Cyber-Espionage Through IoT Standardization in Agriculture

China’s infiltration into agricultural IoT (Internet of Things) networks represents a critical yet underexplored dimension of its global technological strategy. Through key players such as Huawei and Alibaba Cloud, Beijing has embedded IoT technologies into agricultural systems in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. These initiatives, often framed as development partnerships aimed at improving food production and supply chain resilience, concurrently enable the collection of extensive agricultural and environmental data with profound strategic and geopolitical implications.

Agricultural IoT systems are revolutionizing farming practices by collecting real-time, high-resolution data on variables such as soil moisture, nutrient levels, weather conditions, pest infestations, irrigation patterns, crop growth rates, and logistical movements. Chinese companies like Huawei and Alibaba are at the forefront of this technological advancement, designing platforms that support precision agriculture through the integration of advanced sensors, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence to optimize farm management.

In Kenya, Huawei has actively collaborated with local partners and the Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization to implement smart farming solutions aimed at enhancing agricultural productivity and sustainability. By deploying IoT sensors that monitor critical agricultural parameters and transmitting this data to cloud platforms where AI algorithms provide actionable insights, farmers have reportedly increased crop yields. These initiatives not only boost local agricultural productivity but also strengthen China’s presence in the region’s agricultural sector.

Similarly, in 2020, the Malaysian government entered into a strategic partnership with Alibaba Cloud to advance its Smart Agriculture Agenda, reflecting a commitment to leveraging digital technologies for agricultural transformation. For instance, in 2019, Malaysian agritech company Regaltech partnered with Alibaba Cloud to develop a smart farming platform for durian plantations. Utilizing Alibaba’s ET Agricultural Brain, an AI-powered platform that analyzes vast amounts of agricultural data, IoT devices and drones monitor crop health, optimize resource usage, and automate farming processes. These systems have shown promising results in improving yield quality and consistency while reducing labor costs due to automation.

The strategic implications of this data aggregation are profound. In Argentina—a key supplier of soybeans to China—IOT systems provide granular insights into the production of vital commodities such as soybeans and maize. In 2022, Argentina exported 4.8 million metric tons of soybeans to China, largely for use as animal feed in its burgeoning livestock industry. By analyzing longitudinal data on crop yields, climatic conditions, and supply chain dynamics, Chinese entities can gain the ability to forecast agricultural outputs, identify vulnerabilities to droughts or pest outbreaks, and strategize imports with precision. These insights not only inform economic decisions but also equip Beijing with leverage in trade negotiations with critical partners.

The geopolitical utility of such data is striking. For instance, in sub-Saharan Africa, IoT systems monitoring declining yields of staple crops due to drought could enable China to secure imports before market disruptions occur. In 2022, China’s agricultural machinery market was valued at over $24 billion, with significant exports to African nations incorporating IoT-enabled “smart farming” solutions underpinned by Chinese cloud infrastructure. These systems, while marketed as tools for development, create dependencies that enhance China’s influence. Data access, often governed by opaque agreements, allows Beijing to maintain strategic leverage over countries that adopt these technologies, especially in scenarios involving climate shocks or food crises.

Moreover, agricultural IoT data could be weaponized to manipulate trade dynamics. A pertinent case is Kazakhstan, where Chinese investments in agricultural infrastructure have integrated IoT systems for monitoring key crops such as wheat and soybeans. With precise yield data, Beijing can forecast shortages or surpluses, negotiate trade terms to its advantage, and adjust import strategies accordingly. Historical parallels, such as China’s imposition of tariffs on Australian barley and wine in 2020 following diplomatic tensions, underscore its willingness to leverage trade relationships for geopolitical objectives. While these actions did not involve IoT, they highlight a pattern of exploiting economic dependencies as instruments of influence.

The situation in Pakistan under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) provides another revealing example. China has introduced advanced irrigation systems and IoT-based crop management technologies to modernize Pakistani agriculture. Although data-sharing agreements remain unclear, the integration of IoT systems grants China a window into wheat and cotton production trends, enabling preemptive adjustments to imports or policy recommendations that align with its broader geopolitical goals. Similarly, in Laos and Cambodia, Chinese IoT technologies embedded in agricultural systems raise concerns about data sovereignty. These systems potentially allow Beijing to identify food security vulnerabilities, influencing domestic policies and reinforcing economic reliance on Chinese infrastructure.

China’s push for global IoT standardization through initiatives like China Standards 2035 is central to its ambitions in technology and data governance. By embedding proprietary IoT protocols into international frameworks, Beijing ensures that its technologies remain indispensable to global IoT networks. Huawei and ZTE are at the forefront of exporting IoT solutions, particularly to Latin America, where Huawei’s smart agriculture platforms have gained traction. The integration of Chinese-developed encryption technologies ensures compatibility with domestic platforms, consolidating China’s control over these ecosystems and enhancing its capacity to collect and process strategic data.

This influence extends to the control of information flows. Under China’s Data Security Law, companies must share data with state authorities under specific conditions, raising the potential for Beijing to access sensitive information from regions dependent on Chinese technologies. Cross-referencing IoT agricultural data with trade and infrastructure insights could yield comprehensive, multi-layered intelligence on partner nations. Although no concrete evidence has emerged to confirm systematic exploitation of IoT data, such capabilities align with China’s data-driven strategy to extend its influence globally.

The cybersecurity risks associated with agricultural IoT also warrant attention. The 2021 cyberattack on Brazil’s JBS Foods, which disrupted global supply chains for weeks, illustrates the vulnerabilities inherent in digitized agricultural systems. If IoT networks established by Chinese companies were similarly targeted, recovery efforts could be hindered by Beijing’s potential control over critical data, complicating mitigation and policy responses. Such scenarios highlight the dual-use nature of IoT technologies as tools for both development and strategic leverage.

Despite the growing significance of agricultural IoT in China’s digital strategy, it remains an underexplored topic. Analysts and policymakers often focus on areas like telecommunications and AI, neglecting intersections with food security, climate vulnerability, and geopolitical stability. For instance, the USDA’s 2021 report on agricultural innovation failed to address strategic risks posed by foreign-controlled IoT systems. Meanwhile, Huawei continues to expand its presence in Latin America, embedding IoT technologies in a region that plays a pivotal role in global agricultural exports.

Advanced Biometric Surveillance and Behavioral Data Exploitation

Complementing its cyber-espionage activities in agriculture, China has significantly advanced its capabilities in biometric surveillance and behavioral data exploitation. This represents a critical axis of its global digital strategy, intertwining technological innovation with its broader geopolitical ambitions. State-backed enterprises such as Hikvision and Dahua, alongside AI pioneers like SenseTime and Megvii, have spearheaded the development of technologies that extend far beyond traditional facial recognition. Innovations such as gait recognition, voiceprint identification, and emotion detection systems enable unprecedented behavioral monitoring, offering granular insights that elevate surveillance capabilities to new levels.

By 2023, Chinese firms had exported biometric surveillance systems to more than 80 countries across Africa, South Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. For instance, the Safe City initiative in Kenya, involving approximately 1,800 Hikvision cameras integrated into centralized police monitoring networks in Nairobi, underscores the depth of Chinese involvement. Similarly, in Lahore, Pakistan, Huawei’s surveillance infrastructure merges biometric data with urban management systems under the aegis of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. Beyond hardware installations, Chinese firms embed proprietary software ecosystems and advanced machine learning algorithms into these projects, consolidating control over data pipelines and fostering dependencies on Chinese-managed platforms.

The implications of these systems extend well beyond surface-level monitoring. In Zimbabwe, Chinese surveillance cameras equipped with AI analytics have reportedly been deployed to profile political dissidents. In Serbia, a Chinese-developed Safe City system sparked controversy when facial recognition technology was used to track anti-government protesters. These deployments often come with opaque licensing agreements, debt-financed installations, and extensive service contracts, creating long-term technological and financial dependencies.

Chinese biometric surveillance technologies have achieved levels of precision previously considered theoretical. For example, Watrix, a global leader in gait recognition, claims its systems can identify individuals with 96% accuracy from distances exceeding 50 meters, even in crowded environments or when faces are obscured. Such technologies have been deployed in sensitive regions like Xinjiang, where authorities use them to monitor Uighur populations and flag “abnormal behavior.” Meanwhile, in Shanghai, hospitals employ gait recognition systems to restrict unauthorized access, highlighting the technology’s versatility across both security and civilian applications.

Emotion recognition, another frontier in Chinese AI, adds further depth to the surveillance arsenal. By analyzing micro-expressions, vocal intonations, and physiological cues, these systems can infer emotional states with applications ranging from education to law enforcement. For example, in Hangzhou’s Smart Schools initiative, cameras reportedly monitor students’ emotions to optimize classroom management—a practice raising ethical concerns about privacy and mental health. In Xinjiang, similar systems are allegedly employed to evaluate detainees’ stress levels during interrogations. These tools serve China’s broader strategy of “stability maintenance,” embedding surveillance into everyday life to ensure societal control.

