Support for Ukraine

Just four months into Kishida’s term as prime minister, Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Under Kishida’s leadership, Japan has shown a strong commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty. In an unprecedented shift away from its self-defense-only principle, Japan has provided almost twelve billion dollars of assistance to Ukraine since February 2022, including nonlethal military aid. The 2023 Group of Seven (G7) Summit, which was held in Kishida’s hometown of Hiroshima, will also leave a mark on his foreign policy legacy. At the summit, he drew on Japan’s unique experience as the only country to have suffered wartime atomic bombing to emphasize his staunch opposition to Russian threats to use nuclear weapons. (A point he also made during his acceptance speech at the 2023 Atlantic Council Global Citizen Awards.)

The global ramifications of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led NATO to invite likeminded partners in the Indo-Pacific (Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand) to three consecutive annual summits. Through this transatlantic-Pacific partnership, NATO succeeded in garnering widespread support for Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression. However, in the face of rising security challenges from China, the Indo-Pacific Four are determined to ensure this newfound partnership is a two-way street. As Kishida said in March 2023 of Russia’s full-scale invasion, “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow.”

Indo-Pacific security

In the South China Sea, Beijing has ramped up its dangerous and aggressive behavior, including unlawful maritime claims and the coercive use of military vessels against the Philippines, particularly around the Second Thomas Shoal. Demonstrating firm support for Manila’s right to freedom of navigation and access to supply lines within its own maritime domain, Kishida and US President Joe Biden convened a historic trilateral summit with President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr., in April 2024.

On top of Chinese attempts to unilaterally alter the maritime status quo in the Indo-Pacific, North Korea continues to pose an imminent threat to Japan’s national security through advancements in its nuclear and missile arsenal. The willingness of Kishida and South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol to put aside longstanding and emotionally charged historical disputes between their two countries indicates the direness of the Indo-Pacific security environment. During his August 14 press conference, Kishida pointed out that the sixtieth anniversary of Japan-South Korea normalization is next year, adding that “we must make the normalization even more certain.”

Together with the United States, Kishida and Yoon ushered in a new era of enhanced US-South Korea-Japan cooperation at the historic Camp David Summit in August 2023. To better address shared regional security and economic challenges, the three countries institutionalized regular high-level consultations and working level meetings.

Kishida has also made enormous strides to bolster Japan’s defenses against an increasingly belligerent China and provocative North Korea. In December 2022, he released three new strategic documents that reflect a record-breaking 16 percent increase in defense spending. Kishida has also shifted Japan away from its postwar pacifist stance, including by easing the ban on lethal weapons exports to enable the co-development of next-generation fighter jets with Italy and the United Kingdom and the possession of counterstrike capabilities that could hit enemy targets.

What’s next?

Although Kishida has shown considerable leadership amid global uncertainty, his foreign policy stances are at significant odds with domestic sentiments in Japan. Despite vowing to nearly double Japan’s defense budget by 2027, he has not made clear how the country’s heavily indebted government plans to pay for this. The approval rating for Kishida’s government has regularly been below 20 percent since last December, with respondents pointing to dissatisfaction with his handling of the struggling economy. On top of this, he has faced intense backlash due to the LDP’s unreported political funds and longstanding ties to the Unification Church, which came to light during his term.

During his August 14 press conference, Kishida said that he hoped an LDP “dream team” would emerge to move the country forward. If the LDP continues to dominate Japanese politics, then major foreign policy stances, including the country’s alliance with the United States, will likely remain unchanged. However, the LDP is now at a crossroads as it seeks to regain the public’s trust. And the roster of candidates seeking party leadership reflects this.

Broadly speaking, the candidates can be divided into two categories: legacy party favorites lacking public support, and more progressive candidates who lack the backing of party leadership.

The former category includes LDP Secretary-General Toshimitsu Motegi, the party’s second-in-command, who also previously held the post of foreign minister from 2019-2021. In this role, he expressed interest in improving relations with Seoul for the sake of regional stability yet refused to put aside historical grievances to do so. Another candidate is Economic Security Minister Sanae Takaichi, who is a hardline nationalist under whom relations with South Korea would likely deteriorate significantly. These established candidates could previously rely on factional support for party elections but the dissolution of and mass exodus from dominant factions demonstrates an attempt by the LDP to reform and regain the public’s trust.

The latter category is made up of potential candidates like Foreign Minister Yoko Kamikawa, who, like Takaichi, would be Japan’s first female prime minister. In the current administration, she has advocated for a more gender-inclusive security policy, toed a careful line between holding China accountable for aggressive behavior while seeking areas of common interest with Beijing, and made concerted efforts to normalize ties with Seoul. Another popular candidate who has made waves in the LDP for seeking reforms to modernize Japan is Digital Minister Taro Kono. Although it is unclear how he would respond to the current geopolitical climate, he took a more dovish approach as foreign minister. For instance, he has advocated for greater territorial integrity for the Japanese Self-Defense Forces within the US-Japan alliance and vowed not to make an official visit to Yasukuni Shrine, where Japanese convicted war criminals are buried.

Kishida benefited greatly from the right combination of political will and geopolitical upheaval to secure the support necessary to shift Japan’s postwar foreign and defense policies. But with increasing domestic pressure to reduce government spending in a turbulent economic environment, it is uncertain whether Japan will be able to deliver on all the national and global security promises made under the Kishida administration.

Ultimately, if the next Japanese prime minister has any hope of continuing on this trajectory, then they must demonstrate a willingness to listen and address domestic concerns, while also effectively communicating the importance of upholding the rules-based international order to everyday Japanese citizens.  

