secretary of State. The forum became well known as just another layer of bureaucracy that slowed down the process and protected Israel, despite its ambitious objectives to finally hold Israeli units accountable.

Current and former diplomats told me that US leaders are fundamentally unwilling to follow through on the law and cut off units from American-funded weapons. Instead, the experts said, they have developed several processes that appear to be accountable while also undermining any potential outcomes.

” It’s like walking toward the horizon”, said Charles Blaha, a former director at the State Department who served on the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum. ” You can always walk toward it but you will never ever get there”.

He continued,” I really believed in the Israeli military justice system and that the State Department was acting in good faith.” ” But both of those things were wrong”.

Even the most famous and ostensibly egregious cases fall into a bureaucratic black hole, according to a review of the vetting forum’s emails and meeting minutes from 2021 through 2022.

After the IDF was accused of killing Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh in May 2022, videos circulated on the internet of Israeli police units beating pallbearers at her funeral. ” It is indeed very difficult to watch”, a deputy assistant secretary wrote in an email to a member of the forum. Another member stated to coworkers,” I think this would be what is actionable for the funeral procession itself as we wait for more information on circumstances of death and whether this would result in Leahy ineligibility.”

Neither Akleh’s killing, nor the funeral beatings, led to Leahy determinations against Israel.

Legislators have for years pushed the US government to act on Akleh’s case. Tim Rieser, a senior foreign policy aide who helped draft the Leahy Law, recently held a meeting with State Department officials to discuss the case again. The officials in the meeting again punted. He claimed that there is nothing wrong with an Israeli soldier who killed an American journalist. ” They are walking out the door on Jan. 20th and they haven’t implemented the law”.

A 15-year-old West Bank boy claimed he was tortured and raped at the Israeli detention facility Al-Mascobiya, or Russian Compound, in a separate case that the forum considered. For years, the State Department had been told about widespread abuses in that facility and others like it.

Military Court Watch, a local nonprofit organization of attorneys, collected testimony from more than 1, 100 minors who had been detained between 2013 and 2023. The majority of them claimed to have been beaten, and the majority claimed to have been strip searched. Some teens tried to kill themselves in solitary confinement. Children who were so afraid that they urched on themselves during arrests were recalled by IDF soldiers.

At the Russian Compound, a 14-year-old said his interrogator shocked and beat him in the legs with sticks to elicit information about a car fire. A 15-year-old said he was handcuffed with another boy. An Israeli policeman then entered the room and beat the other boy to the hilt, he claimed. A 12-year-old girl said she was put into a small cell with cockroaches.

According to Gerard Horton, one of the group’s co-founders, Military Court Watch frequently shared its information with the State Department. But nothing ever came of it. ” They receive all our reports and we name the facilities”, he told me. It “enters politics” as it moves up the political cliff. Everyone knows what’s going on and obviously no action is taken”.

Even the State Department’s own public human rights reports acknowledge widespread allegations of abuse in Israeli prisons. Citing nonprofits, prisoner testimony and media reports, the agency wrote last year that “detainees held by Israel were subjected to physical and sexual violence, threats, intimidation, severely restricted access to food and water”.

In the summer of 2021, the State Department reached out to the Israeli government and asked about the 15-year-old who said he was raped at the Russian Compound. Defense for Children International — Palestine, a nonprofit that had been initially designated a terrorist organization, was raided by the Israeli government the following day.

US human rights officials were therefore told not to speak to DCIP. ” A large part of the frustration was that we were unable to access Palestinian civil society because most NGOs” — nongovernmental organizations — “were considered terrorist organizations”, said Mike Casey, a former US diplomat in Jerusalem who resigned last year. ” All these groups were essentially the premier human rights organizations, and we were not able to meet with them”.

The State Department’s spokesperson, Mark Miller, stated in his statement that the organization has continued to cooperate with organizations in Israel and the West Bank while not “blanketly interfering” with organizations that document human rights abuses.

After the raid on DCIP, a member of the forum emailed his superior at the State Department and said the US should push to get an explanation for the raid from the Israelis and “re-raise our original request for info on the underlying allegation”.

But almost two years passed without any arrests, and participants in the forum struggled to obtain basic information about the case. Then, in the early months of the Israel war on Hamas, another State Department official reached out to DCIP and tried to reengage, according to a recording of the conversation.

” As you can imagine, it’s been a bit touchy here”, the official said on the call, explaining the months without correspondence. My superiors can dictate to me who I can talk to, according to the Israeli government.

The IDF eventually told the State Department it did not find evidence of a sexual assault but reprimanded the guard for kicking a chair during the teenager’s interrogation. The US has not yet shut down the Russian Compound on Leahy grounds.

In late April, there was surprising news: Blinken was reportedly set to take action against Netzah Yehuda, a notorious ultraorthodox IDF battalion, under the Leahy law.

The Leahy forum had recommended several cases to him. But he persisted for months on the recommendations. One of them was the case of Omar Assad.