Domestically, biometric surveillance underpins China’s Social Credit System, which fuses big data analytics with behavior monitoring to regulate individual and corporate conduct. In cities like Shenzhen, facial recognition cameras identify jaywalkers, publicly displaying their images to shame violators. Some systems go further, sending offenders text messages and linking penalties to their social accounts. While the system’s broader claims—such as restricting access to education or healthcare—remain contentious, its documented impacts include travel restrictions. By 2018, millions of citizens with low social credit scores were barred from purchasing airline and high-speed rail tickets, illustrating how the system enforces compliance through access limitations.

Internationally, the export of Chinese surveillance technology poses profound risks, especially in nations with weak regulatory frameworks. These countries effectively import not just the hardware but also a governance model that facilitates authoritarian practices. In Uganda, Huawei’s $126 million CCTV system, ostensibly designed for crime prevention in Kampala, has been criticized for its use in monitoring opposition figures. In Ethiopia, allegations of misuse have been compounded by reports of data breaches linked to Chinese-built infrastructure, such as the African Union headquarters. These examples illustrate the dual vulnerabilities of technological dependency and political exploitation.

The integration of Chinese standards into emerging markets’ governance infrastructures represents a strategic entrenchment of Beijing’s influence. These systems often come with opaque agreements, proprietary protocols, and maintenance requirements that bind adopters to Chinese firms, embedding surveillance into the operational fabric of public administration. Beyond operational functionality, such exports normalize invasive practices, undermining democratic norms and fostering climates of fear. For nations lacking stringent safeguards, this erosion of civil liberties not only suppresses opposition but also undermines sovereignty, creating a governance model that aligns more closely with authoritarian principles than with democratic ideals.

Integration of Strategies and Global Implications

China’s strategic integration of cyber-espionage in agricultural IoT networks and the global export of advanced biometric surveillance systems is more than a pursuit of technological advancement—it is a deliberate effort to reshape geopolitical influence through digital means. By embedding its technology into the critical infrastructures of emerging economies, Beijing gains unparalleled access to vast datasets that serve both economic and political objectives.

One emerging scenario is the potential intersection of these datasets in influencing food aid decisions during political unrest. Agricultural IoT systems could identify regions at risk of famine, while biometric data profiles assess local populations to gauge levels of dissent or compliance. By aligning aid distribution with behavioral trends, China could selectively stabilize or destabilize regions to further its strategic goals, deepening reliance on its technological and economic infrastructure.

Through proprietary standards and AI-driven insights, China embeds global dependencies that not only reduce partner nations’ autonomy but also enhance Beijing’s ability to shape international norms. This data-driven approach cements China’s influence in a new era of geopolitical power defined by digital dependencies.

Carlo J.V. Caro has a master’s degree from Columbia University and is a political and military analyst. 

Congress will meet soon to approve the Fiscal Year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). There are certainly differences between the Senate and House versions. There always is, and those differences are to be expected. Differences in the procurement numbers of ships, aircraft, missile systems and myriad other platforms will have to be resolved in conference.

However, there is one area that should have both the Senate and House versions of the NDAA in total harmony—personnel and quality of life issues. These are the issues, policies and programs that will acknowledge the many sacrifices military personnel, and their families make day in and day out. Any failure by the Senate and House to be ‘on the same page’ with personnel and quality of life issues will fail to sustain the All-Volunteer Force and cause its foundations to erode.

Case in point: There is a provision in the House version of the NDAA that seeks to address the unique employment challenges military spouses face, specifically within the federal workforce. The provision is referred to as the READNESS Act. It’s unknown if language for the READINESS Act is in the final version of the FY 2025 NDAA.

As the nation’s largest employer, the federal government should be setting the gold standard for supporting military spouse employment. For many spouses stationed overseas, the federal government is often the only viable employer. Yet military spouses continue to face barriers to retaining their jobs when they are forced to relocate. The provision in the NDAA creates a path to much-needed flexibility and stability.

Key provisions are:

• Remote Work Flexibility. Federal agencies will assess positions for remote work potential, allowing military spouses to remain employed during PCS moves.
• Reassignment and Alternative Worksites. Agencies can offer military spouses reassignment to equivalent positions in new duty station locations or provide options to work from alternative worksites.
• Leave Without Pay (LWOP). For spouses unable to work remotely or be reassigned, LWOP ensures they remain federal employees and retain essential non-financial benefits such as security clearances. This would ease re-entry into the federal workforce when positions become available.

Military spouses face a staggering unemployment rate—more than three times the national average. Military spouse unemployment not only impacts the financial well-being of military families, but it is also a retention issue. Nearly one in five servicemembers cite concerns with spouse employment as part of their decision to leave service.

In many cases, a dual income is vital for military families to achieve financial stability—particularly given the rising cost of living. Yet these families are asked to sacrifice that stability with every permanent change of duty station.

Sadly, while private companies like Amazon, Starbucks and Boeing have proactively committed to supporting military spouses through initiatives modeled on the READINESS Act, the federal government has been slow to follow.

The House NDAA provision addresses these challenges head-on by providing military spouses who are federal employees with the career flexibility they need to continue working, even as their families are required to relocate.

The military services are facing some very serious recruiting challenges. Although there are several issues causing the problems, currently serving military families can play a very important role in helping the situation. Unfortunately, the likelihood of currently serving military members and their families recommending military service is declining. In its most recent survey of military families, Blue Star Families found respondents who were likely to recommend military service have dropped by nearly half from 2016 when it was 55 percent to just 32 percent in 2023.

Blue Star Families also found that spouse employment was the top issue for active duty respondents. This marked the fourth year in a row for the spouse employment issue to be the most concerning. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, Blue Star Families found employed military spouses were more likely to recommend military service than their unemployed peers.

Blue Star Families is a non-profit organization that supports our military men and women and their families.

In a recent letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA) called for the senate’s support of the spouse employment provision. Writing on behalf of several other military support organizations, the MOAA letter said the provision provides for a commonsense, cost-neutral solution that benefits both military families and the Department of Defense by ensuring military spouses can continue contributing to their family’s financial security and military readiness.

If the All-Volunteer Force is to not merely survive but thrive, the Congress and the Defense Department must show leadership and commitment to the well-being of those who serve our country. Including the spouse employment provision—the READINESS Act—in the NDAA is not just a benefit for families but a strategic imperative for the nation’s defenses.

RADM Jurkowsky (U.S. Navy, ret.) served on active duty for 31, beginning his career as an enlisted sailor. He has served on the board of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), an advocacy organization that supports both officer and enlisted personnel who serve and have served, along with their families.

WATCH:

U.S. and European energy policies toward Russia are marked by striking inconsistencies. On the one hand, the Biden administration, flanked by its NATO counterparts, dispatches hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine and trumpets sanctions aimed at crippling the Russian economy. Yet, on the other hand, these same nations continue to procure Russian oil, gas, and LNG, thereby replenishing the very coffers they claim to be emptying. This hypocrisy is compounded by President Biden’s own domestic energy policies, which curtail American production at precisely the moment when Europe is floundering in its quest to disentangle itself from dependence on Russian energy.

In this context, the incoming Trump administration’s “energy dominance” agenda represents a necessary and impactful realignment. By expanding U.S. oil and gas production, Trump proposes a strategy that aligns America’s energy policy with its geopolitical imperatives. Such a framework not only enhances transatlantic energy security but also positions Trump to negotiate from strength in his pledged pursuit of a peace accord with Russia. This plan, ambitious as it is pragmatic, deserves nothing less than priority attention — both for its immediate utility and for its potential to reintroduce coherence into a realm where it has been sorely lacking.

One is struck, observing the dispensation of billions by NATO nations to Ukraine, while they simultaneously underwrite the Kremlin’s war machine through energy purchases, by the sheer absurdity of this double-dealing. This is no mere bureaucratic oversight but rather an absence of grand strategy. The sanctions ostensibly designed to hobble Russia’s economy are rendered impotent when Europe turns around and replenishes Moscow’s coffers through both direct and backdoor energy trade.

Ostensibly barred from European markets, Russian crude oil finds sanctuary in third-party nations — chiefly in Central and East Asia — where it is shuffled, refined, and, with an air of plausible deniability, sold back to Europe at an agreeable markup. Consider India: once a negligible player in Russian oil imports, now suddenly the beneficiary of nearly 40% of Moscow’s exports. Indian refiners transform this crude oil into diesel and other derivatives, only to export them back to Europe. It is, in essence, a tidy laundering operation — one that ensures a steady flow of revenue to Russia while Europe pays handsomely for its pretense of self-righteous isolation. The irony would be amusing were the stakes not so high.

Meanwhile, President Biden’s tenure has been marked by an almost doctrinaire aversion to reliable energy development in the United States, a legacy that seems less a matter of policy and more a point of pride. His intentions were made clear as early as 2020, when he campaigned under the banner of “ban fracking,” a slogan as reductive as it was revealing. On his very first day in office, Biden summarily canceled the final phase of Keystone XL pipeline project, a critical artery for North American energy connectivity. By the end of his first week, he had frozen all public land oil and gas lease applications and saddled existing leases with an additional layer of bureaucratic review.