Kyoko Imai is an assistant director with the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

The post Kishida has transformed Japanese foreign policy. Will his successor continue on his path? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Syrians voted in 8,151 polling stations that opened across the country, with the exception of areas not controlled by the Assad regime. To cater to residents displaced from opposition-held areas, the government established special polling stations scattered throughout the country. For example, stations were set up for Raqqa residents in the Hama, Damascus, Hasakah, Homs, Latakia, and Tartous governorates. For Quneitra residents, more than 111 out of 175 stations were located outside the governorate.

In northeastern Syria, the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) prevented elections by establishing a security cordon around the Qamishli “government quarter,” in which the Assad regime provides administrative services to the residents of the area. SDF-affiliated social media and news outlets broadcasted warnings that the election sites might be subject to unspecified terrorist attacks. In Idlib and northern Aleppo, areas controlled by the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and the Syrian National Army (SNA), there were no electoral activities.

Of all the areas under governmental control, the most disruptions were reported in the southern areas of Sweida. Before the polls, and continuing into Election Day, demonstrators protesting against the elections entered several polling centers, took away ballot boxes, and set election materials on fire. The anti-election protests were a continuation of the anti-regime protests that have been regularly occurring for the past year. On Election Day, demonstrators in Sweida’s al-Karama Square came under fire by security forces, and a civilian was injured. It’s worth noting that protests were not limited to Sweida—violence and demonstrations were reported across the governorate, as well as in the towns of Qarya and Mazraa and the villages of Melh, Slim, and Koraya. In Daraa governorate, protests and threats of violence forced the government to relocate twenty-five polling stations. For example, stations in the town of Mahja were moved to the city of Izraa, stations from al-Karak were moved to al-Musayfrah, and those in the city of Jasem were relocated to a safer part of the city.

Where the polls were conducted without disruption, the process unfolded identically to the 2020 election. Because the election authorities neither register voters nor compile the voters list in advance of elections, the first step at the polling station was to register a voter using the blank forms used to write in voters. This way, the voters list was compiled on Election Day rather than being available to the committees before the elections.

Voters would then be handed a ballot and needed to choose to either use ballots pre-filled with the Baath Party-sponsored candidates on the National Unity (NU) list or, if they dared, a blank ballot. Those who opted for a blank ballot had to write in the names of the candidates by hand, ranging from five names in al-Quentra to thirty-two names in rural Aleppo, which is a burdensome process. In some areas, the non-NU candidates would also distribute pre-printed ballots, such as the “Sham” list in Damascus, which features the incumbent Mohamed Hamsho (sanctioned by the European Union and the United States). The practice is fully permitted by law.

To ensure high turnout, public institutions, companies, committees, factories, banks, and unions were instructed by the government not to give employees a day off, which prevented them from ignoring the polls, and to compel them to vote en masse, likely under supervision. Many polling stations were set up in or near their workplaces—like factories and universities—to boost turnout. However, in contrast with the previous elections, there was no information on turnout either during the day or immediately after the close of the polls. According to our research, the Supreme Judicial Election Committee (SJEC), governors, and heads of polling committees used vague language to describe the turnout in the media, with statements like “turnout was good,” “nice,” “high,” “not bad,” and “it got better in the afternoon” being used throughout the day. During a live interview on state television with the polling station committee in rural Damascus, the reporter abruptly changed the subject and asked the polling station president not to share any information about the number of voters or the station’s results.

There is little to be said about the credibility of the polling process itself. As described in a previous article on electoral administration, the process did not meet fundamental standards for impartial management of elections nor the standards of transparency. There were no independent national or international observers, and there were no systematic, evidence-based reports of the polling process. For what it is worth, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of mass proxy voting, underage voting, voting without secrecy, and voting in military barracks without a chance for supervision.

The same lack of transparency shrouds the process for resolving election disputes. The president of the Supreme Constitutional Court, Jihad Lahham, announced on July 28 that all forty-seven appeals were rejected for “not meeting the conditions stipulated in the laws” and “not supported by any document or evidence.” Nothing is known about the nature of the appeals or those filing them.

The Syrian opposition was campaigning against the legitimacy of the elections. These efforts were led by the Syrian Negotiation Committee, several Syrian nongovernmental organizations, and the media. The key slogan of the campaign was “No to Assad and his elections” alongside “Resolution 2254,” which also appeared as hashtags on X (formerly Twitter). The campaign messages were of a general anti-elections character, pointing out that they were against the framework set by the United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSC) 2254. The campaign was launched late and was effectively active only on Election Day. It does not appear to have gained any significant traction.

The Baath Party endorsed NU lists that included 185 candidates across the country. As expected, the electoral system ensured that all of them were elected, making the partisan composition of the assembly identical to the previous one: 67 percent for the Baathists (a total of 74 percent for all the NU candidates) and 26 percent for those elected to seats not contested by the NU. The number of seats not contested by the NU candidates, a maximum of sixty-five, is not random; it is by design. It avoids the perception of single-party rule and allows for a semblance of diversity, but protects the regime by securing a two-thirds majority needed to fend off legislative challenges, enact constitutional amendments, or accuse the president of treason. This golden ratio has been the formula in place since the 2016 legislative elections held in the aftermath of the 2012 constitutional reforms.

Are there any other conclusions besides the predictable 100 percent victory for all of the NU candidates? Detailed analysis is difficult because of the lack of transparency; there is simply not enough data published for a granular view of the results. If elections were ever to be held under the framework of the UNSC Resolution 2254 and within international standards, the authorities would be obliged to publish the complete election results, including turnout with gender breakdown, numbers of invalid ballots, registered voters, and votes for all the candidates. Currently, the results published by the SJEC present only the votes of the winning candidates, not all the candidates. This makes election analysis impossible, as by how much the election losers lost will never be known.