On a chilly January 2022 night, Netzah Yehuda soldiers crossed over Assad, an elderly Palestinian American who was returning from a game of cards in the West Bank. They bound, blindfolded and gagged him and led him into a construction site, according to local investigators. He was found dead shortly after.

A dossier of evidence on the case, including testimony from family and witnesses, as well as a medical examiner’s report, was assembled by DAWN, an advocacy group founded by the murdered Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. The report found Assad had traumatic injuries to the head and other injuries that caused a stress-induced heart attack. The group presented the document to the Leahy forum at the State Department.

The dossier also included information about other incidents. For years, Netzah Yehuda has been accused of violent crimes in the West Bank, including killing unarmed Palestinians. Additionally, they have been found guilty of abusing and torturing detainees while they are incarcerated.

By late 2023, after the October 7 attacks, the experts on the forum decided that Assad’s case met all the conditions of the Leahy law: a human rights violation had occurred and the soldiers responsible had not been adequately punished. The battalion should no longer receive any American-funded training or weapons until the perpetrators are brought to justice, according to the forum’s advice.

ProPublica published an article in the spring of 2024 about Blinken sitting on the recommendations. But when he signaled his intention to take action shortly after, the Israelis responded with fury. The Israeli Defense Forces “must not be subject to sanctions”! Netanyahu posted on X. The intention to impose sanctions on an IDF unit is both a moral low and the height of absurdity.

The pressure campaign, which also reportedly came from Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. and Lew, the ambassador, appears to have worked. Blinken punched on an official decision for months. Then, in August, the State Department announced that Netzah Yehuda would not be cut off from military aid after all because the US had received new information that the IDF had effectively “remediated” the case. There is no evidence that anyone was charged with a crime, despite two of the soldiers involved being removed from active duty and making them ineligible to serve in the reserve.

Miller, the spokesperson, said the IDF also took steps to avoid similar incidents in the future, like enhanced screening and a two-week educational seminar for Netzah Yehuda recruits.

” In seven and a half years as director of the State Department office that implements the Leahy law worldwide”, Blaha wrote shortly after the announcement,” I have never seen a single case in which mere administrative measures constituted sufficient remediation”.

The Israeli government stated in a statement to ProPublica that the Israeli government had not examined specific cases, but that it had instead stated that the US administration had thoroughly examined each one, and that Israel had taken appropriate remedial measures.

Last summer, CNN documented how commanders in the battalion have been promoted to senior positions in the IDF, where they train ground troops and run operations in Gaza. According to a weapons expert, the weapons Netzah Yehuda soldiers have been reportedly pictured holding were likely made in the US.

Later in the year, Younis Tirawi, a Palestinian journalist who runs a popular account on X, posted videos showing IDF soldiers who recorded themselves rummaging through children’s clothing inside a home and demolishing a mosque’s minaret. Tirawi said the soldiers were in Netzah Yehuda. ( ProPublica was unable to independently verify the soldiers ‘ units. )

Hebrew text added to one of the videos said,” We won’t leave a trace of them”.

Human Rights Watch reported on November 14 and claimed that Israel’s forced displacement of Palestinians is widespread, systematic, and intentional. More than a year after the war started. It accused the Israelis of a crime against humanity, writing,” Israel’s actions appear to also meet the definition of ethnic cleansing”. ( A former Israeli defense minister has also made that allegation. )

Later that day, reporters inquired about the report’s conclusions with State Department spokesman Vedant Patel during a press briefing.

Patel said the US government disagrees and has not seen evidence of forced displacement in Gaza.

He continued,” That certainly would be a red line.”

Mariam Elba contributed research. Sign up for ProPublica’s The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Continue Reading

China’s microwave weapons aim to zap US drone swarms – Asia Times

China’s new high-power microwave ( HPM) weapons have the potential to revolutionize electronic warfare, overcoming US advances in aircraft and storage capabilities, and closing the power gap between their ships.

Chinese scientists have made a major milestone in developing a small HPM tool that can produce electric pulses similar to those of a nuclear explosion, according to the South China Morning Post (SCMP ) this fortnight.

SCMP says this weapon, however in lab testing, can destroy or eliminate electrical components within foe systems. It mentions that the joint effort between a joint staff from the Northwest Institute of Nuclear Technology in Xian and the National University of Defence Technology in Changsha overcame the difficulty of preventing the tool from self-destructing as a result of its powerful pulse.

According to the statement, the tool uses phased-array tranny technology to specifically target energy, increase its range and damage effects, and make parallel attacks on several targets. During testing, the crossbow withstood over 5, 000 full-power signal emissions without break, maintaining a great operating performance of 96.6 %.

The US government, which intends to deploy HPM weapons in the Indo-Pacific region, is cited by SCMP as a reason China is developing this weapon as part of its efforts to combat potential threats from US troops.