Biden then doubled down, championing new climate legislation aimed at regulating methane emissions, a tribute to Barack Obama’s unvarnished ambition to strangle fossil fuel production via the regulatory apparatus. Perhaps most offensive to European allies seeking alternatives to Russian energy, Biden paused permitting for LNG export activities in January 2024. At a moment when American energy resources could have provided a bulwark against both economic instability and geopolitical vulnerability, Biden chose instead to indulge the ideological imperatives of his political base.

While it is true that US LNG exports to Europe surged to historic highs since the war began in 2022, it must be understood that this was a market response and happened despite, not because of, Biden’s energy policies. Biden’s priority was always to use the government to hamper natural gas development, even while European allies faced a crisis of supply curtailment and uncertainty.

The contrast between Donald Trump and Joe Biden on energy policy is a study in antitheses. Trump’s rallying cry of “drill, baby, drill,” encapsulates a vision of “energy dominance” that is unapologetically ambitious, unabashedly pro-development, and unmistakably American. In his first term, Trump fast-tracked approvals for the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines, cut through the bureaucratic thicket to expedite oil and gas leases, and presided over a remarkable quadrupling of LNG exports.

Now, with billions of dollars of capital hanging precariously in limbo, the energy sector eagerly anticipates a return to this ethos of decisive action. The permitting backlog, an albatross of the Biden administration’s making, has left projects stalled for months, even years, as Washington dithers. Under Trump, the energy industry flourished not by the watchful bean-counting of the government, but by its liberation from it. With Chris Wright and Doug Burgum selected for secretaries of Energy and Interior, respectively, one can safely assume that the new administration will once again unleash the free and creative forces that drive American industry.

There are some in Europe, as well, who look forward to Trump leading in a new direction on energy and foreign policy. Friend and political ally, Viktor Orban, has stood against the European status quo in pursuit of a negotiated end of violence in Ukraine. Orban’s Hungary imports nearly 100% of their natural gas, used for home heating, power-generation, and industrial production, from Russia. Orban is roundly criticized across the West for this realpolitik approach of maintaining normal relations with the sole provider of an indispensable resource, for which his landlocked country has no current alternative. But even European Commision President Ursula Von der Leyen, who has been a vocal critic of both Trump and Orban, has recently changed her tune, expressing enthusiasm for a new Trumpian energy policy.

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election triumph, dialogue between Trump and von der Leyen turned swiftly to matters of strategic substance, including a proposal to expand the U.S. LNG exports to Europe. “LNG is one of the topics that we touched upon,” Von der Leyen remarked. “We still get a whole lot of LNG via Russia. And why not replace it with American LNG, which is cheaper and brings down our energy prices?” Politico analysis concludes this is merely postering for upcoming tariff negotiations, a face-saving suggestion to import more LNG to rebalance trade deficits that Von der Leyen can’t actually enforce. It is a completely plausible interpretation, yet there is another pending negotiation directly impacted by the topic, a Russian Ukraine peace deal.

Energy, after all, is never merely a micro-economic matter, limited to its own industry concerns; it is the sine qua non of the modern economy. As such, it is an integral factor in state security and social stability. By recalibrating Europe’s energy reliance toward American LNG, Trump wields an instrument not only of economic leverage but of geopolitical realignment, one that could prove indispensable in shaping the contours of peace. In this context, the LNG discussion is not merely transactional but emblematic of a larger, more consequential strategy.

To suggest that energy trade alone could bring Russia to heel would be to indulge unwarranted optimism. Yet, as a bargaining tool, it is not without merit. Even if Ursula von der Leyen’s proposal for increased LNG trade is little more than rhetorical flourish, it nonetheless serves a tactical purpose: it signals the kind of seriousness that compels attention and tilts the negotiation table in favor of the United States. Negotiation, after all, is an intricate ballet of feints, insinuations, and veiled threats — each calculated to unsettle the adversary and recalibrate the balance of power.

With 1 million dead or injured, Russia’s recent liberalization of nuclear doctrine, and battlefield deployment of a new nuclear-capable hypersonic missile, the stakes have never been higher nor the cause for de-escalation and peace more clear. When engaged in a proxy war against a “gas station masquerading as a country,” as John McCain famously characterized Russia, energy policy really matters. In Trump’s vision, one glimpses not merely a transactional play but a reaffirmation of the principle of strength, both economic and military, that is the linchpin of effective diplomacy.

Matthew Roy is an energy industry professional with over a decade of experience in corporate management and strategy. He is currently the Visiting Research Fellow for the Budapest Fellowship Program at the Danube Institute, focusing on energy policy. 

Despite the F-35 program’s hefty price tag, recent events have shown just how potent the platform is against America’s adversaries.

National and subnational actors have long looked to whether there is a US aircraft carrier in the region as a signal of Western intent or resolve. But that dynamic could be set to change. Given the F-35’s capabilities, as recently proven against Iranian ground defenses, ground-based F-35 fleets hold a similar deterrent status as their carrier-parked counterparts.

With wars raging in the Middle East and Europe, and the potential for great-power conflict this decade in Asia, one of the unmistakable signs of American power and support for allies in those regions has been the aircraft carrier.

According to the latest publicly available data, the United States Navy currently has two amphibious ready groups and an aircraft carrier stationed in the Pacific and other assets throughout the Middle East, the Atlantic, and the West Coast.

Adversaries have long looked to whether there is a U.S. aircraft carrier in the region as a signal of America’s resolve to back up allies with force if necessary.

The aircraft carrier remains a potent signal of American intentions — but it is not the only asset at the United States’ disposal to project hard power, should it be called on.

Recent events in the Middle East demonstrate that the F-35s deployed abroad are arguably just as, if not more important, than the capital ships on which they deploy.

And given the F-35’s capabilities, the aircraft’s presence alone should be interpreted as a signal of American fixity of purpose on par with that of the aircraft carrier.

Proven, Tested Capabilities
From a purely military perspective, Israel’s recent strikes against Iran were an unmitigated success.

Flying a mix of aircraft in three waves against targets in Iran, over 100 Israeli aircraft initially struck high-value air defense targets in Syria and Iraq – including the much-vaunted S-300, a Soviet-designed air defense system.

Two subsequent waves hit military targets and weapon production facilities deep inside Iranian territory, degrading Tehran’s missile production capabilities, particularly of the solid fuel needed for long-range munitions. The strikes leave Iran exposed and highly vulnerable to future strikes by Israel.

Much ink has been spilled on the Israeli operation’s details, particularly the success enjoyed by the F-35. However, one under-appreciated aspect of the operation has been what that Israeli mission’s success means for the American — and allied — F-35 presence worldwide.

Given the F-35’s recent, real-world testing and success against what were considered formidable air defense assets, F-35 groupings stationed at bases worldwide offer policymakers a unique deterrence opportunity in Asia, the Middle East, or Europe.

And, when considering the F-35 fleets of nations allied with the United States, the deterrent effect grows significantly, a factor that alters the calculus of hostile nation’s decision-making.

The China Factor
The Chinese’ steady progress vis-à-vis their anti-ship missile capabilities in recent years should not be taken lightly. And it is precisely this threat that a regional, land-based F-35 strategy would address.

Regional gangsters like Iran and its allies Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis pose a significantly smaller threat to the aircraft carrier than the likes of China, which benefits from a much more robust and increasingly more sophisticated anti-ship capability.

That raises the question worth considering: how can the United States, and allies across the globe, best preserve their F-35 fleets? A partial solution may be found in a highly dispersed air-basing strategy on the ground instead of at more densely concentrated formations on aircraft carriers out at sea.

A Numbers Game
How to best preserve America’s naval airpower through a widely dispersed basing strategy or via another solution or mix of solutions is best left to those in the Navy and Pentagon with the requisite experience and expertise to take a clear-eyed view of the situation.

However, what is becoming clear from the planning and policy side of this conversation is that the F-35 stealth platform is a unique, extremely capable asset with a modest but increasingly demonstrable track record against formidable air defense assets.

The world we live in today is increasingly fractured and violent. The potential for global conflagrations to expand and envelop the United States is also rising.

It would behoove the policymakers of the United States to make serious, sustained investments in the F-35 platform, in tandem with partners and allies, to ensure that during a time of national crisis, the F-35 program can lean into the supply chains and manufacturing requirements necessary to keep production rolling rather than to allow lines to become cold.

The F-35 has a significant — and proven — technological edge that vastly outclasses every other fighter today. Let us not hubristically rely on that fact alone but invest in sustainment for a time in which the platform may be called upon to defend the interest of the United States and our allies.

Caleb Larson is a Berlin-based journalist, formerly with Politico. He has spent more than seven months reporting from Ukraine at the front and elsewhere throughout the country.

Washington, D.C., is bracing for an unprecedented show of support as over 100 Navy SEALs prepare to descend on the nation’s capital, standing in solidarity with President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth.

Hegseth, a decorated Army combat veteran and prominent conservative voice, has faced relentless media attacks in recent weeks.