Because the voting data are missing, and because the competition was, in practice, resolved before Election Day through internal elections and the primaries, the analysis is reduced to levels of participation. The SJEC only announced an overall number of voters in elections: 7,325,844 out of 19,200,325 claimed by the government to be eligible, which results in a turnout of 38.16 percent, about a 5 percent increase since the 2020 elections. This overall number says nothing about regional differences.

Voting patterns are even harder to analyze because of elections used a block vote system with multiple candidates. The workaround is to consider the top candidate on the list as representative of the support received by the list. Employing this method reveals a pattern of some voting shifts between the governorates and between the 2020 and 2024 elections. Countrywide, the NU lists received 5 percent fewer votes than in 2024. Some drops in the votes were dramatic, such as in Damascus, where NU lost 49 percent of the votes, followed by Hasaka with 43 percent. On the other hand, votes for NU in rural Aleppo, Deir ez-Zor, and Hama dramatically increased (42 percent, 51 percent, and 71 percent, respectively.)

It will take some time to understand the cause of these changes. They could be simply the result of the redeployment of the military and the return of internally displaced persons, especially to Damascus. The only solid conclusion at this point is that the actual increase in the total number of those who voted by 1.1 million has not resulted in increased support for the NU lists, as they lost two hundred thousand votes compared to the 2020 elections. And, when compared with the 2016 elections, the increase in 2.2 million voters led to a decrease in support for the NU by 1.2 million votes.

Shifts in support for the NU lists do not seem to be related to whether the candidates on the lists were incumbents. As in the previous elections, the rates of turnover were high. Out of the 250 elected to the new parliament, ninety-three are incumbents, which is only 37.2 percent of the total—and almost exactly the same as in the 2020 elections, when 37.6 percent of incumbents were re-elected.

However, turnover is not uniform across the country. The variations between the regions are significant. In Idlib, Tartous, Deir ez-Zor, Raqqa, and Damascus, more than 80 percent of representatives were replaced. On the other side of the spectrum is Sweida with only 33 percent, followed by Daraa at 40 percent, and Hassaka at 42 percent.

Besides analysis of the turnout and the turnover in the parliament, what are the election results saying about the structure and political dynamics of the newly elected assembly? On an individual level, it might be of interest that six of the eight members serving in the governmental delegation to the UN-sponsored Constitutional Committee were not re-elected, including Ahmed Kuzbari, the co-chair. In Damascus, the “Sham” list led by Hamsho, a sanctioned businessman closely affiliated with Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother, won twelve seats that were not contested by the National Unity list. One of the new independent members of parliament from Aleppo, Mohammed al-Ruslan, is a former leader of a militia faction reportedly affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). Madoul al-Aziz, a former leader of a militia affiliated to al-Nusra, was re-elected as an independent candidate for Deir ez-Zor.

But, as explained in the previous article on candidates, if there was any political competition, it played out in advance to general elections, in the intra-Baath Party elections and primaries. The conclusion from observing those processes is that the new parliament might be rejuvenated with significant turnover, but will likely remain in the service of the top Baath leadership.

Vladimir Pran advises electoral authorities, governments, and political leaders on transitional, electoral, and political processes.

Maroun Sfeir advises international and local civil society organizations, political groups, and electoral authorities on electoral and political processes.

The post Syrian elections ended. What have we learned from the results? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

We still don’t know the military significance of Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk Oblast, which marks the first time that foreign troops have occupied Russian territory since World War II. But judging from the Kremlin’s whiny initial response—in which Russian President Vladimir Putin and other top officials decried and downplayed the offensive as a “terrorist attack” and an “armed provocation”—the political fallout promises to be enormous.

This is because the invasion and occupation of parts of Kursk Oblast marks the third major military humiliation the Kremlin leader has suffered since launching his full-scale assault on Ukraine in February 2022.

The first humiliation: February-September 2022

First, of course, there was the routing of Russian forces in the battle of Kyiv in the early phase of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. The embarrassing withdrawal of Russian forces from near the Ukrainian capital in March 2022 was quickly followed by more military humiliations for the Kremlin, including Ukraine’s April 2022 sinking of the Moskva, the flagship of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet.

And if you thought it couldn’t get much worse for Russia than losing its flagship in a land war to a country without a navy, you would be wrong. In September and October 2022, Ukraine launched lightning counteroffensives to liberate large swaths of Russian-occupied territory in the Kharkiv and Kherson regions.

UkraineAlert Aug 11, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines

By Peter Dickinson

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has erased the last of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and made a complete mockery of the West’s frequently voiced escalation fears, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 15, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia exposes the folly of the West’s escalation fears

By Oleksiy Goncharenko

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has shown that Putin’s talk of red lines and his nuclear threats are just a bluff to intimidate the West, writes Oleksiy Goncharenko.

Conflict Defense Policy

New Atlanticist Aug 9, 2024

Is Ukraine’s raid into Russia a ‘crossing the Delaware’ moment?

By Daniel Fried

With echoes of earlier raids, Ukraine’s recent push into the Kursk region of Russia shows its tactical cunning, audacity, and tenacity against a superior foe.

Conflict Russia

The result of these first humiliations was, for lack of a better term, the shrinkage of Putin in the international arena. When Russia launched its invasion in the beginning of 2022, most analysts believed the war would be over in a matter of weeks. But by the end of 2022, Russia’s war machine no longer looked invincible—instead, it looked quite fallible and beatable. And Putin no longer looked like a ten-foot-tall master strategist—instead, he looked small.

