Zelensky angling for US troops in Ukraine – Asia Times

A friend of mine” translated” Zelensky’s UN speech as follows: Force Russia to the negotiating table, return all territory taken by Russia to Ukraine, have a war crimes trial for Putin and his cronies, send more weapons and money to Ukraine.

I think his description is good enough. However, it is not the actual words. Zellensky genuinely believes that he can persuade NATO ( led by the United States ) to send air force and troops to Ukraine to battle. &nbsp,

Because he is aware that Kamala Harris ‘ supporters wo n’t be able to dispatch their forces until after Harris wins the November election, he is campaigning for him in US swing states, including Pennsylvania.

How do you push Russia to the negotiating stand, you ask? You systematically bomb Russian country with a lot of long-range missiles, destroying system and causing significant casualties for the population. &nbsp,

These, again, there is a undertone. Putin is poor and unhappy, the Russian position is crumbling, and if things get worse he may be ousted from power, opening&nbsp, the means for a more affordable and praised Russia.

Zelensky and others in Ukraine, such as Kyrylo Budanov, head of Ukraine’s military knowledge, and their friends in the UK, maybe some at the NSC, promote the idea of an overthrow of Putin supporting the essay by citing the case of former Collins head Yevgeny Prigozhin, who died in a jet plane explosion in August 2023 shortly after leading a “revolt” against Putin. &nbsp,

After Prigozhin claimed that the regular army had subdued him and that hundreds of his men had been sacrificed in the Battle for Bakhmut, he was accompanied by a squad of malcontent Wagnerians led by Prigozhin, a visible leader of the Wagner group, an illicit billionaire, and a “friend” of Putin, to launch an invasion of Russian territory without air support and artillery support. &nbsp,

His forces were welcomed, it seems, in Rostov-on-Don, although coming off a victory in Bakhmut made them national heroes, not exactly revolutionaries. Starting a military drive to Moscow, Putin was prepared to destroy Prigozhin and his forces, but Belarus leader Alexander Lukashenko, brokered a deal.

Prigozhin broke the news and, on one of his forays in Moscow, boarded his plane that appeared to have exploded in a flight not far from Russia’s capital.

Alexei Navalny, a former Russian prime minister, is the other candidate to overthrow Putin. &nbsp, He represented the left opposition to Putin. He did run for mayor of Moscow in 2013 and garnered around 27.2 % of the vote. &nbsp, He had been out of Russia for medical treatment after being poisoned with Novichok, a Russian-developed nerve agent. &nbsp,

Navalny was told not to go back to Russia, but he did it anyway. He was arrested, put on trial and sent to a high-security prison where he died. &nbsp, Navalny campaigned on an anti-corruption theme and directly attacked Moscow’s leaders as thieves and crooks.

Navalny produced sophisticated presentations that narrated and produced speeches that tried to demonize Putin and Dmitry Medvedev, the former Russian president and deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council.

Navalny undoubtedly benefited from the support of the West, but little is known about the kind of assistance he actually received. Putin could n’t be defeated by Prigozhin or Navalny.

At present, there is no candidate to do so beyond these two deceased players. What is peculiar about the Zelensky thesis is that it is supported by senior UK officials and intelligence. It’s unclear how much real support it actually has from the CIA and the NSC.

Assassins and murderers in Russia appear to be the real threat, including those from terrorist organizations that have been able to bomb important industrial, military, and infrastructure locations, kill Russians, political, and military officials, and support Russian nationalists, as well as those who carried out the brutal attack last March on the Crocus theater complex, which left at least 60 people dead. &nbsp,

In some cases, Russian citizens have been hired by Ukrainian intelligence agencies to carry out terrorist attacks. &nbsp, In the Crocus attack, the shooters were linked to ISIS ( from so-called Khorasan province, ISIS-K, in Afghanistan and Pakistan ) but the Russians claim that they were backed by Ukraine. &nbsp, &nbsp,

None of the items above suggests a threat significant enough to compel a change in leadership for the current regime. Even less certainty or clarity exist regarding the organization that might take over the Russian presidency if Putin were to win the election or die. You wonder what would happen if some Russian politicians and TV personalities were actually in power when you hear their rants. &nbsp, Would they use nuclear weapons, blaming Ukraine, the UK and the United States?

In the same way, the calls for deep strikes on Russian soil also raise the possibility of Russia using nuclear weapons. Putin’s use of these weapons is unlikely, but the same cannot be said for his replacement by more extreme leaders.

Zelensky’s “dream” of replacing Putin or even putting Putin on trial is just political theater, and not very smart theater. His chances of succeeding are essentially nonexistent.

Of course, the idea of sending in NATO and US troops is even worse as an alternative because Russia would start a war against Europe and the United States. Everyone is aware that this is the case, but it could still occur as the Ukrainian army crumbles and no one would want to accept defeat, let alone a new president Harris. &nbsp,

The Biden-Harris administration is following Zelensky down the rat hole rather than supporting a diplomatic initiative.

Stephen Bryen is Asia Times ‘ senior correspondent. He also served as the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s staff director and as its deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. &nbsp,

This&nbsp, article&nbsp, was originally published on his&nbsp, Weapons and Strategy&nbsp, Substack, and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

Don’t let Putin make the Ukraine war rules – Asia Times

Volodymyr Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, arrived in the US on September 22 for a year of events, including a meeting with Vice President Kamala Harris and US President Joe Biden. Zellensky has stated that he will present his “plan for success” in the Ukraine war. &nbsp, &nbsp,

Will Washington give in to Zelensky’s desire to apply Western-provided missiles for strikes inside Russia is a distinct but crucial question. The US government has so far only vested its control over Ukraine’s ability to fire missiles from the Army Tactical Missile System ( ATACMS ), which can travel up to 190 miles, at Russian military installations. &nbsp,

The US also has the power to stop Ukraine from firing Storm Shadow boat weapons, made by a UK-French partnership, into Russia because they contain US-made parts. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has &nbsp, reportedly&nbsp, lobbied Biden to soften the limits.

Biden&nbsp, said&nbsp, on September 22 that he had never yet made a decision on the topic. He is hesitant to try to provoke Russian President Vladimir Putin into a direct issue with the US or its supporters in Europe. &nbsp,

On September 12, Putin repeatedly stoked this concern, &nbsp, saying&nbsp, on Russian Television that if Western countries let Ukraine apply their missiles to attack targets within Russia, “it would mean that NATO countries… are at war with Russia”, which he said do” change the very nature of the conflict”, a hint at using his nuclear weapons. &nbsp,

This is a statement that some non-Russian commentators agree with. For example, an op-ed&nbsp, published&nbsp, on September 14 in&nbsp, Asia Times&nbsp, ( and originally&nbsp, here ) by Stephen Bryen, a former senior US Defense Department official, &nbsp, echos and amplifies Putin. &nbsp,

Bryen contends that NATO is “declaring war” on Russia, which would equate to” World War II I” and that the US government “wants to launch missiles into Russia” because the Obama administration “knows that their Ukraine policy is a disaster.”

A more in-depth and balanced analysis is required. In liberal democratic nations, authoritarian leaders like Putin have unrepeated access to the free press. They use it to both threaten consequences and, over time, to weaken the capacity to resist, particularly among those supporting Ukraine under NATO and other democracies. &nbsp,

Putin has a reason to believe that the democratic partners who support Ukraine will eventually give in to his willpower and force him to agree to terms with a deal. He also has less to worry about at home thanks to draconian measures to punish criticism of Russian policy or military performance. &nbsp,

In fact, Russia’s Ukraine policy has clearly been a disaster, while US policy has been largely successful. With the addition of Sweden and Finland, NATO now has a much longer land border with Russia and is now larger than before Putin’s aggression. &nbsp, It is more unified and is spending much more on defense. &nbsp,

Russia has made a sizable contribution to the conflict, not just in the form of ships or human remains at the bottom of the Black Sea. It has lost access to technologies and markets, especially in Europe. &nbsp, Foreign purchases of Russian arms have tanked. &nbsp,

Even the wealthy elites close to Putin had their yachts and other foreign assets taken, but even the average Russian has had limited travel opportunities outside Russia and higher-priced goods at home in comparison to before. Many of the most educated individuals have left the country. Putin is wanted in connection with international law violations.

If Putin had any real understanding of what he was getting into, he would have undoubtedly not have launched the invasion in February 2022. A much smaller country has humiliated Russia, fighting it to almost a standstill, so it is in Putin’s interest to attribute his failure to a powerful alliance of alleged US “proxies” and “puppets” arrayed against Russia. He knows that’s a half-truth at best.