The fake news media have leveled accusations ranging from outdated and disproven sexual misconduct claims to allegations of public drunkenness and financial mismanagement during his tenure at Concerned Veterans for America (CVA).

Critics on the right are pushing back hard against what they view as a deliberate effort to derail a nominee poised to shake up the Defense Department.

Randy Lair, a trustee at CVA, categorically denied the whistleblower allegations, describing them as “sensational fabrications designed to undermine a patriot.”

In an exclusive letter to the New York Post, Lair emphasized that Hegseth left CVA on good terms and voluntarily pursued opportunities at Fox News, where he gained further recognition as a staunch advocate for America’s veterans.

Adding to this defense, Hegseth’s mother, Penelope Hegseth, appeared on Fox & Friends, emotionally urging the public to reject these “outrageous” claims.

While the mainstream media attempts to paint Hegseth in a negative light, his supporters are mounting a robust counter-offensive.

Conservative pundits, lawmakers, and military veterans have voiced their steadfast support for the nominee, dismissing the accusations as a leftist smear campaign.

Among his most vocal backers are members of the Navy SEAL Foundation, a group that embodies the elite warrior ethos of America’s special operations forces.

Bill Brown, a combat veteran and leader within the Foundation, confirmed during conservation with Fox News’ Will Cain that over 100 SEALs are planning a coordinated march in Washington, D.C., to publicly endorse Hegseth.

“I just got off the phone with Bill Brown. Bill Brown is a member of the Navy SEAL Foundation, a leader in the Navy SEAL Foundation. He’s a combat veteran and the leader of the Navy SEAL swim, which you and some of you who are listening and watching, like Brent Suriano, may have participated in,” Cain wrote.

“If you’ve ever participated in this, you know something about honoring America’s warriors. I just got off the phone with Bill Brown moments before I came on air… I’m just pouring out to you what Bill told me moments before the beginning of this broadcast: over 100 Navy SEALs have organized and committed to march on Washington, D.C. Over 100 Navy SEALs are prepared to throw their support openly behind Pete Hegseth.”

WATCH:

Over 100 Navy SEALS are committed to march on Washington, D.C. in support of @PeteHegseth @FreedomSpirit77 and others are openly showing who is standing with Pete

On The @WillCain Show pic.twitter.com/6RmbDBBdVd

— The Will Cain Show (@WillCainShow_) December 4, 2024

The SEALs’ mobilization comes at a critical juncture, as Senate Republicans are poised to vote on Hegseth’s confirmation. While sources indicate overwhelming GOP support, a few senators, including Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, and John Thune, are reportedly on the fence.

Only four Republican votes against him would be enough to block the confirmation.

[Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on The Gateway Pundit.com]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., dissed by critics as “Pocahontas” over her unjustified claims to Native America heritage, has taken aim at Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be defense secretary.

But she hit the Joe Biden administration, including his defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, right between the eyes.

It’s her decision to blame, publicly, a yet-to-be seated nominee for a problem that Biden and Austin allowed.

In 2023, over 29,000 active-duty troops were sexually assaulted, including more than 6 in every 100 women in the military.

Many servicemembers never report these crimes. The rates of assault are estimated to be up to 4x higher.

Pete Hegseth must not be the Defense Secretary.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) December 4, 2024

She cited, “In 2023, over 29,000 active-duty troops were sexually assaulted, including more than 6 in every 100 women in the military. Many servicemembers never report these crimes. The rates of assault are estimated to be up to 4x higher. Pete Hegseth must not be the Defense Secretary.”

Her one link to reality must have been that Hegseth was investigated, but eventually not even charged much less convicted, over a “consensual” encounter with a woman.

But she was excoriated on social media for blaming problems that happened under her party’s control on a candidate for an administration position.

There, the “U.S. Ministry of Truth” called her “the dumbest fool in the whole Senate.”

The Gateway Pundit pointed out her stats are “damning indeed,” and “would be disqualifying if Hegseth had anything to do with it.”

The report explained, “Warren was referencing sexual assaults that occurred in the military under Biden and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s watch.”

Trump’s nomination cited Hegseth’s stellar America First credentials and decorated service as an army combat veteran, it said.

“Despite this, sick leftists and the drive-by media have orchestrated a horrific smear campaign portraying Hegseth as a drunkard and sexual predator. Warren, one of Hegseth’s staunchest critics, gave credence to the later smear as she cited disturbing statistics on her X account claiming that nearly 30,000 soldiers, including over 6% of women, were sexually assaulted in the military last year. Due to this, she concluded that Hegseth had no business serving as Defense Secretary,” the report said.

Social media told the “rest of the story.”

“So all that happened on your party’s watch?”

So have you demanded that Lloyd Austin resign?”

“So, because Biden’s defense secretary failed you’re going to blame someone that was nominated to fix it?”

And, “Hey Pocahontas, who was the president in 2023?”

So…have you taken that up with @SecDef Austin? https://t.co/P13xFsjM45

— Logan Ratick (@Logan_Ratick) December 5, 2024

OK. That title may be too harsh. But at least we can hang him out to dry. And we must! Why, the very moral fiber of the United States of America is at stake!

The head of the Department of Defense? Indefensible! Why from all reliable reports this unconscionable person apparently has had premarital sex! And, not only that, but it seems he may have been publicly intoxicated leading up to it!

It may have been eight or 10 years ago, but that cannot stand as an excuse for such amoral decadence!

Is our pristine culture not steeped in the high principles of sexual reserve? Do we not teach our children that pure soulfulness is more important than debased sensualism? Have we not exhausted ourselves in cleansing any media that might invite them into profligate temptations? Don’t we insist that our commercial messaging be free from using the allure of reprobate titillation? And have we not been diligent in teaching our young ladies how to comport themselves blamelessly and to avoid, at all costs, any hint of lascivious carriage? Have we not placed restrained chivalry into the hearts of our young men and virginal modesty in the souls of our girls?

Wow! Did I ever need an old-timey dictionary for all that!

So, no. Maybe for your great-great-great-grandfather. But these days, not so much.

Then what is the sin of this Peter of Peters? That same great granddad would, at least, have pardoned him for “sowing a few wild oats,” before entering holy matrimony.

What can we make of these shocking disclosures? He got drunk at a party and was led back to his hotel room by an amorous hostess. We can almost hear her girlfriend saying, “Oh, you go girl! That is one fine hunk of manhood!” An Alpha male, if ever there were one, well-built and handsome, a decorated soldier who put his life on the line, a recipient of our best universities’ highest degrees, a man experienced in diverse positions of government leadership and a determined patriot, appalled by bureaucratic abuses and clearly articulating the need for specific corrections.

Need we pause and wonder? Gasp! Could it be that there were others? Cluck, cluck, cluck!

Why, he was even scolded by his very own mother, maybe for cavorting around with any number of willing partners, when he should have been settling down into a respectable third marriage. Who could blame her? That’s what mothers do.

Commentator Megyn Kelly interviewed Pete Hegseth for nearly an hour on Wednesday. He was specific about the facts of his shortcomings and celebrated events since that led to his repentance and salvation in his Lord, Jesus Christ. Earlier in the morning, Donald Trump had told him he knew Pete would have to fight like hell, because he knew all too well the nature of the smear that was coming after him. The Deep States ever reliable “anonymous sources” are alleging things that dozens of associates and friends who have known and worked with him for years are going on the record and calling those “sources” liars of the first order.

The truth is that indeed, we must have the highest standards for those who would lead us. Therefore, these should be the standards for the esteemed senators who want to vote against Peter Hegseth’s confirmation to head the Department of Defense.

Only those may vote against him who have never imbibed to excess. C’mon now, swear on a stack of Bibles! Only those who had remained chaste till their wedding night. We want a sworn oath! Only those may give a thumbs down whose mothers never chastised them for any of their wonton behaviors. And, definitely, none of those may dare vote no who had to dip into the 15-million-dollar paid-in-full congressional slut-slush-fund to cover their rather more grievous indiscretions. And finally, for all you Democrat sycophants, who stuck by your horn-dog Bill Clinton through thick and thin: Y’all just need to shut up and sit down. Next to your feckless leader this guy is a prince among men.

Donald J. Trump picked this fine, albeit hot-blooded (and all for the best) American patriot to do the quintessential work of turning our bloated, distorted, op-heavy military into a lean and mean fighting machine. Shame on any who cannot gracefully offer a full throated Yay.

(NEW YORK POST) — “Zero” Senate Republicans are opposing Pete Hegseth’s confirmation, sources told The Post on Wednesday, as the defense secretary-designee was making the rounds on Capitol Hill and defiantly proclaiming he will “never back down” in the face of widespread allegations of past misconduct.

“There are zero ‘nos’ right now,” one GOP source familiar with the matter said, ripping smears against the former Army combat infantryman in the press as “BS.”