It notes that the People’s Liberation Army ( PLA ) is also pursuing anti-satellite capabilities, targeting communication satellites like Starlink, which played a significant role in the Ukraine war. It claims that this development advances China’s military technology and strengthens its corporate capabilities in electric warfare.

China’s new advancements in HPM weapons demonstrate its focus on these systems as a means of combating aircraft swarms, which the US is constantly developing through its Replicator program, which aims to speed the pitching of obsolete weather, sea, and land drone systems.

Far from China’s HPM weapons being simple lab experiments, The War Zone reported in November 2024 that during that month’s Zhuhai Airshow, China unveiled numerous HPM systems designed to activate drones and other underwater threats.

The War Zone mentions that the showcased HPM weapons, developed by state-run firms China South Industries Group Corporation ( CSGC ) and Norinco, &nbsp, include a large planar array mounted on an 8×8 light armored vehicle chassis and a more extensive system installed on a Shacman SX2400/2500-series 8×8 truck.

Both systems have radar, according to the report, which enables them to use their large beams to intercept and track targets while simultaneously engaging multiple threats.

HPM weapons can be used to defeat a variety of goals, including LEO satellites and swarming robots. They can destroy digital systems without apparent harm, are cost-effective, and are flexible for various platforms. Their broad beam makes it possible to simultaneously engage multiple targets.

However, they face challenges, including low efficiency, high energy consumption, and limited atmospheric range. Their large size also limits the scope of deployment.

Nevertheless, China may be working to solve the size and power limitations of its HPM weapons. For instance, in February 2024, Asia Times reported that Chinese scientists had unveiled a groundbreaking HPM weapon powered by Stirling engines, marking a significant advancement in directed-energy warfare technology.

This weapon, created by a team from the National University of Defense Technology, effectively converts thermal energy into mechanical energy using four compact Stirling closed-cycle heat engines. It drives HPM waves capable of disabling drones, military aircraft, and satellites.

The superconducting coil of the weapon has a four telas magnetic field, which is significantly lower than the energy consumption of current technologies. The weapon can operate continuously for four hours, only consuming 20 % of the energy required by current technologies, according to initial tests.

China’s progress on HPM weapons could also enable them to be mounted on ship-based point defense against anti-ship ballistic and cruise missiles, offering a feasible alternative to interceptor missiles, naval guns, railguns, and lasers. &nbsp,

In a May 2021 Proceedings article, James Winnefield mentions that HPMs can engage multiple targets simultaneously, operate at the speed of light, and produce near-instantaneous effects on electronic systems inside missiles. He claims that lasers have less of an impact on them than other weather-related problems.

However, he says HPMs have significant drawbacks, such as high energy consumption and the need for substantial power sources, which can limit deployment options. He also makes comments about the danger of collateral damage to friendly systems and the psychological strains of an invisible weapon without a signature or report, which are difficult to overcome.

While the US faces difficulties in mounting directed-energy weapons such as lasers and HPMs on its ships due to cost, space, and power constraints on its aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers, maxed-out Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and its next-generation DDG ( X ) destroyer, which has been delayed until 2032, China is steadily building its fleet of large Type 055 cruisers which could accommodate the space and power requirements of HPM weapons.

Maritime Insight <a href="https://www.marineinsight.com/shipping-news/china-constructs-most-advanced-surface-combatant-ships-in-the-world-the-type-055s/”>reported this month that China is building its 10th Type 055 cruiser, aiming to build 16 such ships. This is different from the US Navy’s Ticonderoga-class cruisers, which are almost at the end of their active years and use up money for more financially viable projects.

China’s deployment of HPM weapons aboard its Type 055 cruisers could free up even more space for anti-ship missiles, reducing the need for interceptor missiles and gun ammunition for point defense, and bringing it closer to firepower parity with the US Navy.

In a December 2024 article for the Institute of International and Strategic Studies ( IISS), Johannes Fischbach mentions that as of 2024, the PLAN has achieved over 50 % of the US Navy’s vertical launch system (VLS ) cells fielding nearly 4, 300 VLS cells on 84 principal surface combatants, compared to the US Navy’s 8, 400 cells on 85 ships.

Fischbach says this progress is marked by the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s ( PLAN ) increased production rates, with the Type 052D destroyers and Type 055 cruisers contributing significantly. He draws attention to the US Navy’s VLS capacity in contrast to the slower pace of new ship construction and the retirement of aging Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

According to him, the US Navy’s current production rate of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers is 1.6 per year, while the PLAN’s Type-052D destroyers are produced at a rate of 3.1 per year. While he says the US Navy’s plans include the development of the DDG ( X ) destroyer and the Constellation-class frigate, these are not expected to enter service until the late 2020s or early 2030s.

Continue Reading

HX-2 Karma swarm drone built to protect democracies – Asia Times

The HX-2 Karma smart wandering aircraft emerges as a crucial military development that combines mass, precision, and swarming abilities in a world where technological advancements are quickly reshaping the battlefield.