It’s difficult to imagine that President Biden, who is renowned for being cautious, will abruptly change his mind and start a third world war. If he grants Ukraine greater freedom to use weapons, it will undoubtedly have requirements that limit the use of force against crucial military targets. This is also in Ukraine’s interests since using a single ATACMS missile costs US$ 850, 000, while a Storm Shadow costs US$ 1 million.

Washington and its allies ‘ goals are to assist Ukraine in defending itself and avoiding a direct conflict with Russia, which is why there are so many complaints about Biden’s “excessive caution” being used as the focus. &nbsp,

However, the strategy has changed significantly since Korea in 1950 or Kuwait in 1991, when the US led the charge and its allies and its own forces engaged the enemy who had broken international law. Respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity is the foundation of the UN Charter’s anti-aggression principles. &nbsp,

Even China takes the official position that any settlement involving Ukraine should begin with this. China, however, should walk the walk in light of its own history as the victim of Japanese aggression. &nbsp, In 1933, the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations, tried to invoke the theory of collective security and voted to condemn Japan. Tokyo’s response was to withdraw from the League and continue the aggression.

In the current situation, the UN General Assembly voted 141 to 5 to demand that Russia withdraw its troops from Ukraine. There were also 35 abstentions, including some very important Asian countries that did n’t want to take sides. The Russians simply ignored the vote, much like the Japanese in 1933. Moreover, they rattled the nuclear threat against anyone who might directly interfere.

Has Russia shown any sign of wanting a third world war? Puntin’s initial aggression was obviously wrong-headed, and this was made worse by his further investigation through Ukrainian territory’s formal annexations. &nbsp,

Putin, however, makes a conscious effort to steer clear of any kinetic contact with NATO forces and has resisted doing so repeatedly as he has been warned that using nuclear weapons could lead to Russian use. &nbsp, Examples include the US agreeing to Ukraine’s request for F-16s and defensive Patriot missiles. &nbsp,

Missile strikes in areas of Russia close to Ukraine would not have such a significant impact on the conflict as to give credence to Putin’s nuclear threat. The US already&nbsp, routinely provides&nbsp, Ukraine with military intelligence, including satellite data for targeting Russian forces or military infrastructure. &nbsp,

The Ukrainians have been using drones to attack targets inside Russia, often farther away than the ATACMS’s 190-mile range. And, most notably, Ukrainian forces recently occupied a small enclave in Russia, an incursion that galvanized a surprisingly weak Russian reaction.

Putin has buffed before about using nuclear weapons, but that does not indicate that he has no red lines. If he wants to protect his leadership over Russia, it is reasonable to assume that he might use tactical nukes. &nbsp,

But toppling him is neither a Ukrainian nor a NATO objective, and extending the limit of missile strikes to 190 miles from Ukrainian-held territory presents no new danger to Putin’s political position.

Instead, such missile attacks would force Russians to relocate significant military staging areas away from Ukraine. That is a step toward a negotiated settlement, but it is not a justification for a nuclear war.

Better assisting Ukraine will bring us closer to a just peace than accosting Putin’s bluffs. But this is not enough. A serious international diplomatic initiative based on close cooperation with Ukraine is also required. &nbsp,

As the actual belligerents, neither Kiev nor Moscow is in a position to convene such an initiative. A coalition of third parties, including but not limited to NATO, is needed. The purpose would be a settlement based on Ukraine’s pre-2014 territorial integrity, which Russia solemnly agreed to in 1994. &nbsp, &nbsp,

That rule would not prevent the various assurances regarding Russian access to ports and the treatment of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, for whom the Ukrainian Constitution already provides protection, from being taken into account. A peace agreement in which both Ukraine and Russia can declare that their goals have been accomplished should be possible.

This will require a lot of time, and Western powers may need to do even more in the way of physical engagement to create a conducive negotiating environment. However, democracies need to show that they are serious about achieving a peaceful settlement based on the established standards of the international system given the country’s propensity for long wars.

And that they are willing to take on both diplomatic and military leadership in this regard.

Charles Morrison is senior fellow and president emeritus, East-West Center, Denny Roy is senior fellow, East-West Center.

Continue Reading

Zelensky’s ‘victory plan’ is to drag NATO into the fight – Asia Times

Subscribe now&nbsp, for access at a special price of only$ 99/year.

Zelensky’s ‘ success program’ is to bring NATO into the battle

James Davis studies that current trends in the Russia-Ukraine issue continue. Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, has traveled to the US to provide a “victory plan” that calls for long-range bombings of Russia, but this plan has raised questions in the West about a possible escalation.

Currency’s rise reflects central banks growth more than politics

According to David P. Goldman, gold serves as a danger hedge and a confiscation-proof stockpile asset as US interest rates tend to rise and supply holdings rise. Despite escalating world wars, stock’s fluctuation remains low, and its constant increase is expected to continue.

Commerce Dept. worried about Chinese, Russian vehicles technology

According to Scott Foster, the Biden administration intends to outlaw Chinese and Russian applications from internet-connected cars by 2026 and technology by 2029 in order to safeguard National privacy and security. Fears about Chinese retribution are growing as a result of the ban.

Continue Reading

EU is becoming too obsessed with defense – Asia Times

A new group of 26 rulers has been appointed to the Western Commission, which reflects a meticulous selection of political beliefs and part states. Each will get on a diverse portfolio, from politics to crops to innovation.

And for the first moment, the EU does have a dedicated security director in the form of Lithuania’s Andrius Kubilius.

In her second word, Ursula von der Leyen, commission president, may concentrate primarily on security and defense problems. She has created the new blog to strengthen the republic’s military capabilities and assistance and has created the EU into a” security job.”

The final EU Commission that ran from 2019 to this year declared itself “geopolitical”. The European Union became more concerned with military might and hard power as a result of this logo.

This is viewed by the majority of spectators as a beneficial aspect of the most recent fee. Additionally, there is a palpable sense that the military-power transition needs to be expanded and deepened.

However, the EU’s international policy debates have been distorted and narrowed by this extremely unchallenged conventional wisdom. The EU needs to shift away from its hazy geopolitical mantra and instead lean yet more strongly.

The main topic of discussion in EU policy has been whether the EU may justify itself more effectively and without US assistance. Calls for the EU to pursue more ambitious goals in its emerging attitude of militarised self-preservation and for laggardly part states to expand their mobilisation have been largely accepted as an analysis of German foreign policy.

While the concentrate on protection capabilities was late and remains important, it is becoming too strong.

Security industry representatives and experts have far more prepared hearings in Brussels than someone working on more progressive issues involving human rights, advancement, or peace. These outdated democratic issues, many of which policymakers and analysts then denigrate as outdated, are awash with funds, both into new protection programs and away from them.

Most member state are reducing their development assistance as they increase their defence spending. The new commission ‘ mission statements center solely on stability and defending the euro’s politics from threats from abroad. There is no mention of the efforts they may make to advance global human rights.

If it formerly tended to under-securitise its major problems, the Union now risks over-securitising them. Nearly all of EU legislation then infused with a more securitized attitude, with the exception of the security realm.

The new hard-power orthodoxy runs the risk of overshadowing any vital inquiry into the EU’s fresh enthusiasm for concepts like zero-sum geopolitical rivalry and power politics, which were previously unpopular at its core.

This departs from the more fundamentally important question of how various forms of power are required by the EU to influence global changes. Governments ‘ increased defence costs and EU efforts to coordinate defence investments do not, contrary to what currently predominates as received intelligence, provide such liquidity.

In recent years, the EU has shown less evidence of quantitative updating and improving its understanding of international liquidity, given that it places a premium on defense defense. The current plan direction has diverted the EU from being more importantly geostrategic, despite Western leaders ‘ rudimentary claims that the union has “learned the terminology of power.”

Josep Borrell, the EU’s incoming top agent, has lamented that the EU is prone to be worse at responding to its most recent crisis than preventing wider and more recent trends.

The shift in the EU corporate narrative is based on a grossly one-dimensional analysis of worldwide trends. Contrary to what is now a widely accepted idea, no every global growth points towards state-to-state, zero-sum, order-menacing extremism.

Much of it does, but the changing order also highlights the growing political mobilization against monarchy and state authority. It features individuals seeking problem-oriented participation on the ailing world lords and sub-state systems operating across borders.