The dismal performance of the Russian Armed Forces in 2022 weakened Putin domestically and divided the Russian elite into hawks, who wanted nothing short of the complete conquest of Kyiv, and kleptocrats, who wanted to go back to the prewar status quo. Ukrainian forces prevented Russia’s complete conquest, while Putin continued to isolate and impoverish his country, and therefore neither group was happy. Which set the stage for Putin’s next humiliation.

The second humiliation: June-August 2023

Putin’s second great military humiliation came not at the hands of Ukraine, but from within his own inner circle. The June 2023 mutiny of Yevgeniy Prigozhin and his Kremlin-connected mercenary army, the Wagner Group, exposed deep cracks in the Russian political elite as well as the hollowness and rot of the Russian Armed Forces.

The fact that Prigozhin, a Putin crony since the 1990s, would launch a rebellion against the Kremlin illustrated the perils of Putin’s “venture-capital foreign policy,” which outsources key military and security tasks to nominally private-sector actors. These informal patronage networks, in which Putin is the ultimate arbiter, only function well when the Russian leader is strong. When Putin is weak, it can lead to events like the Wagner Group mutiny.

And the fact that Prigozhin could effectively take control of the city of Rostov-on-Don—to a hero’s welcome, no less—and march his Wagner mercenaries north to the outskirts of Voronezh, roughly three hundred miles from Moscow, further punctured Putin’s aura of omnipotence.

Prigozhin, of course, paid a price for his mutiny. He died in a plane crash together with nine others, including Wagner co-founder Dmitry Utkin, on August 23, 2023. The crash, to state the obvious, was not an accident. It was, according to sources in Western intelligence agencies, an assassination organized by longtime Putin aide Nikolai Patrushev.

Putin’s second humiliation did not just deepen the divisions in Russia’s ruling elite exposed by the invasion of Ukraine. It also exposed the fundamental weakness of the armed forces in performing their core mission: protecting the homeland. And this, in turn, set the stage for Putin’s most recent humiliation.

The third humiliation: August 2024

The Ukrainian Armed Forces’ invasion of Kursk Oblast—conceived, planned, and executed in strict secrecy—came as a shock and instantaneously transformed the narrative of the war. Instead of the steady drumbeat of news about incremental Russian gains in the Donbas, a headline in the New York Times said it all: “Deception and a Gamble: How Ukrainian Troops Invaded Russia.”

From the mass surrenders of unprepared and outmanned Russian troops, to the chaotic evacuation of civilians, to the steady advances of Ukrainian forces deeper into Russian territory, the Kursk operation exposed the weakness not just of the Russian Armed Forces, but of the Russian state itself.

Over his more than two-decade rule, the Putin regime’s social contract with Russian society has been based on restoring lost greatness and reestablishing the empire. But today, it seems to have failed at achieving the most fundamental responsibility of a state: protecting its territory and citizens from foreign invasion. And the fact that Putin is rumored to have tasked one of his former bodyguards, Aleksei Dyumin (whom some Russian Telegram channels have dubbed Russia’s “shadow defense minister”), with ending Ukraine’s cross-border offensive, suggests that panic is in the air and that recently appointed Defense Minister Andrei Belousov may not be up to the task.

The military fallout of Ukraine’s bold invasion of Russia is still unclear. It may turn out to be, as former US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe Daniel Fried suggested, a George Washington “crossing the Delaware moment.” In a smart post on Substack, retired Australian Army Major General Mick Ryan noted that as a result of the incursion, Ukraine has options: It can try to hold on to the territory it has seized, it can retreat to more defensible positions inside Russia, or it can withdraw to Ukraine after embarrassing the Kremlin. Putin, meanwhile, faces the difficult choice of whether to move troops from the front in eastern Ukraine to take back Russian territory in the Kursk region.

Regardless of how this plays out militarily, the political damage is done, and it is rooted in the nature of Russian politics. As I have written, under Putin, the Russian state has become, in essence, an organized crime syndicate. Its internal logic, processes, incentive structure, and behavior resemble those of a mafia family. And the most destabilizing moment for a crime syndicate is when the mafia boss looks weak.

Brian Whitmore is a nonresident senior fellow at the Eurasia Center, an assistant professor of practice at the University of Texas-Arlington, and host of the Power Vertical podcast.

The post Ukraine’s Kursk offensive marks Putin’s third major humiliation of the war appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Russians first began reporting significantly slower YouTube loading speeds in the weeks preceding the August shutdown. Officials in Moscow claimed this was the result of technical problems, but the Kremlin has also recently signaled its mounting dissatisfaction with YouTube. In July, Russian media regulator Roskomnadzor called on Google’s CEO to restore over 200 pro-Kremlin YouTube channels that had been blocked for violations. Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Ministry has accused the platform of carrying out “the political directives of Washington.”

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The recent crackdown on YouTube is the latest milestone in a war against free speech in Russia that began when Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000. During the 1990s, the Russian media sector had briefly flourished amid unprecedented freedoms. One of Putin’s first major acts as president was to reverse this trend and reassert Kremlin control over Russia’s mainstream media.

The Russian authorities have continued to expand their campaign against the country’s shrinking independent media sector for much of the past two decades. Following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Kremlin moved to block or restrict major Western social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. These measures were imposed in parallel to Orwellian new restrictions banning any references to “war” and forcing Russian media outlets to refer to the invasion of Ukraine as a “special military operation.”

UkraineAlert Aug 15, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia exposes the folly of the West’s escalation fears

By Oleksiy Goncharenko

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has shown that Putin’s talk of red lines and his nuclear threats are just a bluff to intimidate the West, writes Oleksiy Goncharenko.