Pete Hegseth says he is not dropping out: ‘Why would I back down? I have always been a fighter. I am here for the war fighters. This is personal and compassionate for me’ #PeteHegseth pic.twitter.com/c974qjPaeS

— WorldNetDaily (@worldnetdaily) December 4, 2024

At least six Republicans have privately expressed reservations about President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee, NBC News reported Tuesday, as claims of binge drinking, sexual impropriety and financial mismanagement during his tenure as leader of a veterans advocacy group pile up.

‘They threaten you’: Watch Pete Hegseth’s mom destroy deceptive media after her private email went public

In this episode, we welcome Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson, former military aide to the president and carrier of the nuclear football, to share his firsthand experiences and insights.

We discuss what it truly means to hold the ultimate responsibility in national defense and address the media’s manipulation of public perception – specifically how they are portraying President Trump as unsteady with the nuclear codes to erode trust and sow fear.

We also dive into the tangled web of Ukraine, the U.S. State Department’s role in meddling in foreign affairs, and the growing shadow of government sponsored censorship. Plus, an inside look at President Trump’s latest cabinet picks and what they signal for the future of his administration.

WATCH:

President-elect Donald Trump is reportedly considering Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for the nation’s new defense secretary, following a concerted Democrat and media narrative that has claimed Trump’s first pick, Pete Hegseth, may have a drinking problem.

It was NBC News that claimed “two sources” identified DeSantis as a possible nominee, following a report on the issue by the Wall Street Journal.

The network said, “Other possible contenders for the Pentagon top job include Sens. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., according to two sources familiar with the decision-making. Rep. Mike Waltz, R-Fla., whom Trump had chosen for White House national security adviser, is also a possible pick for leading the Pentagon, two other sources said.”

The narrative that was unleashed following Trump’s pick of Hegseth has included various stories about his drinking and a “sexual assault” in 2017 for which he was not charged.

Hegseth has denied he mistreated women and explained the incident involving the woman who accused him was a consensual event.

Hegseth, on social media, has cited the “smear” campaign based on “fake” and “anonymous” sources.

“Our warriors will never back down, & neither will I,” he said.

He repeated his assertion Wednesday morning:

Pete Hegseth says he is not dropping out: ‘Why would I back down? I have always been a fighter. I am here for the war fighters. This is personal and compassionate for me’ #PeteHegseth pic.twitter.com/c974qjPaeS

— WorldNetDaily (@worldnetdaily) December 4, 2024

It was Twitchy that called out Democrats and the media for their leftist attacks.

“Hegseth has been in the crosshairs of the left since President-Elect Trump nominated him to lead the Department of Defense. First, they said he was unqualified, completely ignoring his Ivy League education and decorated military service. Then they tried to ‘Kavanaugh’ him with a 2017 accusation of sexual assault, which was investigated by police at the time. No charges were filed. They accused him of being a white supremacist because he had tattoos or something. Most recently, The New Yorker ran a hit piece claiming Hegseth was commonly intoxicated on the job while he worked for Concerned Vets for America. Senator Dick Blumenthal was quick to pounce on the story.”

Now, the report said, “NBC has doubled down on The New Yorker article with claims from Fox News employees.”

There were those who apparently were being swayed by the claims.

NEW: Pete Hegseth, President-elect Trump’s pick for defense secretary, drank in ways that concerned his colleagues at Fox News, according to 10 current and former Fox employees who spoke with NBC News. https://t.co/f6JLl87p5D

— NBC News (@NBCNews) December 3, 2024

LATEST: At least six GOP senators are not currently comfortable supporting President-elect Trump’s pick to lead the Defense Department, Pete Hegseth, following allegations concerning his drinking and treatment of women, three Republican sources say. https://t.co/lPo5mIMfWl

— NBC News (@NBCNews) December 3, 2024

SEN. GRAHAM ON HEGSETH ALLEGATIONS: “Some of these articles are very disturbing. He obviously has a chance to defend himself here, but some of this stuff is is gonna be difficult, you know, time will tell.” pic.twitter.com/qDOq9rnlfy

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) December 3, 2024

There were defenders, too.

I don’t drink. I’m disgusted by the smell of alcohol on someone’s breath. I’ve never EVER seen Pete drink like that, and have never smelled alcohol on his breath at work. These hit pieces are getting laughable. https://t.co/6qdq3MhADh

— Joey Jones (@Johnny_Joey) December 4, 2024

Update: Four more FOX employees say the NBC story about Pete Hegseth is false. pic.twitter.com/jenQeXdHEp

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) December 4, 2024

‘They threaten you’: Watch Pete Hegseth’s mom destroy deceptive media after her private email went public

In today’s world, one of the most terrifying sentences American moms can hear is: “The United States Congress declares war on Russia: World War III has begun.”

President-elect Donald Trump has been placed at the helm of this government by hard-working citizens, the life and blood of this wonderful country. They believed that he would restore normalcy and common sense to America and its influence in the world. While others heard, moms heard too – that Trump promised an end to the futile Ukraine war in “24 hours“. Vladimir Putin praised Trump, stating that Russia was ready for dialogue and even saying “intelligent” Trump will find a solution to the war. President Zelensky says he wants to work with Trump to end the Ukraine war.

Yet, horrifyingly, during his lame-duck last moments as acting president, Joe Biden has chosen to come out of the basement to escalate the war, giving more funding and military armaments to Ukraine. Even though Ukraine is fighting a losing war, under the promptings of Biden’s administration, Kyiv enacted a new law lowering the draft age from 25 to 18 years old and making men from ages 25 to 60 subject to mobilization. Will someone please take away Biden’s keys and lock him back up in the basement before this bellicist starts a nuclear war?

Biden’s intentional reckless actions will cause a new uptick in slaughter and continue to escalate the irritation of Putin, who says the U.S. risks a nuclear WWIII. This very well could involve American boots on the ground in Ukraine. Don’t forget about the Capitol Hill conversations that were had, while earlier this year passing H.R. 8070, which will “automatically register all males between the ages of 18 and 26 in the Selective Service System – or, in more common terms, the draft.”

“The draft has been reinstated” are the next-most horrifying words for moms to hear. While it is an honor to serve in the protection of our country, the thought of anyone considering drafting U.S. sons and daughters to fight on foreign soil in a war not involving the United States, would make one question if the instigator of that war has no soul.

Speaking of compassion, or rather, lack thereof, moms have to ask, “Can the Democrat administration’s hatred of the working taxpayers be so enormous that they would throw the whole country under the bus – even into the fire of nuclear war with Russia? Is giving Zelensky more money for another mansion outside of Ukraine and money laundering to fund Democrat campaigns for the future so important that Biden would double down on his bad foreign policies to attempt to sabotage Trump’s opportunities to bring peace?”

How do these heartless people live with themselves? They have no excuse. These war profiteering government officials are old enough to remember the Cold War, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Carter-caused Iranian hostage situation and the days of the constant threat of nuclear war, which birthed songs like “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” and “What the World Needs Now [is love].”

In the historical fiction movie “The Monuments Men,” Claire Simone witnessed wicked government official stealing the thousands of priceless European art treasures from Paris museums and Jewish homes to be reassigned to The Third Reich’s treasure houses, or destroyed. Restrained by fencing, she began to yell at the Nazi in charge that she had caught him red-handed. He could deceive her no longer.

Like Claire, let American moms scream the same warning to warmongering government officials, “[We] see you!” We see you escalating this war with Ukraine, while thinking you will just kill the treasures of our country, our sons and daughters, by reinstating the draft so that you can continue profiteering when Ukraine runs out of soldiers, as we see is already happening with the U.S. suggesting to Ukraine to widen its draft ages to include their 18-year-olds to 60-year-olds!

Praying moms say, “Don’t forget the conversation between Ahab and Elijah,” recorded in the Bible: “And Ahab said to Elijah, Hast thou found me, O mine enemy? And Elijah answered, I have found thee: because thou hast sold thyself to work evil in the sight of the LORD” (I Kings 21:20, KJV).

It is evil to send our American treasures to their death uselessly. Even Ukrainian moms of draft-age children were thrilled to hear President elect Donald Trump say that he could and would end Ukraine’s war with Russia.

Now Trump has proved his good intentions by creating “the position of special envoy for the Ukraine conflict, according to Reuters, and picked Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg for the post,” supporting his prior commitment of peace in Ukraine and no nuclear war with Russia. Hopefully, Kellogg’s new post will restrain the warmongering left while everyone awaits the common-sense leadership to officially take the reins.

Meanwhile, since Joe has pardoned Hunter, Jill’s stepson, and saved him from an ugly fate, maybe she will help the rest of the American moms by getting Joe out of the White House, away from being able to cause more trouble, and take him to the beach, or somewhere else.

If she does, someone please send Jill a “Thank You” card from all of us moms.

It’s amazing how controversial common sense is these days. Look at the reaction to Pete Hegseth’s comments about women in combat roles.

President-elect Donald Trump wants Hegseth to be his secretary of defense. He served in the Army National Guard, deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan. He’s talked repeatedly about the problems he sees in today’s woke military.

“We should not have women in combat roles,” Hegseth said on a podcast in November. “It hasn’t made us more effective. Hasn’t made us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated.”