Out of stage

The EU is frequently urged to step back and acknowledge that liberal democratic values are then contestable in articles, speeches, and other social documents. However, surveys conducted worldwide reveal powerful, yet growing, levels of resident support for democracy and underlying social trends apart from autocratic values.

The EU has since become a self-styled power of democratic improvement and appears to have been reduced to a means of stifling the desire of ordinary people for change. It often responds to people ‘ requests for assistance in their efforts to promote political and social transformation. It has evolved from a passive to a vigilant promulgator.

By downplaying these difficulties, the EU’s fixing on standard political power appears to be more incompatible with the emerging get than skillfully aligned with it. Basically, the EU’s now frequently used motto of “accepting the universe as it is” is not true.

It basically contradicts the social and political shifts that are occurring at the root. One thing is for the EU to become a backward power that silently molds itself to the power politics of illiberalism, while another is for it to become a real threat to its own defense.

Europe needs to create more powerful dependencies and coalitions rather than just going by itself.

As its fresh officials take office, the EU needs to move beyond the then omnipotent, but ill-defined political tale. It requires a more detailed and forward-thinking understanding of the purposes of its power, sovereignty, and autonomy.

If the EU has risked moving to another extreme by giving hard power for pride of place that it detracts from the more profound trends that may redefine the world order if it has extremely neglected the need for difficult, defensive power for many years.

University of Warwick teacher of global and European elections Richard Youngs

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

Continue Reading

China’s navy tweaking tactics to undercut Taiwan’s defenses – Asia Times

This article first appeared on Pacific Forum, and it has since been republished with kind authority. Learn the original&nbsp, around.

The Taiwanese Ministry of National Defense ( MND ) has consistently made records of the Chinese Navy and Air Force’s activities available to the world for a number of years, making it possible to understand the military situation on the Taiwan Strait.

However, most observers have focused primarily on the People’s Liberation Army Air Force ( PLAAF ) maneuvers around Taiwan because the MND provides illustrative diagrams of the People’s Liberation Army air activities and aircraft types. Consequently, the maneuvers of the People’s Liberation Army-Navy ( PLAN ) have been relatively underexplored and, in some cases, even overlooked.

Major adjustments to China’s marine operations this year, which aim to further undermine Taiwan’s maritime defense capabilities, are revealed by a comprehensive examination of PLAN activities around Taiwan.

Key observations include the daily deployment of PLAN vessels, the activity of PLAN shipborne anti-submarine helicopters, and the expansion of PLAN operations in the Yonaguni Channel ( the waters between Su’ao, Yilan, and Yonaguni Island ).

Second, the normal range of PLAN vessels has increased, considerably depleting the fight readiness of Taiwan’s military. Due to this wave, Taiwan has had to wait the maintenance schedule for its fleet, which will unavoidably shorten the life span of these aging combat ships. The tendency in the number of PLAN arteries operating around Taiwan is illustrated by the following figure, which was derived from press releases by MND.

This review establishes two analytical classes: the implementation of 5-9 arteries and the implementation of 10 or more vessels, specifically to assess the extent of PLAN’s influence on Taiwan. Reviewing the daily number of PLAN vessels around Taiwan, in 2023, out of 365 days with available data, there were 168 days ( 46 % ) with 5-9 vessels deployed and 24 days ( 6.6 % ) with 10 or more vessels.

In 2024, out of 237 days with available data ( as of August 25 ), there were 177 days ( 74.7 % ) with 5-9 vessels deployed and 26 days ( 11 % ) with 10 or more vessels. A comparative analysis of the regular vehicle operations by the PLAN around Taiwan is provided in the following desk.

The Taiwan Navy presently has four ships and 22 battleships, totaling 26 big battle vessels. However, only about 20 of them, a liberal estimate, are available for deployment at any given time according to maintenance and upgrades.

In recent years, the PLAN has significantly approached Taiwan’s located waters. The number of Chinese naval vessels deployed about equates to the number of PLAN arteries in order to avoid PLAN incursions in Taiwan’s territorial waterways. When 5-9 PLAN warships are present, Taiwan would build 25-50 % of its main combat vessels in answer.

The frequency of these things has increased from 46 % of days last year to 74.7 % this year. More critically, when over 10 PLAN vessels are active, Taiwan would deploy over half of its major combat vessels, with such occurrences nearly doubling from 6.6 % of days last year to 11 % this year.

The current circumstance has impacted the scheduled maintenance plan and shortened the floor fleet’s service life. As of July 2023, 14 ( 53.85 % ) of Taiwan’s combat vessels had&nbsp, missed scheduled maintenance. More disruptions to maintenance schedules are possible due to the increased speed of PLAN actions this year.

Next, the PLAN and its anti-submarine planes have increased their operations in areas critical to the Taiwan Navy’s ability to maintain its power during a war. This year, the number of PLAN anti-submarine actions in Taiwan’s northeast waters has increased significantly. The trends in these System actions are illustrated in the figure below.

The writers have drawn a dark range from Taiwan’s northernmost point at Eluanbi to Yami Island, the northern stage of the Philippines, to examine the functional areas. The limit between Taiwan’s northeast and southern waters is marked by this line. Also, the Yonaguni Channel divides the eastern lakes of Taiwan from the northern lakes.

This year, there has been a spike in the speed of these aircraft activities in Taiwan’s northeast waters. In 2023, these helicopters operated on 90 days, with 33 days ( 36.7 % ) in the southwestern waters and 59 days ( 65.6 % ) in the eastern waters. In 2024, up until August 25, there were 64 days of activity, with 17 days ( 26.6 % ) in the southwestern waters and 58 days (90.6 % ) in the eastern waters of Taiwan.

The increased exercise of these aircraft in Taiwan’s northeast waters has some implications. Initially, their presence suggests that PLAN vessels are near, as these planes take off from such arteries. Second, these operations likely involve practicing or executing anti-submarine warfare ( ASW), targeting underwater activities by Taiwan, the United States, or Japan. Third, the aircraft may be working with PLAN boats to provide administrative teaching, enhancing their ASW abilities in these waters.

The significant threat that Taiwan’s naval power protection zone faces during wartime is the result of the aircraft activities in Taiwan’s northeast waters. Taiwan’s main marine foundations are located at Zuoying in Kaohsiung, Magong in Penghu, and Su’ao in Yilan, with two of these foundations directly in the path of a possible Army abuse.

As a result, the Taiwan Navy would travel its ships to the northeast lakes of Taiwan, rather than remaining in the Taiwan Strait, during war. These anti-submarine aircraft operations in Taiwan’s war protection zone appear to be aimed at preparing the field.

These activities severely threaten Taiwan’s ability to maintain its naval fight capabilities by locating and engaging boats from Taiwan or other nations, or by working with PLAN boats to attack Chinese naval vessels.

Third, the occurrence of PLAN vessels passing through the Yonaguni Channel has considerably increased, good according to Taiwan’s prospective new submarine base in Su’ao, Yilan. As of August 25th, Japan’s Ministry of Defense reported a noticeable increase in the number of PLAN destroyers and frigates transiting these lakes. According to the information provided by Japan’s Ministry of Defense, the following table provides data on the actions of PLAN ships and battleships.

PLAN vessels have been transiting the Yonaguni Channel since 2021, with 18 registered routes as of August 25 this year, a double of the nine routes that were all of 2023.

PLAN ships ‘ increased activity in the Yonaguni Channel this year is most likely a result of Taiwan’s recently completed indigenous-built ships and the possibility of building a new underwater base at Su’ao, Yilan.

Recently, Taiwan’s even underwater center was at Zuoying in Kaohsiung, immediately facing China. Given the need for a foundation on Taiwan’s eastern coast for military force protection, the timeframe is important: Taiwan began the construction of the new underwater in&nbsp, November 2020, launched her in&nbsp, September 2023, and reports from&nbsp, March 2024&nbsp, suggested plans for a new underwater base in Su’ao, Yilan.

As previously mentioned, Taiwan’s eastern waters are crucial for preserving its naval forces during wartime, with submarine warfare underwater serving as a crucial area of engagement for the PLAN and Taiwan Navy. Therefore, the potential submarine base at Su’ao, Yilan, is strategically vital for Taiwan’s defense.

This strategic significance likely accounts for the PLAN’s increased activities in the Yonaguni Channel, which aim to prepare the groundwork for upcoming operations against Taiwan’s submarines.

In conclusion, the PLAN’s operational adjustments this year carry significant military implications. They point to China’s continued efforts to strengthen its military stance against Taiwan and suggest that the PLAN is acting strategically in response to Taiwan’s naval strategies and recent developments.