Conflict Defense Policy

New Atlanticist Aug 15, 2024

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive marks Putin’s third major humiliation of the war

By Brian Whitmore

Ukrainian forces’ recent incursion into Kursk Oblast in Russia came as a shock and instantaneously transformed the narrative of the war.

Conflict Politics & Diplomacy

New Atlanticist Aug 9, 2024

Is Ukraine’s raid into Russia a ‘crossing the Delaware’ moment?

By Daniel Fried

With echoes of earlier raids, Ukraine’s recent push into the Kursk region of Russia shows its tactical cunning, audacity, and tenacity against a superior foe.

Conflict Russia

It is easy to see why Putin may now have decided to block YouTube. After all, reports of a widespread freeze came just days after Ukraine launched a surprise cross-border offensive into Kursk Oblast, marking the first invasion of Russia since World War II. While the Kremlin-controlled Russian state media has sought to downplay the invasion, ordinary Russians have used YouTube to post information about the Ukrainian advance and publish videos contradicting the official Moscow narrative.

As Ambassador Daniel Fried has emphasized, this ongoing Ukrainian offensive “upends the Kremlin narrative of inevitable Russian victory” in Ukraine, and threatens to lift the veil of propaganda that the Russian authorities have created since the start of the full-scale invasion. By slowing down or blocking access to YouTube, Moscow may be hoping to prevent any public panic over Ukraine’s Kursk offensive.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Recent steps to limit access to YouTube are seen as somewhat risky due to the video sharing platform’s status as the most popular social media site in Russia. Indeed, it came as no surprise when the apparent shutdown of YouTube sparked significant alarm and anger on Russian social media. Notably, no genuine alternative currently exists in Russia. The Kremlin has promoted similar domestic platforms such as VK Video and RuTube, but these options have not been able to rival the popularity or audience reach of YouTube itself.

There are additional indications that the Kremlin may now be seeking to strengthen its control over the information space and further cut Russia off from the outside world. On August 9, Roskomnadzor blocked access to Signal, a messaging app that allows for end-to-end encrypted communications. Reports also continue to circulate that the Kremlin is preparing to take similar steps against messenger platform WhatsApp.

Recent measures to prevent Russians from accessing YouTube represent the latest escalation in the Kremlin’s campaign to dominate the domestic information space and eliminate all independent media in today’s Russia. Over the past twenty-four years, Vladimir Putin has created a powerful propaganda machine that has proved instrumental in legitimizing his own increasingly dictatorial rule and mobilizing public support for the invasion of Ukraine. Popular social media platforms like YouTube remain outside of Moscow’s control and therefore pose a significant threat to the Kremlin censors. With Ukrainian troops now advancing inside Russia itself, it would seem that this threat can no longer be tolerated.

Mercedes Sapuppo is a program assistant at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Aug 13, 2024

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive proves surprise is still possible in modern war

By Mykola Bielieskov

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive has succeeded in demonstrating that surprise is still possible despite the increased transparency of the modern battlefield, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 11, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines

By Peter Dickinson

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has erased the last of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and made a complete mockery of the West’s frequently voiced escalation fears, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 1, 2024

Ukraine’s new F-16 jets won’t defeat Russia but will enhance air defenses

By Mykola Bielieskov

Ukraine’s fledgling fleet of F-16 jets will not win the war but should strengthen the country’s air defenses and help protect the civilian population from Russian bombardment, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Technologies

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post The Kremlin is cutting Russia’s last information ties to the outside world appeared first on Atlantic Council.

During the first week of Ukraine’s counter-invasion, Ukrainian forces established control over approximately one thousand square kilometers of land in Russia’s Kursk Oblast, according to Ukrainian Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrsky. This is comparable to the total amount of Ukrainian land seized by Russia since the start of 2024. Ukraine is now moving to establish a military administration over areas of Russia under Kyiv’s control.

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive is a remarkably bold gamble that could prove to be a turning point in the wider war. Defining the strategy and motives behind the operation is a matter for Ukraine’s political and military leadership. However, at this early stage, I believe it is already possible to identify a number of initial successes.

The attack clearly caught the unsuspecting Russians completely off-guard, despite the near ubiquity of surveillance drones on the modern battlefield. This represents a major achievement for Ukraine’s military commanders that has bolstered their already growing international reputation.

New Atlanticist Aug 15, 2024

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive marks Putin’s third major humiliation of the war

By Brian Whitmore

Ukrainian forces’ recent incursion into Kursk Oblast in Russia came as a shock and instantaneously transformed the narrative of the war.

Conflict Politics & Diplomacy

UkraineAlert Aug 11, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines

By Peter Dickinson

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has erased the last of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and made a complete mockery of the West’s frequently voiced escalation fears, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

New Atlanticist Aug 9, 2024

Is Ukraine’s raid into Russia a ‘crossing the Delaware’ moment?

By Daniel Fried

With echoes of earlier raids, Ukraine’s recent push into the Kursk region of Russia shows its tactical cunning, audacity, and tenacity against a superior foe.

Conflict Russia

Ukraine’s unexpected offensive has also exposed the weakness of the Putin regime. Throughout his twenty-five year reign, Putin has positioned himself as the strongman ruler of a resurgent military superpower. However, when Russia was invaded for the first time since World War II, it took him days to react. As the BBC reports, he has since avoided using the word “invasion,” speaking instead of “the situation in the border area” or “the events that are taking place,” while deliberately downplaying Ukraine’s offensive by referring to it as “a provocation.”