That wasn’t a popular opinion with the propaganda press.

“Pete Hegseth’s remarks about women in combat are met with disgust and dissent,” NBC News said.

“Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin gave an impassioned defense of women in combat,” ABC News reported.

What a shocker that the woke military establishment wants women in combat. Here’s why Hegseth is right.

First, it’s important to define terms. Hegseth isn’t saying women shouldn’t be in the military or even combat. In the modern battlefield, even cooks and IT specialists may need to start shooting. Many women have performed valiantly under fire. Hegseth is referring to certain physically demanding jobs, like infantry and special operations.

Next, this issue is a part of a larger debate – whether the differences between men and women are innate or societally imposed.

“The new woman revealed by this scientific data is as strong, strategic, and smart as anyone else,” states the blurb for the book “Inferior: How Science Got Women Wrong – and the New Research That’s Rewriting the Story.”

Many people agree. “Among those who see differences between men and women, there is little agreement about whether these differences are mostly based on biology or on societal expectations,” Pew Research reported in October.

If the differences between men and women were imposed by society, it’d be much less concerning to have women in combat roles. They aren’t. Just look at how mediocre male athletes dominate women’s sporting events.

Or consider the Army Combat Fitness Test, which consists of six events. The Army originally wanted it to be sex-neutral. But too many women failed, so the Army instituted lower scores for women. For instance, an 18-year-old man has to deadlift 340 pounds three times for max points. For an 18-year-old woman, it’s 210 pounds.

These physical strength differences matter in combat. In 2015, the Marines put out a study comparing male squads with mixed-sex ones. The all-male teams were faster on 69% of tasks. The squads with women were faster on 1.5% of tasks. The all-male squads “were faster than the gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement,” it found. Also, women were more than twice as likely to suffer a “musculoskeletal injury.”

A handful of exceptional women can likely meet the minimum physical standards for these demanding combat roles. The military still shouldn’t allow them in.

For one, if sex-neutral standards produce few qualified women, leftists will push to lower those standards. It already happened in the Army’s Ranger training.

More fundamentally, men act differently when there’s a woman in the group. That’s especially true when the men are 18 to 24, full of testosterone, and the woman is attractive and physically fit. Romantic relationships inside a unit are a distraction that hurts morale and cohesion.

The military routinely discriminates in ways society wouldn’t tolerate in other jobs. If you are too fat, old or slow, you can get kicked out. That’s permitted – even encouraged – because the military should prioritize its ability to kill people and break things.

Having women serve in combat roles makes the military less lethal, so women shouldn’t serve in combat roles.

Most of the world’s nuclear warheads are under the control of Putin, Xi, Modi, and Kim (6,302 out of 11,951). The rise of populist authoritarian states puts a premium on the juncture of interpersonal skills, trans-cultural awareness, and technical knowledge of the retaliatory options by the U.S. President. If American leadership does not appear entirely resolute in its intentions to respond proportionately and promptly to even the smallest nuclear attack against its interests and allies under its nuclear umbrella, then there will be a tangible risk of a new round of nuclear proliferation. The Pentagon must make it a priority to involve President Elect Donald Trump and Vice President Elect J.D. Vance in a series of intensive wargames, to deal with the almost inevitable retaliation and escalation that will result from nuclear weapons use.

Berkeley University professor Kenneth Waltz assured the world in his 1981 monograph More May be Better, that the global proliferation of nuclear weapons causes a maturation of a nuclear-armed country’s leadership, sensitizing it to the grave consequences of nuclear war. Deterrence and restraint would be strengthened because of the complexity of manufacture, and fear of the uncontrolled escalation of nuclear weapons. These constraints would make it impossible for irrational leaders to ever achieve a position of command over these capital weapons. However, three of the nuclear leaders, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un, are using their nuclear arsenals as shields behind which they are pursuing territorial changes by military force. For a time, Putin’s threatened use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine was deterred more by uncertainty than the assumption of a near-automatic response by the Joseph Biden administration. Furthermore, a sudden regime collapse in Moscow, Beijing or Pyongyang, may also lead to a vengeful nuclear strike on their neighbors.

Annie Jacobsen’s best-selling and horrifying 2024 account of a nuclear exchange, entitled Nuclear War – A Scenario, was generally poorly-received by professionals in the strategic deterrence business because of its extreme oversimplification of U.S. warfighting capabilities. However, it is a decent simulation of how nuclear war would look if conducted by unfettered authoritarians and poorly-prepared democratic leaders. None of the aforementioned rulers have had the politico-military training to manage the almost impossible challenge of arresting nuclear escalation. As John F. Kennedy discovered during the Cuban Missile Crisis, commanding nuclear weapons is very different from the routine of politics on the Hill, navigating communist political committees, or directing the Silovki to loot a post-totalitarian society.

Nobel Prize winning nuclear strategist Thomas Schelling argued that nuclear war could only be won by leaders with an intuitive and empathetic awareness of universal values of human justice. This test for the trait of moral insight, available in Schelling’s ground-breaking 1960 The Strategy of Conflict, which he administered annually to his students at Columbia University, was based on self-interested rationality, and not sentimentality. Since nuclear weapons cannot be defended against and virtually guarantee the de-urbanization and de-industrialization of all belligerent parties, the two leaders must be able to negotiate a principled and fair division of anything over which they are disputing, before escalation takes on a life of its own towards mutual annihilation. Columbia University professor Richard K. Betts has argued that since nuclear weapons represent unlimited power, an object like Taiwan, should instead be divided-up according to the balance of interest, and not the virtually infinite distribution of power. For example, in a war over Taiwan that escalated to include nuclear weapons, Xi and Trump would need to recognize that Taiwan would not be worth a full-scale exchange, and therefore they would dissect it according to the balance of their interests rather than according to the size of their arsenals. This requires a sophisticated cultural appreciation of the balance between Beijing’s compulsion for ethnic unification and civil war termination, versus America’s liberal impulse to defend all democracies.

Do Trump and Xi (or Putin, Kim, Benjamin Netanyahu, or Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi), both distracted by no holds-barred domestic challenges, have the trans-cultural experience required for this type of high-stakes and rapidly paced negotiations? It takes an inter-continental ballistic missiles no more than 40 minutes to hit its target, 15 minutes for a hypersonic delivery, and 10 minutes for a fractional orbital bombardment warhead to fall out of apogee. Stanford professor James Fearon, in a 1995 article in International Organization, demonstrated the inescapable value of lying in negotiations, highlighting the danger that all of these leaders may be tempted to mimic irrational lunacy to extract more concessions from their adversary. U.S. President Richard Nixon attempted this “Madman Strategy” to signal resoluteness to the USSR in 1969, but he failed to appreciate that the ideologized Soviet security psyche would prevent them from noticing. Furthermore, the rationality of irrationality is almost the perfect accelerant for nuclear escalation since the logical response is to end any talks and conduct an all-out damage limitation counter-force attack.

Certainly the USSR under Joseph Stalin and Nikita Khrushchev were hardly beacons of restraint or compromise, the latter having dramatically failed to predict the consequences of deploying nuclear weapons in Cuba in 1962. More frightening was Mao Zedong’s Communist China, which detonated its first nuclear weapon in 1964, just four years after his Great Leap Forward program that killed upwards of 30 million peasants. China’s 1966 thermonuclear warhead test and arsenal buildup occurred amid Mao’s subsequent Cultural Revolution, initiated primarily to dislocate his political opponents, and which likely instigated China’s provocative border war with the Soviet Union in 1969. However, communist arsenals confronted a sober U.S. leadership matured by the failure of the 1938 Munich negotiations with Adolf Hitler, and the shocking fall of France in 1940. According to Jeffery Rickelson, author of the 2007 Spying on the Bomb, the Second World War was a race to defeat Nazi Germany before it built its own nuclear arsenal, which would have followed shortly after the capture of Moscow. Wartime negotiations are undoubtedly made more complex by the stark generational differences sweeping through Russia, China and Iran, at the moment. Fortuitously, none of the most threatening leaders are ascetic, as all of Putin (4), Kim (3), and Xi (1) have children. Luckily also, none of Saddam Hussein, F.W. de Klerk, Bashar al-Assad, Masoud Pezeshkian, Slobodan Milosevic, or Volodymyr Zelinsky, possess or possessed nuclear arms.

One of the obvious lessons of the Second World War was the critical role of maintaining alliances to deter threats from revisionist aggressors, like Hideki Tojo’s Japan or Benito Mussolini’s Italy, primarily because deterrence is an order of magnitude cheaper than war. A.F.K. Organski and Jacek Kugler, in their 1980 The War Ledger, calculated that even victors of wars lose 5-7 years of their growth, whereas the defeated can lose up to 25 years, if they survive. It could take up to a century to return to the status quo ante after a global nuclear war, even if it only affected the Eurasian landmass and North America. This author and three of his university tutorial students struggled for four months through the emotionally exhausting 1977 SPI simulation After the Holocaust, in which the players confront starvation, industrial retrogression, secessionism, and foreign encroachment, to rebuild the U.S. after a devastating nuclear attack.