Based on the above trends, two suggestions are proposed. First, while emphasizing asymmetric warfare for decisive battles, Taiwan’s conventional military assets should receive more attention.

A lack of significant naval vessels could cause China to occupy Taiwan’s waters and impede maritime transportation to its offshore islands, given China’s attrition strategy that involves jurisdictional issues. This could resemble China’s blockade of Philippine resupply missions at the Second Thomas Shoal, which can only be effectively fought with anti-ship missiles before a war starts.

Second, in response to China’s ASW activities, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, and the United States should enhance their coordination in these critical waters. Formal military alliances or sensitive information exchanges are not required for this coordination, but it could take the form of informal collaboration.

For instance, several nations could combine naval training in two distinct but adjacent designated waters or rotate the same area. Such measures would put more pressure on the PLAN’s operations and even cause them to fail to meet its ASW goals.

Cheng-kun Ma ( [email protected]. Additionally, tw is the director of the Research Project on China’s Defense Affairs (RCDA ), and a professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies ( ROC). Tristan Tang ([email protected] ) is a research associate at the Research Project on China’s Defense Affairs (RCDA ).

Continue Reading

Netanyahu’s war to end all wars – Asia Times

After rejecting a US-initiated Gaza peace and European allies ‘ pleas to avoid a wider Middle East conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has devised his own more provocative strategy to secure Israeli military dominance in the region he believes has lost.

Netanyahu considers Hamas’s martial beat a first step toward closing gaps left over from the assumption of previous wars that, in his mind, guaranteed potential people. The Jewish head vehemently desires only enduring successes.

Beyond the military and political loss of Hamas, Netanyahu’s wider targets are to:

  • Eliminate the military criticism in the West Bank and overthrow the Palestinian Authority that controls some of the country.
  • Remove the skill of Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim military and political group in Lebanon, to threaten Israel physically.
  • Undermine Iran’s command of the anti-Israel” Axis of Resistance,” which includes Houthi rebels in Yemen, Syria, and the Shiite Muslim firm that has been preventing send visitors in the Red Sea that leads to the Suez Canal.
  • Put an end to the” two-state answer”, a peace solution long promoted by the United States that do offer Israeli sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Ariel Sharon, an Israeli army general and bellicose one-term prime minister, later set out his goals in the 20th century in the form of Netanyahu’s vision.

Numerous protests have broken out in Israel against Netanyahu’s management of the Gaza war—but only in regard to arranging a ceasefire with Hamas to secure the release of about 100 hostages held in Gaza. His wider goals have attracted a lot of support and little opposition from the outside world.

” Even if an opposition party came to power, Israel’s strategic position is unlikely to be dramatically altered”, said Hugh Lovatt, a senior researcher at the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank based in Washington.

No major Israeli Jewish political party is currently in favor of a two-state solution or the end of Israel’s illegal settlement project, despite the possibility of a ceasefire agreement with Gaza and a less confrontational approach to the Palestinian Authority.

Here are the outlines of Netanyahu’s plans:

Keeping watch over Gaza

Hamas initiated the Gaza war when it raided a set of Israeli communities and killed more than 1, 200 civilians. Israel launched massive airstrikes and ground assaults as retaliation. The toll on Palestinian life has been heavy.

Medical personnel in Gaza have identified more than 40, 000 fatalities, including thousands of women and children. Hamas offers no statistics on military casualties.

More than two million people in Gaza have been forced to live in makeshift tent camps. Camps and other refuges have in turn been subject to assaults, forcing the internal refugees to flee again.

At least 70 % of Gaza’s residential housing, as well as a number of schools, businesses, and hospitals, are thought to be severely damaged by international aid organizations.

More than 40 million tons of debris are strewn across the enclave–enough to fill dump trucks lined up from New York City to Singapore, according to Bloomberg, the US-based financial news agency.

Israeli military personnel have won. Hamas can no longer mount” significant resistance” &nbsp, to Israeli forces from there, officials said last week. Despite being” a terror group and a guerrilla group,” intelligence officers did issue a caution that armed remnants still operate as “guerrilla groups.”

Efforts to ensure Israel’s permanent physical control of Gaza is underway. Israel is building a limited area of restraint. The project is meant to close loopholes in the efforts by Sharon to subdue Gaza resistance.

Sharon served as prime minister from 2001 to 2006, and in 2005 she decided to leave the coastal community, raze 21, and send 8, 000 Israelis home. &nbsp, It was the end of a troublesome occupation that began in 1967 during the Six Day War. He felt that a fence around the land borders and an off-shore naval blockade were sufficient defense.

October 7, 2023, shattered that notion. A pared-down reoccupation has been initiated by Netanyahu. Inside Gaza’s northern and eastern borders with Israel, military engineers have cleared housing and vegetation a half mile deep.

A buffer zone created by the clearance creates a free-fire zone and lessens military surveillance and patrols. Israeli naval vessels will continue to patrol the sea coast.

However, Netanyahu’s plan to militarize the southern border abutting Egypt has a gap. Israeli troops currently patrol the” Philadelphi Corridor” along the frontier, and Netanyahu wants them left there permanently.

Netanyahu rebuffed recent negotiations by alleging that Hamas had smuggled weapons into Gaza from Egypt through underground tunnels. But Egypt objects.

It opposes any modifications to the Palestinians ‘ control-affirming agreement from 2005 with Israel. “Egypt reiterates its position. At a press conference last week in Cairo, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty declared that the country “rejects any military presence along the border crossing.”

The comment was made in the presence of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, who did not object.

Israel is constructing an east-west road through central Gaza from Israel to the Mediterranean Sea, cutting the constricting enclave in half to further strengthen control. Passage across it to the north or south is already under the watch of Israeli troops who examine travelers and cargo. Biometric identification cards will be provided to residents to check if they are on “terrorist lists” (terrorist lists ).

The corridor will also be lined with fences and sprinkled with watchtowers to surveil the area – another throwback to Ariel Sharon’s policies. To separate Palestinian areas from Israeli settlements and Israel itself, he constructed such roads and structures throughout the West Bank countryside.

West Bank and Palestinian Authority

Since August 2023, the West Bank has been engaged in persistent low-intensity combat. It will likely intensify. Yoav Gallant, Israel’s defense minister, called Israel’s military practices in the West Bank “mowing the lawn,” according to this month’s statement.

The phrase refers to the tactic of mounting armed incursions into nominally Palestinian-governed territory. They are intended to lessen armed groups ‘ preemption, either by capturing or killing their members. Gallant played on lawn-care metaphors by describing the increase of West Bank raids as “pulling out the roots”.

According to the Palestinian Authority ( PA ), 716 Palestinians have died as a result of Israeli incursions on October 7. Save the Children, an international child relief organization, says that 158 of the victims have been children.

The PA appears unable to halt armed resistance that encourages Israeli retaliation or to stop Israeli incursions he deems harmful to civilians. His inert response leaves civilians to fend for themselves.

After the police detonated a hidden roadside bomb on a street used by Israeli forces to enter the West Bank town of Jenin last week, fighting broke out between PA police and residents of the town. Pro-Hamas protests in Ramallah, the administrative center of PA rule, have broken out occasionally, prompting PA police to break them up.

The last time PA President Mahmoud Abbas made an official statement about the Gaza conflict was in April, when he threatened to sever ties with the US over its arms supply to Israel. Abbas sees himself as the leader of all Palestinians.

When particularly widespread pro-Hamas demonstrations broke out in July, he appealed to Palestinians” to unite, be patient and steadfast in the face of the Israeli occupation”.

Israeli forces raided and shut down Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based global news network, as a reminder that Abbas ‘ control of Palestinian territory is limited. It is one of the few major broadcasters that reported directly from either PA or Hamas territory. In Gaza, three al-Jazeera journalists were killed during the conflict. They are among 116 reporters and broadcast technicians killed so far during the Gaza war.

After a civil war with Hamas led to the end of PA control of the Gaza Strip, Abbas has been in charge of the West Bank since 2007. However, his failure to block the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, along with charges of corruption and his hazy public stand on the Gaza war, has drastically shrunk his popularity.

Only 9 % of voters would support Abbas if presidential elections were held today, according to a survey conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah. His popularity is a distant second to jailed Palestine Liberation Organization member Marwan Barghouti, with 32 % support, and current Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, at 31 %.