Developed by Helsing, self-touted as Europe’s leading AI defense company, this mini-unmanned aerial system ( mini-UAS ) stands out not only for its cutting-edge capabilities but also for the broader implications it carries for military strategy, ethics and geopolitical dynamics.

The HX-2 provides a compelling case study of the benefits and drawbacks of this evolution as the world prepares for more artificial intelligence ( AI ) to enter the battlefield. Significantly, the German firm touts the helicopter as a keeper of “democracies”.

” When deployed along territories at scale, HX-2 can serve as a powerful counter-invasion weapon against enemy territory makes”, according to a business statement, which added it was “ramping up output in Europe”. The primary technologies of the drone has already been used in the conflict in Ukraine.

The HX-2 Karma is a masterpiece of aircraft engineering. With a take-off mass of only 12 pounds and a load capacity of 4.5 pounds, the wandering weapons boasts a maximum speed of 250 kilometers per hour and an operating range of 100 meters.

These specifications only underscore its power in contemporary conflicts, where device speed, range and precision are fundamental.

But what really sets the HX-2 off is its inclusion of AI-driven software—notably Altra, a surveillance and assault package—that facilitates automatic routing, target identification and, perhaps most significantly, swarming coordination.

Altra’s ability to combine several HX-2 units into a single swarm highlights the system’s strategic versatility, allowing coordinated attacks on enemy assets with what the company calls unmatched efficiency.

Helsing’s emphasis on maintaining human oversight is a critical dimension of the HX-2’s design. Altra automates many aspects of the mission, but the operator retains ultimate authority over target selection and engagement.

This “human-in-the-loop” approach aims to ensure accountability while addressing ethical concerns surrounding autonomous weapon systems. As Gundbert Scherf, Helsing’s co-founder, has noted, retaining human control is essential in an era where electronic warfare erodes traditional command structures.

At the same time, the HX-2’s deployment raises significant questions about the future of warfare. The HX-2 reduces reliance on satellite navigation, making it a valuable asset in electronic warfare scenarios because of its claimed ability to operate autonomously in contested electromagnetic environments.

Yet, this same autonomy could blur the lines of accountability. Despite assurances of human oversight, AI systems ‘ increasing sophistication raise the possibility of unintended consequences.

For instance, what happens if the system’s algorithms misidentify a target? How can governments make sure these technologies are not abused or entered into the wrong hands?

These are questions that policymakers, war planners and technologists must grapple with as the HX-2 and similar systems become commonplace on the battlefield.

Helsing’s decision to vertically integrate production emphasizes the significance of technological sovereignty. Helsing wants to ensure the reliability and cost-efficiency of the HX-2 by controlling the manufacturing process and working with European partners for components.

In a geopolitical landscape that is rapidly changing, this strategy strengthens Europe’s defense capabilities. The planned delivery of 4, 000 HF-1 munitions to Ukraine—built on the same technological foundation as the HX-2—highlights the system’s immediate relevance in contemporary conflicts. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of defense innovation in supporting allies and preventing aggression.

Despite its advantages, the HX-2 represents a broader shift in warfare that demands careful scrutiny. The potential for precision and collateral damage is enhanced by the integration of AI into military systems, but it also runs the risk of intensifying arms conflicts and lowering the likelihood of conflict.

As NATO and other military alliances consider the deployment of such technologies, they must establish robust frameworks for governance, transparency and accountability. International cooperation must be used to establish standards that acquit innovation in the context of war.

The HX-2 Karma encapsulates the dual-edged nature of this technological progress. The AI-powered drone is a testament to human ingenuity, offering a powerful tool to defend borders and deter aggression. It also serves as a stark reminder of the ethical and strategic difficulties that come with these technological advancements.

Will these technologies be used to deter war and uphold peace and security as a dangerous new era of AI-driven warfare dawns, or will they instead lead to more unaccountable and deadly conflicts?

The answer lies more in the values and choices of those who use technology than in the technology itself. Helsing’s commitment to ethical control and strategic innovation provides a guideline for navigating the complexity of contemporary warfare. Whether others follow suit is still to be seen.

Sehr Rushmeen is an Islamabad-based researcher specializing in strategic studies. Her areas of expertise include nuclear strategy, AI in warfare, and South Asian politics. She holds an MPhil in Strategic Studies from NDU and a BSc in International Relations from UOL. She has contributed extensively to global publications and can be contacted at [email protected] or via Twitter @rushmeentweets.

Continue Reading

US sanctions take shine off Pakistan’s UN seat glory – Asia Times

Pakistan’s new election as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council ( UNSC), marking the ninth time it earned the circular classification, should have been cause for political party.

Otherwise, the step arrived under the shadow of new US sanctions targeting Pakistan’s nuclear weapon system. The juxtaposition of these events raises important questions about the world’s future trajectory and the complex and frequently contradicting dynamics of its international relations.