Trump’s contention that NATO, and especially Canada, is not bearing its fair share of the defense burden, is a recurring historical truism. However, the Cold War taught a second lesson that if alliances are withdrawn abruptly, countries will build their own nuclear arsenals, which are within easy reach of most industrialized states, such as North Korea. U.S. President Richard Nixon’s desertion of South Vietnam, because it looked like an abandonment of U.S. commitments to Asia, led directly to preliminary nuclear bomb research in the mid-1970s in both South Korea and Taiwan, and influenced Japan to get the acquiescence of the Ronald Reagan administration to build their Rokkasho nuclear reprocessing facility. A clumsy U.S. retreat from NATO will very likely trigger immediate nuclear proliferation in Poland, Sweden, and Turkey. Proliferation will undermine both the Immediate and General Deterrence strategy of the U.S.

The main purpose of nuclear weapons is Immediate Deterrence, where an enemy state is threatened with punishment if it conducts an attack, such as by China on Taiwan. In reality, this calculation is far more complex as Beijing is likely to use its nuclear arsenal in the form of a retaliatory shield to chaperone in its amphibious landing force onto Taiwan. To this end, the number of strategic warheads in the U.S. nuclear arsenal is essentially determined by a calculation of the number of enemy cities, warheads destroyed on the ground or at sea by enemy preemption, and weapons needed for post-war negotiation against hostile third parties seeking to exploit the weakness of a nuclear devastated America. Harvard University professor Samuel Huntington even warned that Mexico, where all of its school-age children are taught that a third of their territory awaits liberation in the U.S., may seek an opportunity of reclamation. There is no logical upper limit to the number of tactical nuclear weapons a country can possess, especially when using nuclear depth charges against suspected submarines or surface to air missiles, although the U.S. and USSR have decommissioned most of these.

Another important purpose of a large U.S. nuclear arsenal is General Deterrence, where a major power like the U.S. has such an impressive stockpile that it discourages smaller countries from even conceiving of competition and trying to possess nuclear weapons. This is certainly the case of Brazil, South Korea, Germany, and Japan, which depend on the U.S.’s security umbrella. General Deterrence is vital to U.S.’s grand strategy because proliferation would increase the likelihood of regional nuclear wars, which would instigate further proliferation, which in turn would block U.S. intervention against rogue states. General Deterrence thereby facilitates the U.S.’s three grand strategic objectives: first, enable global maritime commerce to generate middle classes that promote development and democracy, which leads to peace since liberal democracies do not war against each other. Therefore, second, spread democracy faster than the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Third, resist any attempt to unite the Eurasian landmass under a single non-democratic authority.

It is a peculiar world where we look to Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari as a moderate nuclear leader. French President Emmanuel Macron is perhaps the most experienced and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is likely the most restrained, but all three of these arsenals are Lilliputian by comparison to the stockpiles of the major powers. Nuclear disarmament will remain beyond reach for at least a generation, as all of the U.S., Russia, China, North Korea, India and Pakistan are ramping up their production of warheads. Israel never stopped, with their arsenal edging from 80 up to 90 units. Iran is also on the knife’s edge of crossing the nuclear threshold, with Saudi Arabia likely to receive Pakistani weapons if it does. Belarus leader Alexander Lukashenko probably has nuclear warheads under Russian supervision, in much the same way as the East German army possessed FROG-7 rockets under Soviet control. A firm command of nuclear options by the U.S. President Elect will fortify allies and dissuade opportunists.

Dr. Julian Spencer-Churchill is associate professor of international relations at Concordia University, and author of Militarization and War (2007) and of Strategic Nuclear Sharing (2014). He has published extensively on Pakistan security issues and arms control and completed research contracts at the Office of Treaty Verification at the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, and the then Ballistic Missile Defense Office (BMDO). He has also conducted fieldwork in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, and Egypt, and is a consultant. He is a former Operations Officer, 3 Field Engineer Regiment, from the latter end of the Cold War to shortly after 9/11.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has doubled down on his decision to continue the war in Ukraine, threatening to use nuclear weapons if he cannot get the solution he seeks in negotiations with incoming American President Donald Trump. He wants to keep existing boundaries based on the battlefield front lines, including annexed Ukrainian oblasts, and disarm Ukraine and deny them membership of NATO.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected this proposal outright, but also said “Ukraine deserves to make next year a year of peace”.

Neither side can fight on for another 12 months without causing considerable carnage and economic calamity to their respective countries.

The recent actions of both leaders seem to recognize this reality. Notwithstanding Putin’s aggressive nuclear threats after Ukraine’s use of powerful long-distant NATO weapons on Russian territory, where they struck North Korean troops and wounded a high-ranking general, Russia responded with a ballistic missile attack on a minor (undefended) Ukrainian town. Notably, Russia warned the USA before firing, so as not to risk a nuclear response.

Nevertheless, Putin still assumes that Russia’s war machine, with support from its allies in Iran, China, and North Korea, can outlast Ukraine and NATO. However, the Institute for the Study of War disputes this – “Russian forces lost roughly 80,000 troops during September and October 2024, but likely only recruited an estimated 60-70,000 into military service – indicating that the Russian military’s recruitment rates have begun to fall behind Russia’s previous one-to-one loss replacement rate.”

Also, Russia’s DIB, the country’s defense production system, is unlikely to match the production rate necessary to replace Russian weapons losses under current monetary policies. Foreign Policy, citing OSINT analysts, report that Russia has been losing around 320 tank and artillery cannon barrels per month but can only produce 20 per month. They declare that Russia will likely run out of cannon barrels in 2025 due to battlefield losses, dwindling Soviet stocks, and sanctions impacts.

Furthermore, the Russian Central Bank’s policy of raising interest rates has made it difficult for nondefense companies to raise capital through loans, which is shrinking the civilian economy and may lead to significant post-war recession as returning Russian veterans will have a harder time finding employment.

Russian Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) data shows that Russia’s labor shortage amounted to 4.8 million people in 2023, a problem that has reduced Russia’s economic output. Rosstat also estimated that Russia’s population will decline naturally at a rate of more than 600,000 people per year until 2032. Putin acknowledged Russia’s ongoing labor shortage on November 7 and admitted to Russia’s heavy reliance on migrants from as far- afield as Zimbabwe, to mitigate the impacts of its waning population.

What about Ukraine?

Ukraine is outmanned, outgunned and outmaneuvered. Factories and homes suffer from inconsistent power supplies. With temperatures at -10°C, the country could face blackouts lasting up to 10-12 hours daily this winter, and this estimate doesn’t even account for new Russian attacks. Furthermore, Ukraine is facing a demographic crisis – a shrinking population due to migration, a plummeting birth rate, and growing war casualties.

On the battlefield Ukraine is suffering a critical shortage of artillery shells, and cannot match Russian production, combined with North Korean imports. NATO has increased production, and Ukraine has developed a domestic arms industry, but distribution can take up to 18 months – time Ukraine does not have.

In an interview with Fox News President Zelenskyy said of U.S. arms supplies, “If they will cut, we will – I think we will lose,”- adding that Ukraine would stay and fight no matter what. “We have our production, but it is not enough to prevail. And I think it is not enough to survive.”

President-elect Trump has been critical about financially supporting Ukraine, but as a person who has been  described as transactional, he may be swayed by the American military industrial complex, which employs thousands of Americans in (mainly) Republican-led states and makes billions from the arms sales.

Notably Trump’s nominated Secretary of State Marco Rubio, is fervently opposed to China and North Korea and is wary of their relationship with Russia. Arming Ukraine counters this threat. It helps that the weapons industry has invested $663,000 in his Congressional career to date.

Apathy towards the war and resistance to greater social and economic hardship also appears to be growing within Russian society as the war drags on – suggesting that it is in Putin’s interest to resolve the war in 2025 to avoid exacerbating domestic discontent.

Putin is making fewer public appearances in Russia than ever before. Rumors of public (and oligarchic) backlash, and of illness, may increase the perception of his volatility and need to reach a negotiated settlement with Ukraine quickly, without losing face.

Patrick Drennan is a journalist based in New Zealand, with a degree in American history and economics.

President-elect Donald Trump understands, better than any recent American president, one simple rule when it comes to dealing with the world: Leverage matters and ought to be applied to those who oppose American interests. Trump believes, for example, that tariffs ought to be used to threaten those who would close their markets to American products or flood America with fentanyl or manipulate the pricing system to their own benefit. He believes that maximum pressure ought to be unleashed on countries who seek to destabilize vital strategic regions to their own ends.

And he is correct.

Trump has often been characterized as a bully, both publicly and privately. But the reality of the world is simple: Someone will be doing the bullying, and someone will be bullied. The only question is which party is which. It turns out that if America ceases to use leverage against its enemies, or to pressure neutral countries to align more solidly with it, our enemies will use their leverage to do what they want. China isn’t shy about its use of power in the world; neither are Russia or Iran. Xi Jinping has never apologized for his aggressive use of military threat against the Philippines or Taiwan; he has never shied away from the use of economic sticks and carrots against weaker countries. Vladimir Putin is fully willing to invade his neighbors and cut off oil supply to his enemies. Iran has spread its terror proxies across the Middle East, cudgeling entire governments into doing its will.