However, the Biden administration has backed a “reformed” PA to handle post-war negotiations. ” The future of the Gaza Strip is firmly linked to the future of the PA and its president Mahmoud Abbas”, wrote Naomi Neumann of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. A weak PA will hardly ever be able to fill the leadership void that many people would like to see filled in post-war Gaza.

Lebanon and Hezbollah

The Netanyahu government has moved its war effort to Lebanon in light of the lessening impact of the Gaza war and the West Bank under small-scale raids. The result has been a massive intensification of bombing and a series of remote assassinations.

Israeli forces and Hezbollah have exchanged rockets, artillery, and armed drone fire across Israel’s northern border since October 7. It was kind of a calibrated conflict that produced few casualties.

However, that changed last week. Netanyahu announced the goal of driving Hezbollah away from the northern border in order to permit some 60, 000 Israeli residents who had fled the area since October 7 to return. ” I’ve already said that we will safely return residents of the north to their homes. And that is exactly what we will do”, he announced.

His words came as a result of Israel’s announcement to send two army battalions, totaling about 20 000 soldiers, along with tanks and mobile artillery, to the Lebanese border.

Israel heralded its offensive by detonating remote-controlled explosives embedded in hundreds of small hand-held electronic pagers that killed around 300 Hezbollah operatives and bystanders in Beirut.

The Israelis followed that attack with similar walkie-talkie explosions, which resulted in the deaths of 400 Hezbollah members. Around 2, 000 more were wounded. Then, Israel launched bombing raids against Hezbollah’s rocket launchers.

Hezbollah responded on September 20 with 150 rockets fired into Israel and Israel’s air force attacked again. Hezbollah launched about 200 rockets over the weekend into Israel, about 50 miles away from the port of Haifa. One person was killed and an unknown number of people were injured due to panic car accidents, Israeli media said,

Defense Minister Yoav Gallant deadpanned the idea that violence has entered a “new phase.” ” The center of gravity is shifting to the north through the diversion of forces and resources”, he added.

Netanyahu’s simplest plan is to avert Hezbollah’s army’s withdrawal from the Litani River, where its army had agreed to go under a UN agreement to end a 2006 conflict in Lebanon. Since then, Hezbollah fighters and weaponry had filtered back across the river.

However, Netanyahu wants more, according to Israeli observers. ” The idea that Israel cannot realize its sovereignty over the northern parts of the country is something that cannot be tolerated”, said Kobi Michael, an analyst for Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies.

For that, a survey by INSS shows that the general public backs Netanyahu’s project. A poll conducted in August showed 52 % of Israeli Jews supported a wide-scale offensive in Lebanon ( 44 % if Israeli Arabs are included ).

According to Gilbert Achcar, a professor at the London School of Oriental and African Studies,” Netanyahu and the opposition believe that there is no other option on their northern front besides for Hezbollah to accept to withdraw north.”

Achcar judged that Israel’s army and intelligence services would gain prestige by &nbsp, launching” a fierce war” that could “reinforce the state’s deterrent capacity, significantly diminished on the Lebanese front since 7 October”.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah appears to be thinking about the military reputation of his organization as well.

” What happened could be described as a declaration of war”, he said in a televised appearance. Without a doubt, we have experienced a significant blow, at least in the history of the resistance in Lebanon. As he spoke, Israeli jets broke the sound barrier over Beirut to mock his broadcast.

On paper, Hezbollah appears to have the weapons necessary to avenge an Israeli invasion. Its rocket arsenal poses a threat to Israeli towns. The arsenal, according to Israeli intelligence, includes about 150, 000 rockets, guided missiles, and a few ballistic missiles capable of hitting targets throughout Israel.

The group Hezbollah has approximately 30, 000 active fighters and up to 20, 000 reservists. How many people have died in the pager and telephone bombings and the subsequent bombings in south Lebanon are unknown.

” Eliminating the threat from Hezbollah’s rockets will be extremely difficult. According to a study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies ( CSIS ) think tank in Washington, the rockets can be launched from trucks, increasing their mobility and thus survivability, or from underground bunkers, as was the case during the 2006 war.

” The consequences of a war between Israel and Hezbollah would be catastrophic”, wrote Daniel Elkin, a researcher for the Atlantic Council, another Washington-based think tank. A conflict like this would likely have a far greater impact on American culture. &nbsp, This is…a combustible situation that threatens to escalate into what could be characterized as ‘ a forever war on steroids.'”

In any case, Israel has no intention of limiting its attacks to Hezbollah-controlled areas of Lebanon. ” It is important that we be clear—the one responsible for the fire from Lebanon is not only Hezbollah or the terrorist elements that carry it out, but also the government of Lebanon and the Lebanese state that allows the shooting from its territory”, said Benny Gantz, a minister without portfolio in Netanyahu’s cabinet. In the north and north of Lebanon, there is no target or military infrastructure that is not in our sights.

Netanyahu has fingered Iran as the source of instability on its borders. And Iran is either attempting to aid its proxies at the Israeli border or appearing to be a paper tiger.

Iran has taken no steps so far to help Hezbollah, its longtime ally, fend off the Israeli assault. Ismail Haniyeh, the assassin of Hamas leader, was killed by an Israeli missile that entered his room at a Tehran diplomatic guest house, and Iran made a pledge to avenge his death. To date, no revenge action has been taken.

Nonetheless, on September 23, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif said vengeance will come, someday:” We want to move in a more peaceful, more stable world for our citizens and for the citizens of the world. We wo n’t go to war, he declared, but we will fight back.

Biden’s Valedictory

US President Biden expressed concern over the growing Middle East war in an address addressed on September 24 to an annual gathering of the UN General Assembly. He offered a stew of platitudes that neither outlined ways to get a Gaza ceasefire nor truncate the newly intensified war in Lebanon.

” Full-scale war is not in anyone’s interest,” he said. Even as the situation has escalated, a diplomatic solution is still possible. It is actually the only way to have long-lasting security, according to Biden, while urging world leaders to find diplomatic solutions in both Gaza and Lebanon.

In reference to Lebanon, he added,” Even though the situation has escalated, a diplomatic solution is still possible. In fact, it is still the only way to ensure long-term security and allows the citizens of both nations to return to their safe homes along the border. And that’s what we are working tirelessly to achieve”.

Biden’s performance exemplifies Washington’s diminished influence in the Middle East rather than a one-time diplomatic failure. The US ‘ inability to forge a Gaza ceasefire, deter Israel from intensifying the war with Hezbollah, and, for that matter, to clear the Red Sea of periodic attacks from Iran’s Houthi allies in Yemen all add up to a spectacle of a downgraded superpower.

Netanyahu also objected to the US’s request for a two-state solution, a formula that has been in place for more than 35 years. It was something Boden had n’t promoted before and mentioned for the first time when the war in Gaza began to drag on.

Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at King’s College in London, criticized Biden for “performative foreign and security policy” by pouring food aid into Gaza because the country was “besieged by Israel whose war is largely funded by the US.” The act showed” the impotence of US power projection in the region”, Krieg concluded.

Before he was first elected prime minister in 1996, it would be difficult to imagine that Biden, who was a member of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his distinguished legislative career, was unaware that Netanyahu had been a staunch proponent of the two-state solution.

Thirteen years earlier, Netanyahu wrote a book that laid out, according to its blurb, how real peace is possible “only if it takes the nature of Middle East politics and the volatile forces within Arab and Islamic society”.

He continued,” One simply cannot talk about peace and security for Israel and in the same breath expect Israel to significantly alter its defense boundaries,” he wrote at a time when Israel was in charge of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

He promoted a different two-state solution: the creation of” a Jewish state” between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea and another,” the state of Jordan” where” they may exercise Palestinian Arab self-determination”.

Continue Reading

Pacific Missile Crisis: US points Typhon at China from Philippines – Asia Times

The US Typhon weapon game’s endless implementation in the Philippines indicates a brave move to combat China in the Pacific, escalating regional tensions to a new height and igniting political divisions there.

Many media sources reported this month that the US will continue to have its mid-range Existing weapon program in the northern Philippines continuously, despite concerns from China and the danger of retaliation, according to Philippine and US officials.

The technique, which can build Tomahawk and Standard Missile-6 weapons and probably strike targets in mainland China, was first developed for joint exercises conducted in April.

The battle training tested the state’s deployability aboard Air Force plane. Spanish officials are considering keeping the weapon system in the north Philippines until April of next year, when US and Philippine forces will conduct their annual Balikatan large-scale battle activities, according to AP.

In light of rising tensions in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, the Typhon’s continued presence indicates that the US and Philippines intend to strengthen local deterrence. Foreign leaders, including the unusual ministry, have expressed concern, warning that the implementation may destroy the place and lead to an arms race.