It’s not easy to get a non-permanent chair on the UNSC. It signals that Pakistan’s contributions to global peace, its support for developing countries, and its position as a local power capable of fostering discourse in conflict-ridden regions are recognized internationally.

However, these accomplishments are obscured by the US’s decision to impose restrictions under its MTCR plan. The sanctions, apparently aimed at curbing proliferation risks, problem Pakistan’s storyline as a concerned global companion.

The punishment also show a pervasive problem line between the US and Pakistan. Although the two nations have previously worked together to combat terrorism and provincial balance, Washington has grown to see Pakistan’s strategic partnerships, particularly those with China, as a contrarian of US interests in South Asia.

The sanctions against the weapon system are more about a message to Islamabad: follow Washington’s political objectives or you’ll suffer the consequences.

Pakistan’s reaction to the punishment will become crucial in determining its political trajectory. Its UNSC account provides a system to amplify its speech on global problems, from climate change to cybersecurity, but the punishment underscore the boundaries imposed by great-power elections.

In a South Asian security environment that is extremely tense and disputed, Pakistan must find a balance between its relationship with the US and China and maintaining its proper autonomy.

The UNSC member nation of Pakistan is also at odds with the international platform that the sanctions challenge. By imposing unilateral sanctions, the US runs the risk of undermining the spirit of cooperation required to address shared world issues.

Pakistan, then in a position to control UNSC proceedings, could use its app to argue for a more healthy approach to non-proliferation and dispute resolution.

Pakistan’s enrollment in the UNSC offers an opportunity to reshape its reputation as a country committed to peace and development. The restrictions, however, show how persistently skeptical it is from important international people.

Pakistan has reaffirm its commitment to international standards, increase accountability in its security plans, and use its UNSC seats to foster dialogue on security and creation issues in order to counteract this tale.

Also, Pakistan’s management must realize that its coming as a world player depends on economic endurance and technological development. Beyond martial and proper paradigms, the tech sector’s expansion and weather leadership initiatives serve as the foundation for redefining its global role.

The UNSC election and US sanctions that Pakistan has carried out simultaneously demonstrate the dilemma of its international status as both a crucial companion and a proper problem.

Navigating this dichotomy may require deft politics, strategic vision and a renewed commitment to diplomacy. Pakistan’s authority on the UNSC can both strengthen its reputation as a responsible international actor or only aggravate the conflicts that have long plagued its international relations.

The margins have never been higher for Islamabad.

Iqra Awan is a research fellow at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad. She can be reached at [email protected]

Continue Reading

How will Europe survive without Russian gas? – Asia Times

Ukraine’s commitment for the passage of its gasoline across Ukraine expired on December 31st, 2013, and Kyiv refrained from taking into account a new arrangement. Ukraine’s decision was supported by the European Commission, even though the lost imports are equivalent to 5 % of European demand.

Some people may have been surprised to learn that fuel had continued to flow while the two nations were at war. And although most pipeline gas from Russia to Europe had ceased, in 2024, Europe imported&nbsp, a record 21.5 billion cubic meters ( bcm ) &nbsp, of liquefied natural gas ( LNG ) from Russia – 19 % of its LNG imports.

Newly published data from Spain reveals that Russia remained its second-biggest supplier of LNG, accounting for 21.3 % of Spain’s LNG goods. With 48 % of the LNG supplied in 2024, the US continues to be the largest distributor to Europe.

Russian LNG that enters Europe is re-exported to second places, a process that will be prohibited by EU restrictions in March.

But, what is Europe’s approach here? And how might Ukraine’s shutting off the presses affect Russian oil revenue globally?

In May 2022, three weeks after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU launched its REPowerEU schedule. Through the growth of strength products, one of its main goals was to reduce the EU’s dependent on Soviet fossil fuels.

The European Commission now points out that 45 % of the EU’s gas imports came from Russia in 2021, and that percentage had dropped to 15 % in 2023 ( although data suggests that it increased to 18 % in 2024 as a result of higher imports of Russian LNG ).

Breugel, &nbsp, Author provided ( no reuse )

The EU has yet to impose sanctions on importing Russian oil, despite announcing sanctions for the Arctic-2 LNG project and related delivery, and outlawing the reloading of Russian LNG in EU slots.

Russian actions like demanding payment in roubles and the damage of the Nord Stream pipelines, an event that is still subject to significant conjecture, have contributed to the rapid decline in pipeline exports to Europe.

The European Commission is also aware that the world oil sector is still carefully balanced, and that Russia’s gas imports would result in extremely high rates, like those seen in the summer of 2022, as a result of sanctioning them.

That energy crisis cost European governments an estimated 650 billion euros ( US$ 669.6 billion ) between September 2021 and January 2023 in measures to mitigate high prices.

In 2024, Russian gas reached Europe via three routes: transit through Ukraine ( 30 % ), via Turkey and the TurkStream pipeline ( 31 % ) and as LNG ( 39 % ). If there is no resumption of Ukrainian transit in 2025, flows may be limited to TurkStream and LNG.