The response of the once-vaunted Russian military has been equally underwhelming, with large groups of mostly conscript soldiers reportedly surrendering to the rapidly advancing Ukrainians during the first ten days of the invasion. Far from guaranteeing Russia’s security, Putin appears to have left the country unprepared to defend itself.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s dramatic change in tactics comes after almost a year of slow but steady Russian gains in eastern and southern Ukraine. Since 2023, Russian commanders have been deploying their country’s overwhelming manpower and firepower advantages to gradually pummel Ukrainian forces into submission. The Kremlin’s reliance on brute force has proved costly but effective, leaving the Ukrainian military with little choice but to think outside the box.

It has long been obvious that fighting a war of attrition is a losing strategy for Ukraine. The country’s military leaders cannot hope to compete with Russia’s far larger resources and have no desire to match the Kremlin’s disregard for casualties. The Kursk offensive is an attempt to break out of this suffocating situation by returning to a war of mobility and maneuver that favors the more agile and innovative Ukrainian military. So far, it seems to be working.

While bringing Vladimir Putin’s invasion home to Russia has undeniable strategic and emotional appeal, many commentators have questioned why Ukraine would want to occupy Russian territory. The most obvious explanation is that Kyiv seeks bargaining chips to exchange for Russian-occupied Ukrainian lands during future negotiations.

The significant quantity of Russian POWs captured during the offensive also opens up possibilities to bring more imprisoned Ukrainian soldiers home. Meanwhile, control over swathes of Kursk Oblast could make it possible to disrupt the logistical chains supplying the Russian army in Ukraine.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Beyond the military practicalities of the battlefield, the Kursk offensive is challenging some of the most fundamental assumptions about the war. Crucially, Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has demonstrated that Putin’s nuclear threats and his talk of red lines are in reality a big bluff designed to intimidate the West.

Ukrainians have long accused Western policymakers of being overly concerned about the dangers of provoking Putin. They argue that since 2022, the international response to Russian aggression has been hampered by a widespread fear of escalation that has led to regular delays in military aid and absurd restrictions on the use of Western weapons. Ukraine’s offensive has now made a mockery of this excessive caution. If the Kremlin does not view the actual invasion of Russia by a foreign army as worthy of a major escalation, it is hard to imagine what would qualify.

As the Kursk offensive unfolds, Ukraine is hoping the country’s allies will draw the logical conclusions. Initial indications are encouraging, with US and EU officials voicing their support for Ukraine’s cross-border incursion despite longstanding concerns over any military operations inside Russia. At the same time, restrictions on the use of certain categories of weapons remain in place. This is hindering the advance of Ukrainian troops in Kursk Oblast. It is also preventing Kyiv from striking back against the airbases used to bomb Ukrainian cities and the country’s civilian infrastructure.

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive represents a powerful signal to the country’s partners. It demonstrates that the Ukrainian military is a highly professional force capable of conducting complex offensive operations and worthy of greater international backing. It also confirms that Putin’s Russia is dangerously overstretched and is militarily far weaker than it pretends to be.

The muddled and unconvincing Russian response to Ukraine’s invasion speaks volumes about the relative powerlessness of the Putin regime. This should persuade Kyiv’s allies of the need for greater boldness and convince them that the time has come to commit to Ukrainian victory.

Oleksiy Goncharenko is a Ukrainian member of parliament with the European Solidarity party.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Aug 13, 2024

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive proves surprise is still possible in modern war

By Mykola Bielieskov

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive has succeeded in demonstrating that surprise is still possible despite the increased transparency of the modern battlefield, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 8, 2024

F-16 jets will help defend Ukrainian cities from Russian bombardment

By Olena Tregub

The first batch of F-16 fighter jets arrived in Ukraine in late July and are now expected to be used primarily in an air defense role against Russian missile and drone attacks, writes Olena Tregub.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Aug 11, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines

By Peter Dickinson

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has erased the last of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and made a complete mockery of the West’s frequently voiced escalation fears, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Ukraine’s invasion of Russia exposes the folly of the West’s escalation fears appeared first on Atlantic Council.

This article analyzes the evolving dynamics of Syria-Turkey relations, focusing on the key diplomatic milestones and the underlying factors influencing their interactions, and providing a comprehensive understanding of the path toward potential reconciliation. The objective is to identify the critical factors that could facilitate or hinder the normalization of relations between Damascus and Ankara.

Turkey’s intentions

The ongoing situation in Syria presents risks for Turkish security, prompting a search for viable solutions to its multifaceted challenges. Starting in 2019, developments in Syria have been shaped by shared Russian-US interests in preventing Turkish intervention in the country and, in particular, safeguarding the YPG-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The presence of the Russian military and the prospect of economic sanctions from the United States have repeatedly prevented Turkish efforts to launch military operations in Syria. At least three planned Turkish military operations appear to have been prevented because of these factors.

Turkey urgently needs to address the situation in northeastern Syria, mainly because it has lost hope in the United States resolving its security concerns related to the YPG-dominated SDF. Ankara views the US partnership with the YPG, the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)—a designated foreign terrorist organization—as a national security threat.

As mentioned earlier, Turkey has three main objectives in Syria: to eliminate the YPG threat, facilitate the return of refugees, and seek a political solution for long-term stability. There is growing anti-refugee sentiment in Turkey and the Turkish opposition is gaining strength, putting pressure on the government to address the refugee crisis. Domestic politics significantly influence Turkey’s involvement with Damascus as the government aims to ease public discontent and bolster its political position.

Furthermore, Russia has conducted a successful propaganda campaign targeting the Turkish public and decision-makers, shaping perceptions, and influencing policy decisions. This campaign has further emphasized the supposed benefits of talking with Damascus.

Turkey didn’t perceive a realistic policy option to cooperate with the United States in Syria and pursue talks with Damascus. Speculation about a possible US withdrawal from Syria due to the upcoming US elections in November and a new momentum in Turkish-US relations resulted in Ankara hoping for a joint approach with Washington. However, the United States’ refusal to abandon the YPG continues to be the main barrier to reaching any agreement.