However, Philippine Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro rejected these claims, accusing China of interference in the Philippines ‘ internal affairs and using “reverse psychology” to deter the improvement of his country’s defense capabilities.

He further criticized China for its military deployment in the South China Sea, where it has equipped fortified islands with anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile defense, and demanded that Beijing “destroy their nuclear arsenal, remove all of their ballistic missile capabilities, get out of the West Philippine Sea, and get out of Mischief Reef.”

Philippine military leaders, including General Romeo Brawner Jr, have called for the Typhon system to remain permanently, citing national defense needs. This deployment is a part of US efforts to strengthen its military presence in the Indo-Pacific, where China has quickly increased its missile arsenal.

The US Typhon missile system’s indefinite deployment in the Philippines may represent a change in the US’ long-standing extended deterrence strategy in the Pacific.

The missile system deployment allows for force dispersion to increase unpredictability to potential adversaries while improving survivability and lethality, in addition to its base strategy that emphasizes scalability and strategic ambiguity. &nbsp,

Do Young Lee claims in a December 2021 article in the peer-reviewed Security Studies journal that after the US bases were shut down in 1992, America’s extended deterrence strategy in the Philippines changed from forward conventional deployments during the Cold War to short-term rotational deployments.

Lee points out that since then, the US has focused on strengthening its security ties with the Philippines through formal agreements and rotational deployments rather than on keeping a permanent presence, as seen in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, whose downsizing or removal would cost a lot of money and political.

The US’s continued “lily pad” strategy, which was made operational by the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement ( EDCA ), allows the US to access nine military installations in the Philippines.

These lily pads may be referred to as forward operating bases with a US presence that can be flexibly upscaled or downsized as needed depending on the security situation. The Typhon’s indefinite deployment represents a significant improvement in US capabilities in the Philippines.

The US may have taken inspiration from Russia and China’s strategy of concealing military movements as training exercises by claiming that the Typhon missile would be stationed in the Philippines for training purposes.

Similar to how Russia asserted that its troop increase in Belarus in February 2022 was a result of military exercises rather than an invasion force for Ukraine. Similar to this, China’s frequent and growing naval exercises around Taiwan could eventually lead to a blockade of Taiwan.

US strategic uncertainty surrounding the Typhon deployment may at the same time entice and restrain the Philippines.

On the one hand, China may avoid further escalation by indefinitely deploying the missiles without fully committing the US to the Philippines ‘ defense, as required by their mutual defense agreement.

The Philippines may be prevented from asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea unilaterally due to the lack of US-specific guarantees for permanent deployment, which could entice the US to escalate its conflict with China.

Despite the ambiguity surrounding the US’s use of Typhoon missiles, the Philippines ‘ archipelagic configuration fits the US Distributed Maritime Operations ( DMO ) operating strategy.

This idea involves dispersing US Navy units over a larger operational area to allow for mutual support and focused fire on targets while reducing the risk of adversaries detecting and targeting more difficult targets.

The US can use resilient communication links to maintain coordination and adaptability in a contested environment, deploy Typhon sensors and weapons across multiple EDCA sites, and deploy longer-range, unmanned systems.

However, the deployment may experience operational difficulties as a result of the Philippines ‘ apparent lack of air and missile defense capabilities. Instead of relying on the Philippines to defend its missile defense systems, this could force the US to deploy its resources.

Additionally, China’s aircraft carrier deployments in the Philippine Sea may help to convey that a US Typhon launcher-style resupply operation is not an option for the Philippines, demonstrating that it can halt any Guam-related resupply and reinforcement efforts.

More than any military vulnerability, though, fickle, venal Filipino political elites may be the US Typhon deployment’s Achilles ‘ heel. &nbsp,

Lianne Chia mentions that the current Ferdinand Marcos Jr. administration’s strengthening of ties with the US has also strained ties with politicians who were once associated with the former Rodrigo Duterte administration, who favor engagement with China and hostility with the West.

According to China, vice president Sara Duterte resigned from the Cabinet and former president Duterte criticized Marcos Jr. as a US puppet.

With crucial mid-term elections set to take place in the Philippines the following year, Chia notes that this bubbling conflict could have an impact on the country’s foreign policy. Future US defense initiatives in the Philippines, including the Typhon deployment, are in jeopardized.

However, feuding Philippine political dynasties backed by competing external powers, i. e., the US and China, sacrifice national interests for the sake of a few retaining power, wealth and prestige.

Continue Reading

Over the limit: Relentless work is India’s new noxious normal – Asia Times

The untimely demise of 26-year-old certified officer Anna Sebastian Perayil, only four weeks into her career at Ernst &amp, Young, is a devastating warning of the dangerous and untenable work tradition that permeates India’s white-collar industries.

What started out as a promising occupation for Anna ended tragically. Her departure is more than just a loss for her family and friends; it also reflects a widespread problem that is bringing many young experts to the precipice.

Business India fosters an environment where stress is celebrated as dedication without regard for its detrimental results on mental and physical health in its glory of continuous work. The outcome: a silent outbreaks of stress has reached a breaking point.

Many professionals employed by India’s multinational corporations ( MNCs ) are all too familiar with Anna’s tragic experience. Studies suggest that she was overwhelmed by force, which led to extreme anxiety, sleepless nights, and, finally, a fatal collapse in her wellness.

In a heart-wrenching email, Anna’s family, Anita Augustine, shared that her child was frequently assigned tasks beyond her power, often during the night, with the justification:” that’s what we all do”.

This mentality—that exhaustion is just part of the job—has become entrenched in business India. The standardization of long working hours and bad working conditions, especially in high-stressed settings like those in IT and consulting, is accepted as the price of victory.

However, the cost is far too great. According to a 2021 Deloitte study, 80 % of American workers report feeling stressed at work, with around 60 % citing overwhelming tasks and a lack of work-life stability. Employers can no longer afford to overlook this as a cost of running a business.

India has some of the world’s longest working hours, and this overwork culture is harming employees ‘ mental well-being. According to a survey conducted for LinkedIn in 2022, 77 % of employees believe their workplaces lack adequate mental health care, leaving employees to deal with their struggles in silence.

Employees are unable to seek help because of this culture of silence, which is made worse by the stigma surrounding mental health. Many people continue until it’s too late because they worry that accepting their vulnerabilities will hurt their professional prospects.

India’s labor ministry launched an investigation, vowing to take action on this issue. However, this inquiry must go beyond token gestures or promises of change.

India’s current labor laws, such as the Occupational Safety, Health, and Working Conditions Code ( 2020 ), primarily focus on physical safety and fail to address the mental health strains that white-collar employees endure.

This oversight is dangerous, especially as mental health issues become increasingly prevalent. Without comprehensive legal protections, corporations will continue to exploit the lack of regulation, perpetuating a work culture that values output over well-being.

A significant part of the problem lies in the fact that MNCs and IT firms, like Ernst &amp, Young, fall under the Shops and Establishments Act, which offers limited safeguards. This legal flaw allows businesses to demand excessive hours without receiving proper compensation, pushing employees to the point of burnout.

A 2022 KPMG report found that 70 % of white-collar professionals in India work beyond the legally mandated 48-hour workweek, with 75 % receiving no compensation for overtime. This is a direct threat to the health and safety of workers as well as a violation of labor rights.

In response to Anna’s death, Ernst &amp, Young issued a statement expressing sadness but downplayed her workload, claiming it was no heavier than that of her peers.

This, however, raises an even more troubling question. What does the fact that Anna’s situation was deemed “normal” say about the typical corporate culture in India?

It suggests that the system, which is fundamentally broken, is endemic to the employees ‘ excessive demands rather than exceptional. &nbsp,

Indian labor laws must enforce clear limits on overtime, with mandatory compensation and stringent enforcement. Overwork must be eradicated, and businesses should no longer be able to exploit employees under the guise of professional dedication.

Beyond legal reforms, India’s corporate culture must change. Overwork should no longer be viewed as a badge of honor, but as a perilous habit that threatens lives.

Anna Sebastian’s death is a heartbreaking reminder of the cracks in India’s work culture. Her passing has highlighted the need for reform to enforce reasonable work hours, hold employers accountable for their actions, and protect employees ‘ mental health.

According to a study conducted in 2021 by the World Health Organization ( WHO ), each dollar spent on mental health care generates a productivity return of US$ 4, which highlights the financial and human value of these reforms.