Sinking Russian imports expose Europe to continued rate volatility because the global LNG market is still constrained. However, it is possible that the EU will cease all exports of Russian oil by the end of 2027 as a wave of new Gas production is anticipated to start in 2027.

This is what the EU’s fresh strength director, Dan Jorgensen, announced in November 2024. What the European Commission intends to do is unknown; it is probably a continuation of efforts to increase energy efficiency, expand the transition to renewable energy, and lower gasoline demand. However, it’s doubtful that Russian exports will be completely prohibited until the world’s LNG market is more abundant.

However, the incoming US administration has merely imposed more sanctions on the Belarusian oil and gas industry, which might cause problems for Brussels. Due to Donald Trump’s frequent criticism of Europe’s dependency on Russian oil, some tough choices may have to be made as part of the new plan.

Gas future

What does this imply for Russia and the protection of international gas? In Nature Communications, our team of researchers at the UK Energy Research Center ( UKERC ) published a paper that forecasts how Russian gas sales might behave under two important circumstances.

The first is called “limited industry,” and assumes that the EU will halt all Russian oil exports by 2027. Additionally, sanctions against LNG systems, system, and the lack of fresh network power make it difficult to export.

If the Kremlin and Beijing don’t agree on the construction of the 50 billion cubic meters ( bcm ) Power of Siberia 2 pipeline, this would happen in the latter case. Exports to China would be restricted due to the new 10bcm pipeline from the Russian Far East and the 38bcm Power of Siberia 1 route.

Dmitry Medvedev, then Russia’s prime minister, launching construction of the Chinese section of the Power of SIberia gas pipeline. &nbsp, Photo: EPA / Dmitry Astakhov / ia Novosti/Government press service pool / The Conversation

The second scenario, known as the “pivot to Asia,” assumes that Russia is able to increase LNG exports more quickly and that Power of Siberia 2 is reached. Additionally, Turkstream is assumed to continue to export goods to Europe and that there are no restrictions on imports of LNG ( as is the current situation ).

Additionally, the study takes into account each scenario where there will be a significant increase in the global gas demand in the future, which will be influenced heavily by climate policy objectives.

Overall, the research finds that Russia will struggle to regain pre-crisis gas export levels. Compared to 2020, Russia’s gas exports will have fallen by 31 % –47 % by 2040 where new markets are limited, and by 13 % –38 % under a pivot-to-Asia strategy.

Russia’s prospects won’t significantly improve if China’s demand increases. Any future expansion into Asia is conditioned on Chinese energy security and climate mitigation strategies, according to the climate.

It is interesting to note that Gazprom, a Russian state gas company ,’s stock dropped to a 16-year low in late 2024. This was partly because of a US$ 7 billion ( £5.73 billion ) loss in 2023 and a cancellation of dividend payments. However, there is also geopolitical uncertainty regarding the state-controlled company’s capacity to find new export routes.

Two crucial questions are raised by our research regarding the potential impact of Russian gas on global markets. First, will the EU maintain its resolve and stop all exports of Russian gas to the EU by 2027, or might the end of Russia’s conflict with Ukraine cause a powerful U-turn? Second, come what may, can Russia find new export routes and markets for its huge gas reserves?

The two questions are related because more Russian pipeline gas is exported to China, which lessens the need for China to import LNG, which leads to a more stable global LNG market for Europe to import the gas it needs, primarily from the US.

Ironically, this might lead to a solution that could lessen looming trade disputes between the EU and the incoming US president.

Steve Pye is an associate professor of energy systems at UCL, and Michael Bradshaw is a professor of global energy at Warwick Business School.

The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

US air superiority vs China dissolving in plain sight – Asia Times

The US and its allies are forced to reevaluate their tactics against increasingly powerful enemies like China as a result of the emerging ultra-long-range counter-air weapons and long-range detail affect features that are poised to reinvent air superiority.

In a December 2024 report to US Congress, the Department of the Air Force said that adversaries are set to field counter-air weapons guided by space-based sensors with ranges exceeding 1, 000 miles ( 1, 600 kilometers ), creating unprecedented threats to traditional air operations.

The document highlights China’s funding in long-range detail systems, including international fast vehicles and a different army of air, land and sea-launched missiles. Those arms, supported by superior space-based targeting, pose dangers to vital assets such as ships, which have usually operated with impunity.

Additionally, according to the report, forth airbases and fixed locations will become more prone to constant precision strikes by 2050, necessitating significant modifications in US Air Force strategies. It emphasizes that counter-air threats may force sanctuaries to be used anywhere, placing a strain on sequential air supremacy and distributed abilities.

The report emphasizes the need to integrate space-based surveillance and targeting systems in order to combat the threat of adversary space-based weapons, including potential hypersonic glide vehicles ( HGV ) or nuclear-capable systems.

According to the report, the US Air Force may modernize its policies, tools, and force structures in order to remain productive and withstand these growing threats, which may greatly rely on space and information.