So why wouldn’t America pursue similar tactics?

This is, for some odd reason, a mysterious insight to members of the Biden administration, who seem willing to apply leverage only to America’s allies and who seem to think that conciliation and tepidity somehow achieve victory against America’s enemies. Perhaps they are of the Noam Chomsky-esque view that the world’s only country with actual agency is the United States, and that everything else is “blowback” – a common but foolhardy view rooted in a form of self-centeredness that ignores the fact that every country has its own interests and pursues those interests with alacrity. China does not threaten the South China Sea because of America’s naval presence; were America absent, China’s threats would simply be far more successful. Russia did not invade Ukraine because of Western influence in Ukraine; were that influence missing, Russia simply would have treated Ukraine as an outpost like Belarus long ago. Iran does not spread terrorism because of American presence in the region; it spreads terrorism because that is the best way for it to foment control over areas outside its purview.

America has interests in the world. Those interests are worth muscular defense, particularly in economic terms. And Trump instinctively understands that. Geopolitics is not a place of laws and regulations, enforced by neutral arbiters. It is a jungle, and the laws of the jungle apply. The best hope for the world is that the strongest also happen to be the best. But if the best refuse to be the strongest, someone else will be.

The world will be more stable with Donald Trump at the helm than Joe Biden. That much is obvious. And in quieter moments, world leaders often acknowledge that reality. But it should be remembered just why that is true: because the unapologetic American, confident in the interests of his country, is the best option for stability and growth in a cruel world. That does not make America the world’s policeman; American interests are not specious “global interests.” But the pursuit of American interests has generally beneficial externalities. And American refusal to pursue those interests leaves the world in the hands of those who would tear it apart, piece by piece.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, not known at any point in their White House tenure for a strength in international policy, are taking actions during their closing days that have described by legacy media reporters as “strengthening” Ukraine’s position in its war with Russia.

Sending more munitions and money is part of that. Another is to authorize Ukraine to use America tech to launch missiles deep into Russia, a move that already has made the region more unstable as Russian President Vladimir Putin promptly changed his country’s nuclear policy – to make a missile launch of catastrophic proportions more likely.

Now there are reports that there could be even more inflammatory steps taken, just before President-elect Donald Trump, who rhetorically has promised to end the conflict on day one, takes office.

It’s that “Western” leaders are considering delivering nuclear weapons to Ukraine, or even sending Western troops.

It is a report from Bloomberg that describes how Biden is rushing to “bolster” Ukraine before leaving office.

The report said the likelihood is that Trump will work immediately for a “negotiated settlement.”

That’s resulted in Biden allowing Ukraine “to hit military targets deeper inside Russia, a move that was immediately seen by Moscow and the Trump camp as a needless escalation.”

Biden also approved sending anti-personnel land mines, canceled $5 billion in Ukraine debt and sanctioned another Russia industry.

The report explained, “Those steps, among others still under consideration, are part of Biden’s plan to do as much as possible to reinforce Ukraine before Trump takes office, according to a person familiar with the U.S. stance, who asked not to be identified discussing private deliberations.”

The source reported Biden’s plan is to help Ukraine by showing it can retaliate against Russia.

Putin’s reaction? “He approved a new nuclear doctrine that lowered the threshold for launching tactical atomic weapons, then fired a new hypersonic ballistic missile at Ukraine capable of carrying such warheads,” the report said.

An official with the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center speculated some moves could help Trump, by placing Ukraine “in a stronger position” for negotiations.

But Trump cabinet picks already have questioned the tens of billions of dollars given to, or pledged to, Ukraine.

It was the New York Times that cited “several officials” who reportedly have “even suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union.:”

The report noted, “That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications.”

Already escalating the furor is that Biden authorized use of ATACMS, Army Tactical Missile Systems, for Ukraine which already has struck an ammunition depot in southwestern Russia.

Further, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III confirmed the Biden administration had approved supplying Ukraine with American anti-personnel mines.

Yet another shift has the Pentagon lifting a ban on U.S. military contractors deploying to Ukraine to help the country’s military maintain and repair U.S.-provided weapons systems.

A separate report in the Express revealed, “Britain and France are in talks to send troops to Ukraine to deter Vladimir Putin, it has emerged. London and Paris want to create a ‘core of allies in Europe’ as fears intensify that President-elect Donald Trump could withdraw military support for Ukraine.”

The report explained it was a “British military source” who informed Le Monde, “Discussions are underway between the UK and France regarding defense cooperation, particularly with the aim of creating a core of allies in Europe, focused on Ukraine and broader European security.”

At AmericaFirstReport was the warning, “Anyone that thinks that it is going to be easy to end the war in Ukraine is just being delusional. The Russians do not want to end the war right now because they are winning and they don’t want to stop until they have achieved their goals. The Ukrainian leadership in Kyiv does not want to end the war right now because it is their golden goose. Giant mountains of money have been flowing into the country, but once the war ends the endless flow of cash will stop. Politicians all over western Europe don’t want the war to end either, because they have become absolutely obsessed with defeating Russia. In fact, the UK and France are so determined to keep the war going that they are actually talking about sending troops to Ukraine…”

The report warned, “Our allies in Europe are making it very clear that they plan to continue with the war no matter what Donald Trump decides to do once he is inaugurated. NATO’s top military official is warning that Europeans may have to make sacrifices in order to support Ukraine if Trump reduces the level of U.S. funding for the war…”

And, it continued, “Europeans must be ready to sacrifice some ‘luxuries’ to pay to support Ukraine and to prevent a ‘wartime scenario’ coming to the nations of the continent if they are insufficiently prepared, NATO’s most senior military officer said in a speech namechecking both Russia and China as threats.”

The report noted Russians probably believe they are in an existential struggle, and if they feel “they have been backed into a corner with no other options, they will use nuclear weapons.”

And, the report said, “alarmingly,” the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency recently updated its advice that aims to shield Americans from the horrors of a nuclear explosion.

Tucker Carlson, on Real Clear Politics, much much more blunt, speculating about Biden, “a lame-duck president,” trying to leave Trump with “World War III on the way out.”

“A lame-duck president trying to start a war with the world’s largest nuclear power, Russia. What do you make of that?”

Former OMB directort Russ Vought said, “It’s incredibly insidious, and then add to the fact that he can’t put two sentences together and he is largely not in control of his own government. You have almost an unelected president with individuals behind the scenes doing this. It doesn’t surprise me, though. I mean, these are the same people that have weaponized the Department of Justice and the lawfare.

Russ Vought ran OMB under Trump the first time, and hopefully will again. Here’s what he learned about how the deep state actually works.

(0:00) What is the Office of Management and Budget?
(7:57) How Our Intel Agencies Overrule the President
(29:21) What Will the Congressional… pic.twitter.com/vl9au8UwU7

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) November 18, 2024

U.S. Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., has voiced his support for President-elect Donald Trump should he choose, after he takes office, to use parts of the U.S. military to remove illegal aliens from the nation.

The senator said, “I support the president,” when he specifically was asked about using the military to work on the massive deportation problem that is being left behind by the border mismanagement by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.

“We have a national security crisis in this country right now because of our open border, and when he declares it a national emergency, he can appropriately use the military,” the senator said in an interview with Fox News. “There are over 10 million illegal immigrants in the country right now.

“We are talking about drug dealers, people in criminal cartels. These are folks who have actually been murdering, raping, poisoning American citizens. When you take a look at the president’s magnificent victory, the decisive victory, I think it’s because people were scared about all of these people in the country illegally. People want to feel safe in their own homes,” he said.

WATCH: @SenJohnBarrasso discusses Trump possibly using the military to aid in mass deportations of illegal immigrants. pic.twitter.com/RLtveicvFw

— Fox News Sunday (@FoxNewsSunday) November 24, 2024

A report in the Daily Wire pointed out that, “Barrasso correctly noted that the overwhelming majority of the American public supports Trump conducting mass deportations.”

The senator criticized those “big city mayors and governors” who want to run a “sanctuary” operation to defy federal law.

They, “unbelievably, are more concerned about the rights, the so called rights of illegal immigrants than they are about the safety of their own citizens,” he cautioned.

Meanwhile, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., says he supports Trump’s plan for mass deportations, but not using the military for it, “because it’s illegal.”

“We’ve had a distrust of putting the army into our streets,” he says, calling for deportations “through the normal process of domestic policing.”

“I will not support and will not vote to use the military in our cities. I think it’s a terrible image.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) says he supports President-elect Donald Trump’s plan for mass deportations, but not his suggestion of using the military for it, “because it’s illegal.”

“We’ve had a distrust of putting the army into our streets,” he says, calling for deportations “through… pic.twitter.com/WUms7FSu66

— Face The Nation (@FaceTheNation) November 24, 2024

‘