India needs to change so that ambition is no longer contagious with mental health and that employees ‘ well-being is seen as essential and not disposable.

Sachi Satapathy is the director of AF Development Care, and may be reached at [email protected]

Continue Reading

Unwielded sword: Taiwan’s indigenous diplomacy in the Pacific – Asia Times

This article first appeared on Pacific Forum, and it has since been republished with your type agreement. Read the original below.

In the tumultuous geopolitical pot that is the Indo-Pacific, Taiwan finds itself locked in a battle for identification, its every diplomatic maneuver shadowed by Beijing’s light. However, amid this battle lies an unnoticed instrument of impact: the&nbsp, indigenous communities of Taiwan.

Here, there is a case for asserting Taiwan’s indigenous diplomacy, a strategy that would give Taiwan’s Pacific diplomacy new life and provide a counterweight to China’s drumbeat of investment and infrastructure. No for financial posturing nor violent bluster.

Taiwan’s indigenous cultures, from the&nbsp, Amis&nbsp, to the&nbsp, Atayal&nbsp, and&nbsp, Paiwan, include a mural of nations, histories, and customs stretching back into antiquity. For instance, the&nbsp, Amis Harvest Festival—a important cultural event—symbolizes the group’s strong link to their property and traditions, which could relate with other indigenous populations across the Pacific.

Also, the&nbsp, Atayal women’s weaving traditions&nbsp, function as an emblem of cultural survival in the face of modernization—skills resonating greatly with other indigenous populations striving to keep their heritage.

Unseen possibility of indigenous soft energy

These communities are now poised to become Taiwan’s most improbable ambassadors after surviving colonization and the homogenizing hands of civilization. Unlike China’s Han-centric historical monolithism, Taiwan’s indigenous individuals exemplify variety, endurance, and a dedication to preserve what others would remove.

Taiwan has made significant strides in empowering its indigenous groups, demonstrating a responsibility that can be immediately reflected in its politics. For instance, the&nbsp, Council of Indigenous Peoples&nbsp, ( CIP ) was established in 1996 to advocate for indigenous rights, preserving their languages, culture, and traditions.

Also, the&nbsp, inclusion of aboriginal representatives&nbsp, in the Congressional Yuan, and the 2005&nbsp, Indigenous Peoples Basic Law&nbsp, provide proper mechanisms to ensure that aboriginal voices are heard, not just internally but on worldwide stages.

Aboriginal soft power is a tale of endurance, life, and self-assertion that sounds across the Pacific and Southeast Asia, where aboriginal cultures, too, have been trampled by history’s heavy shoe.

China may bring roads, railways, and bridges, but it cannot build identity. In the ideological chessboard of the Pacific, Taiwan’s indigenous diplomacy is a counterweight to China’s infrastructural blandishments, appealing to hearts rather than wallets.

Taiwan is a living parody of China’s cultural homogenization, praising plurality over conformity and the few’s rights over the many’s oppression.

Building bridges, not barges

For Taiwan, the Pacific Islands—with their significant indigenous populations—create ideal conditions for a renewed form of diplomatic interaction. Nations like Palau and the Marshall Islands, which already recognize Taiwan diplomatically, are ripe for a meaningful, culturally infused diplomacy.

For instance, &nbsp, Palau’s traditional knowledge systems, grounded in environmental sustainability, align perfectly with Taiwan’s indigenous wisdom about conservation. Taiwan’s indigenous peoples have centuries-old knowledge of sustainable practices, such as the&nbsp, traditional Amis agricultural system, which has long emphasized balance with the environment. This knowledge is germane to Pacific Island nations&nbsp, grappling with climate change&nbsp, and rising sea levels.

Imagine, if you will, the impact of Taiwan’s indigenous environmental wisdom on island nations confronting similar ecological challenges. The&nbsp, Indigenous Television Channel, which promotes indigenous languages and culture, has been a major supporter of cultural and language revitalization initiatives in Taiwan that aim to preserve this indigenous wisdom.

Programs like these highlight Taiwan’s indigenous diplomacy as a powerful tool for forming cultural and environmental alliances with Pacific Islanders.

While Beijing pours its resources into grand infrastructure projects, Taiwan can present something more rewarding: knowledge, solidarity, and a sustainable future embedded in indigenous understanding.

Fostering indigenous exchanges—in art, language and traditional practices— Taiwan can cultivate bonds transcending geopolitics. For instance, cultural exchange programs such as between&nbsp, Taiwan and Palau, focusing on traditional crafts, dance, and language, offer a personal and profound connection. Cultural exchanges, unlike China’s transactional diplomacy, breed a loyalty that cannot be bought.

As I have argued&nbsp, regarding UK-Taiwan educational diplomacy, such soft power initiatives go beyond state-to-state relations and foster enduring partnerships through shared cultural heritage and academic collaboration. No amount of checkbook diplomacy can replace Taiwan’s indigenous diplomacy once it has gained popularity among Pacific Islanders.

Cultural resonance as a weapon

China’s ambitions in the Pacific, framed as economic outreach, are transparent to anyone willing to look. Investments and infrastructure projects, as grand as they may appear, frequently leave a bitter aftertaste—debt-laden populations and cultural erasure.

Herein lies Taiwan’s opportunity: China’s inability to resonate culturally. Taiwan’s indigenous diplomacy provides a model of cooperation built on mutual respect, shared heritage, and cultural preservation. Taiwan’s advocacy for indigenous rights, solidified through domestic policies and Taiwan’s participation in forums like the&nbsp, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, aligns it with global movements for indigenous recognition.

For example, Icyang Parod, the incumbent&nbsp, minister of the CIP, has been an outspoken advocate for indigenous issues internationally, showing that Taiwan is not just protecting these rights at home but exporting such values to the world.

Indigenous empowerment is a cause China is ill-positioned to counter, given the treatment of its&nbsp, own ethnic minorities&nbsp, such as the Uyghurs and Tibetans. Indigenous diplomacy, for Taiwan, delivers not purely trade and aid, but dignity and recognition.

A blueprint for action

Without strategy, Taiwan must turn this latent soft power into diplomatic clout, because all the potential in the world amounts to little. To do so, it must act decisively.

First, indigenous-led diplomatic missions should be dispatched to Pacific and Southeast Asian nations, prioritizing cultural diplomacy and environmental knowledge-sharing. Taiwan must put indigenous diplomacy at the center of its international strategy, moving it from a cultural gesture to a fundamental component.

Second, government-sponsored educational and cultural exchange programs must be launched, enabling Taiwan’s indigenous communities to connect with their overseas counterparts. The&nbsp, Taiwan Indigenous Education and Cultural Exchange Initiative&nbsp, has begun laying this groundwork, but these efforts need to be expanded to create sustainable connections.

Taiwan’s indigenous peoples, with their centuries-old wisdom, can offer much in areas like conservation and sustainable development, both of which resonate strongly in the Pacific Islands.

Third, Taiwan must make an assertive statement in international forums about indigenous rights, establishing itself as a global champion and trailblazer for these issues. Taiwan’s participation in forums like the&nbsp, World Conference on Indigenous Peoples&nbsp, will undeniably bolster its soft power, differentiating itself from China’s rigid authoritarian approach.

Of course, such a strategy is not without its pitfalls. The political sensibilities that surround Taiwan’s indigenous communities must be handled with caution because they are not monolithic. Anything less than that runs the risk of patronizing the very communities Taiwan aspires to elevate must be conducted by indigenous voices.

And then, inevitably, comes China. The red dragon will not take kindly to Taiwan’s foray into indigenous diplomacy, likely viewing it as a direct affront to its “one China” mantra. Yet, with the right framing—cultural exchange, not political provocation— Taiwan can weather this storm and come out stronger.

New frontier in Taiwan’s diplomacy

Taiwan’s indigenous diplomacy is a sharpened sword waiting to be wielded. It gives the island a rare opportunity to redefine its standing on a global scale, setting it apart from China’s crass, transactional dominance, through economic coercion.

Indigenous diplomacy has the power to shift the Pacific’s axis of influence by being used with precision and crafting alliances that are rooted in connections of shared heritage and genuine mutual respect. In doing so, Taiwan can rewrite the region’s balance of power.

Taiwan must fully embrace this tactic in order to allow its indigenous peoples to lead a diplomatic revolution. Taiwan needs to speak boldly to both governments and people.

Taiwan’s indigenous diplomacy is a breath of fresh air in a world that is suffocated by the brute force of economic might. It reminds one that cultural bonds are more lasting than any contract ever signed ink.