As Turkey cannot achieve its objectives given opposition from Russia and the United States, and Washington has yet to provide Ankara with a viable alternative, Turkey is willing to consider the option proposed by Russia. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has acknowledged the need for an exit strategy from Syria, a reality recognized across the Turkish political spectrum. The main issues concern Syria’s conditions and the nature of governance there. Erdogan has emphasized the need for a new social contract in Syria that would ensure the safe return of refugees and address Turkey’s security concerns.

The Russian strategy

Russia’s efforts to pressure Turkey into a military retreat from Syria suffered a significant setback in 2020, when the Turkish Armed Forces effectively defeated regime forces after the unfortunate loss of thirty-four Turkish soldiers. This event exposed the limits of Russia’s power and necessitated a reassessment of its strategy toward Turkey and the broader Syrian crisis.

While Russia has been focused on the invasion of Ukraine, its strategy in Syria has been aimed at preventing a situation in which a fait accompli by another actor diminishes its influence. Russia is actively pursuing a plan to secure its ongoing presence and control in Syria, while also preventing Western powers or their regional allies from establishing a solid position in Damascus. This strategic maneuvering is essential for Moscow to maintain its geopolitical leverage in the Middle East.

Turkey remains the primary obstacle to a decisive Russian victory in Syria. Moscow recognizes that, to surmount this impediment, it must actively involve Ankara in a manner congruent with Turkey’s interests, which only sometimes coincide with those of Western countries. Russia believes that Turkey is pursuing an autonomous agenda in Syria, which might deviate from the objectives of Western countries. This autonomy presents both a challenge and an opportunity for Russian diplomacy.

Russia is greatly concerned about the possibility of a Turkish-US agreement regarding Syria, particularly considering the potential future withdrawal of US forces from the area. This agreement could weaken Russian interests, leading Moscow to influence Turkey’s position actively. In the worst-case scenario for Russia, negotiations between Ankara and Damascus could serve as a stalling tactic, buying time until the situation in Ukraine stabilizes or the United States withdraws from Syria.

Russia has skillfully capitalized on Turkey’s concerns about migration to benefit itself. At first, it used the tactic of threatening to attack internally displaced persons (IDPs) along the border between Turkey and Syria to put pressure on Ankara. Presently, Russia is implementing an all-encompassing propaganda strategy intended to persuade the Turkish population that engaging in negotiations with Damascus is the definitive resolution to Turkey’s refugee crisis. This psychological and media campaign aims to alter public opinion and enable diplomatic talks.

Moscow is invoking the 1998 Adana Protocol, which would officially legitimize the Turkish military’s existence in Syria, to promote a consensus between Ankara and Damascus. Nevertheless, this proposal would require a thorough examination and possible protocol enhancement to make it more attractive to Ankara. Russia’s proposal for a formal and globally acknowledged military presence is intended to give Turkey a feeling of safety and credibility in its actions, thus creating a favorable atmosphere for diplomatic talks.

Damascus’s position

Reconciliation with Turkey, the last-standing primary regional adversary, is crucial to completing Syria’s narrative of victory. The prevailing sentiment in Damascus is that mending ties with Ankara would deliver a significant blow to the opposition, further impeding the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2254 (UNSCR 2254). By reconciling with Turkey, Syria could strategically undermine the opposition’s position in the negotiations and strengthen its stance. This would help Syria consolidate its control over its future political landscape.

Syria would have preferred to negotiate with a Turkish government other than the one led by President Erdogan. Opposition parties in Turkey have demonstrated more eagerness to engage with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are less bound to impose burdensome conditions for reconciliation on Damascus. Syria must confront the current reality of Erdogan’s government, which holds power despite its contentious position. The general sentiment in Damascus is that a potential reconciliation with Ankara should lead to only a limited amount of diplomatic interaction, allowing Syria to maintain some influence for possible future negotiations with a more favorable Turkish government. By adopting this pragmatic approach, Damascus can effectively navigate the intricate dynamics of Turkish politics while maintaining flexibility in its long-term strategic choices.

Moreover, re-establishing diplomatic relations with Turkey would significantly influence opposition armed factions in northern Syria. If Ankara changes its position, these groups—many of which depend on Turkish support—would experience a substantial decline in their influence. By ensuring that Turkey is held responsible for their actions, the opposition from these factions is anticipated to decrease significantly. Additionally, this normalization could resolve the stalemate in negotiations with the YPG-dominated SDF. The process of reconciliation with Turkey has the potential to either result in Kurdish communities making further concessions or lead to the formation of a united anti-YPG front by antagonistic Arab communities, with the support of Ankara. This transition has the potential to result in a more united and secure northern Syria, which aligns with Damascus’s broader strategic objectives.

Reconciliation with Ankara also carries substantial economic and financial incentives. Regaining partial or complete control over Turkey’s borders would provide Syria access to international trade routes, which would be crucial for economic recovery. The Syrian economy, severely damaged by prolonged conflict and financial restrictions, urgently needs opportunities for expansion and progress. Despite Turkey’s interest in other regional connectivity projects, Syria’s connectivity remains more feasible and cost-effective. The strategic advantage of re-establishing trade links with Turkey highlights the economic imperative for Syria to pursue normalization.

Nevertheless, Damascus has substantial apprehension about the validation of the Turkish military’s presence in Syria. Damascus might lose vital leverage in future discussions with Ankara by acknowledging or temporarily legitimizing this presence. As a result, Syria, with Tehran’s backing, is expected to consistently insist on the complete withdrawal of the Turkish Armed Forces from northern Syria as a prerequisite for reconciliation.