In March 2024, the South China Morning Post (SCMP ) reported that Chinese scientists have designed a surface-to-air missile ( SAM ) with a kill range exceeding 2, 000 kilometers, according to a peer-reviewed paper published by the Journal of Graphics.

The research group, led by Su Hua at Northwestern Polytechnical University, claims the missile is destination early-warning aircraft and bombers, probably altering local conflict dynamics, the SCMP report said. The weapon, measuring eight feet and weighing 2.5 tons, uses a reliable rocket engine for lateral start and a ramjet motor for upper-atmosphere locomotion.

The weapon will be guided by SCMP’s real-time satellite tracking, before moving onto its sensors for last targeting. It notes that the development is part of China’s broader “anti-access/area denial ( A2/AD )” strategy, aimed at countering US military capabilities in hotspots like the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea.

The report adds that the missile’s design emphasizes low production costs and operational convenience, aligning with the People’s Liberation Army’s ( PLA ) requirements.

This growth, alongside another new and emerging technologies, problems historic aspects of weather superiority. In an October 2024 Finabel report, Marek Gallo mentions that the idea of air superiority, once pivotal in Western military doctrine, faces obsolescence in modern warfare as advanced air defense systems, unmanned aerial vehicles ( UAV ) and electronic warfare ( EW ) reshape battlefields.

Gallo contends that in issues involving technologically advanced opponents, conventional air dominance, which is characterised by unwavering control of the skies, is becoming more and more difficult to achieve. He claims that the ongoing conflict in Ukraine highlights this change, in which both parties maintain their dominance in the airspace through a series of “windows of chance”

He even points out that the development of the “air coast” —a contested territory from surface level to 10, 000 feet—has intensified the challenge, with robots and EW compressing the aircraft into a fiercely competitive domain.

He claims that the integration of air and ground operations through centralized command centers and joint operations, particularly in SEAD/DEAD ( Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses ) campaigns, is necessary. Gallo argues that the Ukraine war demonstrates that achieving limited, situational air superiority, rather than absolute dominance, is the future of air power.

In a September 2024 War on the Rocks article, Peter Porkka and Vilho Rantanen advocate for an air force that could support operations in contested airspaces.

Porkka and Rantanen stress the need for NATO to develop capabilities to combat air defenses against anti-access/area denial ( A2/AD ) tactics. They point out the limitations of air superiority in preventing battleground stalemates and the difficulties that both Russia and Ukraine face.

They suggest a change to improve joint force support in tense situations. The writers argue that NATO should prioritize investments in capabilities such as drones, satellites, long-range precision fires and EW, all of which offer significant operational benefits, rather than pursuing traditional air superiority.

Asia Times recently highlighted the risk of devastating losses for US airfields in the Pacific due to China’s advanced long-range aircraft and missile capabilities, putting the focus on risking devastating losses before a potential conflict even starts.

The PLA has significantly outperformed US efforts to harden airfield infrastructure, adding extensive runways and double its hardened aircraft shelters to over 3, 000, compared to the US’s only addition since the early 2010s. Due to this disparity, US airbases are risky of precision missile strikes, with the majority of the aircraft losses anticipated on-site.

China’s fortification efforts are intended to provide for long-range air attacks, which could be advantageous for strategic purposes. In contrast, US reliance on Cold War-era strategies and little investment in airfield resilience raises operational risks and encourages Chinese aggression.

J. Michael Dahm mentions that the US Air Force must adapt to the strategic challenge of operating capacity while being under constant fire in a July 2024 article for the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Dahm points out that the PLA has developed advanced reconnaissance and long-range precision-strike capabilities in an effort to devastate US airspace by focusing on critical infrastructure, runways, and grounded aircraft, making it necessary to make a fundamental change in airbase defense.

According to Dahm, the US must combine active defenses like layered kinetic and non-kinetic systems with robust passive measures like early warning systems, facility hardening, and quick runway repair in order to sustain effective combat sortie generation.

Moreover, he argues that adopting the Agile Combat Employment (ACE ) concept, which disperses air assets across multiple bases, could reduce vulnerabilities.

Dahm insists that the US Congress and the US Department of Defense ( DOD ) must support funding and policy clarification in order to improve airbase resilience and keep adversaries at bay.

Without these adjustments, he warns that the US Air Force runs the risk of operational paralysis, leaving US and allies vulnerable to abolition and putting in danger the world’s current balance of power.

Continue Reading

Good news and bad news from Lebanon as Nawaf Salam elected premier – Asia Times

The good news from Lebanon is that Hezbollah’s former prime minister, Najib Mikati, has lost the race for another term, causing the Iran-backed Hezbollah military to worry that it was being pushed out of the democratic process.

The awful news is that Nawaf Salam, the president of the International Court of Justice, was the one who received the call on Monday to form a government. His steadfast anti-Israel positions make it difficult to imagine how he could bring Lebanon up to the 1949 truce and the Jewish state, enable only file a lawsuit for peace and normalization.