Mitchell Gallagher ( hj0003@wayne .edu ) is a PhD candidate at Wayne State University, focusing on international relations, Taiwan studies, and the geopolitical dynamics of the Asia-Pacific region. His research examines cultural diplomacy and soft power tactics.

Continue Reading

‘New’ antisemitism blurs complicated and dangerous lines – Asia Times

There have been numerous reports that racism is on the rise around the world following the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7 and the subsequent continuing conflict in Gaza. Attacks on Jewish churches and organizations, some of them uneasily close to home, bear this out.

In the United States, racist acts tripled the week after the Hamas problems, and the United Kingdom recorded a 1, 353 % increase in such situations. In Australia, 37 anti-Jewish occurrences were reported the week after the Hamas problems, compared to one the previous year.

Antisemitism has a story that goes back several decades. It occurs virtually everywhere Jews, against the rule of the majority, choose to cling to their religious and cultural personality. What is “new” nowadays is that racism debates have then veered into contentious ones regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Now, hatred takes both common and new forms of expression. The creator of the new book, The New Antisemitism, is speaker Shalom Lappin, a graduate of Queen Mary University in London. But the word “new hatred” does not relate to him alone: it has been used by a number of other poets.

We can simply understand the increase of racism in the larger perspective of growing injustice and anti-globalization movements, which” discuss a common focus on identity politics and a quickly anti-elitist rejection of organized political institutions,” according to Lappin’s book’s fundamental thesis. I am never fully convinced by this assertion.

At the same time, he argues that are currently three isolates of racism: belonging to the right, the left and radical Islam. A rise of hatred is undoubtedly linked to the rise of populist autocratic activities, particularly in Europe.

Heavy traditional roots

The New Antisemitism excels in tracing the antisemitism’s traditional origins in both Western and Islamic civilizations. The long history of the persecution of Jews in Christian Europe makes for dreadful, if comfortable, reading. However, it is crucial to dispel the myth that the Holocaust was apparently a singular event that only existed in Nazi Germany.

Antisemitism has also been expunged from almost all mainstream churches, despite the fact that it has since been disapproved of by practically all of its followers. In the US, Lappin writes, it has taken hold among light nationalists, who support their hatred by claiming the society is founded on Christian values. In Putin’s Russia, the close connections between the condition and the Orthodox Church have helped revive old strains of hatred, based on the story that the Jews killed Christ.

Immigrants were viewed as “people of the book,” even though their position was frequently constrained, despite Christianity’s condemnation of Jews as the murderers of Jesus. Antisemitism in Muslim societies is a complex synthesis of conventional notions of powerful and mysterious Jews as well as a deep hatred for Israel.

As has been true generally in much of Europe, the desire for a real national identity, whether defined by race or by religion, makes Jews a significant target – as indeed are additional minorities, such as the Hazaras in Afghanistan or Roma in many European countries.

It’s difficult to completely separate antisemitism from hostility toward Israel at this time. Right-wing Europeans like Viktor Orban in Hungary are vocal pro-Israel supporters while engaging in antisemitism at home.

Former US president Donald Trump tinkered with antisemitism while also, as he frequently states, supporting Israel in a greater way than any of his predecessors during his term in office. In fact, Donald Trump has made the claim that Harris ‘ election will cause Israel to be destroyed in two years.

Many of Israel’s staunchest defenders label their critics as antisemitic. It is crucial for those of us who criticize Israel’s position to distinguish between prejudice against Jews and opposition to Israel. The issue is best illustrated by the Star of David’s status as both an Israeli flag and a Jewish identity marker.

Hostility to Israel is clearly the main driving force in extreme left antisemitism, but here Lappin is at his least convincing. Rather like the Murdoch newspapers, he consistently argues that major elements of the left have embraced a new antisemitism. His evidence is less substantial in this context than it is for fundamentalist or right-wing antisemitism.

In the cases he cites, there is unquestionable evidence of Hamas ‘ uncritical viewpoints and a disinterested view of how hostility toward Israel might turn into antisemitism. His main sources of inspiration are the now-discredited Jeremy Corbyn wing of the British Labour Party ( Corbyn initially disputed Hamas ‘ designation as a terrorist organization ) and the Palestinian-supporting university camps that emerged following the Hamas attacks on October 7.

However, claims of” the alacrity with which much of the postmodernist left endorsed the Hamas terrorist attack as “anti-colonial resistance” give too much weight to left-wing marginal groups, where Israel’s opposition translates into clearly antisemitic language.

He contends that a number of rigid ideologies, which prioritize class issues over identity, are the foundation of contemporary progressive thought. He writes that this implies that Jews who want to take part in progressive movements must “declare their active hostility to Israel as a country, rather than simply oppose the policies of its government.”

His claims about a “rising tide of anti-Jewish racism” and “mass demonstrations featuring anti-Jewish sloganeering in British and European cities” make sense if one accepts that anti-Zionist language, and calls to free Palestine “from the river to the sea”, are inherently antisemitic.

This is a tenable argument if such proclamations refer to the denial of sovereignty to the seven million Jews who currently reside in Israel. It is less persuasive when one considers that the Israeli Knesset, the country’s legislature, has expressly opposed a two-state solution and that many members of the current administration have their own version of” the river to the sea,” which rejects any chance of Palestinian sovereignty being recognized.

Lappin himself acknowledges the necessity of recognizing Palestinians ‘ equal rights to sovereignty and recognition. He also criticizes the Netanyahu administration’s expansionist and autocratic views. He opposes Netanyahu’s efforts to enact judicial restraints, as do many Israelis, and is horrified by the West Bank’s rapid Jewish settlements, which frequently result in violent clashes with Palestinian residents.

He nowhere mentions Australia, but some here echo his argument that anti-Zionism and calls to free Palestine are antisemitic. Australia’s Envoy Against Antisemitism, Jillian Segal, has claimed:” Antisemitic behavior is not only present on many campuses but is an embedded part of the culture”.

This is a very serious charge that requires serious proof to back it up. Lampin points to the rise in complaints about hate crimes committed against Jews and the need for greater security in neighborhoods like synagogues, schools, and community centers. Where is the proof, however, that the left is to blame for the rising antisemitism rate?

Simplistic arguments

Lappin is more convincing when he criticizes claims that Israel is a settler-colonial state, equivalent to the US or Australia. He explains that for two millennia, there was a steady Jewish population in Palestine.

More importantly, the Jews who have made their way to Israel over the past century did not do so as agents of an imperial power, but as refugees from numerous persecutions in Europe and the Middle East.

I agree with the claim that many people, both on the left and right, either ignore antisemitism or use it for a reason. But this is true of other forms of prejudice, too. The sad truth is that the majority of us are largely unaware of oppression and discrimination when it is directed at individuals with whom we have no affinity.

Lappin provides a very useful summary of how modern Israel developed, how it has developed over the years, how it has fought its Arab neighbors, and how it has failed to settle disputes with the Palestinians. His claim that “both Islamists and Jewish messianists have seized control of the debate” is a necessary correction for the simplistic arguments made too frequently on both sides is one.

For Lappin, the need to find a two-state solution remains, even as support for it seems to have collapsed on both sides of the conflict. In an attempt to reconcile two apparently irreconcilable claims, he points to other examples where sovereignty has been shared: in particular, Cyprus. Given that&nbsp, the Turkish enclave of Cyprus&nbsp, is not recognized by any other state and only remains because of Turkish military prowess, it hardly seems an attractive model.

His argument is strongest when he makes the case that hostility toward Jews is pervasive and reappears under political and economic strain. Lippin is a traditional social democrat at heart. He draws the conclusion that” a new progressive politics that addresses the underlying causes of the current crisis in democracy” is the only way to combat antisemitism.

A chapter on “notes for a new progressive politics” follows. It is the least interesting chapter of a book that would otherwise be interesting. In 24 pages, trying to create a global program for progressive politics inevitably results in a level of generalization that hardly enhances an otherwise provocative and levelheaded introduction to a challenging subject.

He warns against authoritarian politics and the rise of ethnonationalism. I am deeply sympathetic to this argument, but I am not convinced it fully explains the resurgence of antisemitism.

Unfortunately, the passions that Israel’s rampant response to the Hamas attacks has rekindled centuries-old stereotypes of Jews as both aliens and allies, making the distinction between Jewish hatred and opposition to Israel seem contradictory.

Dennis Altman is vice chancellor’s fellow and professorial fellow, Institute for Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University

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

Continue Reading