The build up to Salam’s phone started with the opposition alliance of 35 politicians nominating one of its own, Fouad Makhzoumi, to the place. The criticism has been the only alliance, in Lebanon’s 128-member legislature, to&nbsp, need, out loud, the denuclearization of Hezbollah. Salam was nominated by an independent alliance of 17 Members.

” The smaller union does have endorsed Makhzoumi, but they did not budge”, Samir Geagea, the head of the Lebanese Forces Party, the biggest union within the criticism told&nbsp, Alhadath network. ” Had we not endorsed their candidate, Salam, the result would have been another term for] Hezbollah’s candidate ] Mikati”.

The 52 vote for Salam started snowballing. Salam’s support had already received 84 seats when lawmakers presented their choices to Joseph Aoun, who had been elected leader last week. Just nine received Mikati. Seeing the battle coming, the two Shia coalitions of Hezbollah and Amal, with 30 seats, abstained from nominating anyone to the league. Aoun asked Salam to form a government.

Hours after the election, Geagea gave his appointment to Alhadath, in which he outlined how his coalition imagined the post-Hezbollah era:” President Aoun and Prime Minister Salam should remain with Hezbollah and show them,’ Talk, we are all Syrian compatriots. Either return your weapons to Iran or give them to the Syrian army. In 1991, Geagea claimed that this was how all civil war armies, including his own, gave their weapons.

Salam, however, carries a lot of international political baggage with him to the Syrian championship. Salam blasted Israel numerous times in his numerous remarks while serving as Lebanon’s minister to the UN, including two decades as a non-permanent part for the Security Council. As president of the International Court of Justice, Salam presided over accusing Israel of committing&nbsp, genocide&nbsp, in Gaza, a very questionable decision that best constitutional authorities have disputed.

With Salam’s bias toward Israel, it becomes clear that a UN judge would be best suited to lead the effort to disarm Hezbollah and restore Syrian independence, let alone establish a land border and file a petition for normalization and peace.

Blue-blooded Salam home

Salam is a member of a blue-blooded aristocratic family that gained notoriety as Beirut’s main port and Mediterranean city as a result. His brother Saeb played a significant part in the country’s politicians, including serving as prime minister, and his grandfather’s father represented the Beirut Velayet in the Ottoman legislature in Istanbul. Saeb gained notoriety for smoking cigarettes and maneuvering his car with a light neck pinned to his back.

Like most Sunni Muslims in the Levant, whether in Lebanon, Syria or Palestine, Saeb Salam opposed the development of those claims. He led Beirut’s Sunni antagonism in demanding that Lebanese add a Kingdom, pan-Arab country, in Damascus, which proved to be short-lived. Afterward, Saeb Salam changed his mind and fought for Palestinian nationalism against pan-Arabism.

As Yasser Arafat and the Israeli armies ruled Lebanon from 1969, Saeb Salam’s influence began to decline. However, when Israel invaded Lebanon and ejected the Arab militias that were attacking the region, it was in Saeb Salam’s standard mansion in the Syrian capital where all Muslim and Druze leaders, typically the supporters of Arafat, gathered to demand that the Arab leader and his militias keep the nation to give it more destruction.

Muslim Saeb Salam continued to lend political cover to Christian President Amin Gemayel in talks with Israel that resulted in parliament’s ratification of the&nbsp, May 17, 1983, Peace Agreement&nbsp, between the two countries. Hafez Assad’s militias were sent in to sabotage the agreement by Syria. Salman moved to Europe to live in exile.

Fence-sitter Nawaf Salam

Young Nawaf remained close to the Palestinian leader while his uncle assisted in allowing Arafat’s ejection, perhaps out of concern for his family history. Nawaf Salam maintained his pro-Palestinian position for a long time, but in 2005, he stood as a proponent of the anti-Assad and anti-Hezbollah” March 14 coalition”. One month after the assassination of Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in 2005, the organization’s name honored a massive protest, which was the largest in the country’s history. He was honored to be chosen as Lebanon’s UN envoy, where he made friends with Susan Rice, the American counterpart.

In 2008, the Hezbollah militia punished and&nbsp, finished off the March 14 coalition. But Salam, hedging his bets, stayed at the UN and started reporting to a pro-Hezbollah government in Beirut. He hoped that by remaining unmoved, he would eventually be called to form a cabinet.

In 2019, the Lebanese who took to the streets in the” October 17 Revolution” protesting Hezbollah and corruption shouted Salam’s name. He has since gained support from the opposition and anti-establishment figures. The lawmakers who received the call on Monday, October 17 were behind him.

Not everyone who yells Salam’s name, though, is praising him. On the international stage, he has faced numerous foes. If he brings those animosities with him to the premiership, Lebanon’s global standing may end up suffering.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain works for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies ( FDD ) as a researcher. Follow him on X&nbsp, @hahussain

Continue Reading