As Syria and Turkey navigate this new phase of diplomacy, the path to reconciliation remains fraught with uncertainty and complex technical negotiations. While recent developments hint at a thaw in relations, the demands and concessions required from both sides are more complicated. A photo-op between leaders might offer a symbolic victory, but it is the most accessible milestone in a future filled with arduous discussions and complex agreements. The real test lies ahead as both countries strive to address deep-seated issues, balance regional interests, and forge a sustainable path forward amid enduring skepticism.

Sinan Hatahet is a nonresident senior fellow for the Syria Project at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs and vice president for investment and social impact at the Syrian Forum.

Ömer Özkizilcik is a nonresident fellow for the Syria Project in the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs.

The post Red lines and reconciliation: Turkey and Syria’s diplomatic gamble appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The Reuters article also quoted European intelligence sources as stating that “dozens” of Russian military personnel were being trained in Iran on Fath-360 short-range ballistic missiles, which are said to have a maximum range of 120 kilometers (75 miles). These intelligence sources also stated that delivery of these Iranian Fath-360s is expected “soon.” According to one source, the Fath-360 is based on the Fateh-100 design but is considerably smaller, and its launcher can be camouflaged as a civilian truck.

In addition, former Russian Defense Minister and current Secretary of the Russian Security Council Sergei Shoigu was in Tehran on August 5, where he met with several officials, including Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian. During their meeting, Pezeshkian reportedly told Shoigu that Iran was “determined to expand relations” with its “strategic partner Russia.” Various media sources indicate that Tehran has renewed its requests for Russian deliveries of advanced air-defense systems and that Moscow might have delivered radars, Iskander missiles, and other items, but these have not been verified.

The reports come at a time when Moscow and Tehran have experienced embarrassing setbacks. Israeli forces killed Fuad Shukr, a top Hezbollah commander in Lebanon—something Israel has admitted. Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh was then killed in Tehran, for which Israel has not claimed responsibility but which it is widely believed to have been behind. Additionally, Moscow was unable to prevent an armed incursion by Ukrainian forces into a sizeable segment of Russian territory in the vicinity of Kursk near the Russian-Ukrainian border.

While the expansion of Russian-Iranian military cooperation might have already been in the works, these setbacks that Moscow and Tehran have experienced at the hands of US-backed Ukraine and Israel may only serve to increase it. Still, the policies pursued by Russia and Iran are not completely in harmony.

While Tehran has vowed to retaliate against Israel for the killing of Haniyeh in particular, Moscow has called for “all parties”—which presumably includes Iran—to refrain from taking steps that could lead to a wider war in the region.

Further, Tehran cannot be pleased by recent news reports that Russian President Vladimir Putin dropped plans to provide missiles to the Iran-backed Houthis at the request of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. It is unclear how accurate these reports are, as different intelligence sources on which they are based were not in complete agreement with one another. It was a reminder that even while Moscow’s relations with Iran’s adversary, Israel, may have soured after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on the Jewish state, Russia’s ties to Iran’s Sunni Arab adversaries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have not.

According to other reports, the Su-35 fighter aircraft Russia reportedly agreed to send to Iran have still not been delivered. An agreement on a new twenty-year Russian-Iranian cooperation agreement has yet to be finalized—with Russian sources pointing to Tehran as the reason.

Despite their differences, Russian-Iranian military cooperation will likely continue—and increase. But with both now on the back foot, the question is just how useful their cooperation is. Moscow is urging Iranian restraint in responding to Israel over the death of Haniyeh in Tehran not because of any inherent peace-loving nature, but because the Kremlin understands that, with its forces tied down in Ukraine, it is not in a position to do much to protect Iran in a wider conflict with Israel—especially if the Jewish state receives US military support. And it might have occurred to the Islamic Republic’s leaders that Iranian drones and ballistic missiles sent to Russia are no longer available for use against Israel or US forces in the Middle East.

However, while military assistance that Moscow and Tehran receive from one another has not allowed either Russia to prevail against Ukraine or Iran to prevail against Israel and the United States in the Middle East, it allows each to continue prosecuting these conflicts—something which leaders in Russia and Iran are clearly determined to do. Absent being able to somehow bring about an end to either conflict, the United States and its partners in Europe and the Middle East do not appear to have a viable means of forcing or persuading either Moscow or Tehran to reduce their military cooperation. 

Mark N. Katz is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and professor emeritus of government and politics at the George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government.

The post Russian-Iranian military cooperation: How much can they depend on each other? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The vision was amplified by Johnson when he became president. In a letter to the Senate in 1967, he emphasized that cooperation in space would provide a basis by which to avoid confrontational national tendencies, thereby leading to substantial contributions toward peace. The historic US Apollo and Soviet Union Soyuz (Apollo-Soyuz) docking in July 1975 was heralded as a first step toward meaningful space cooperation between otherwise adversarial nations. The image of astronauts and cosmonauts welcoming each other across their open spacecraft hatchways sparked an optimism and a sense of unity that inspired the world community. NASA astronaut Tom Stafford said that opening the hatch in space opened a “new era” back on Earth.

The current state of space diplomacy

Today, the International Space Station is a testament to multinational cooperation, persisting despite seismic geopolitical shifts. The partnership between the United States, Europe, Canada, Japan, and Russia has required a myriad of joint engineering projects and mutual reliance on resources despite monumental earthly tensions—a striking step forward in space diplomacy.

In recent years, however, hostility between the United States on one hand and Russia and China on the other has overshadowed the core tenets of space cooperation. The realization that space is not only an arena for scientific exploration and economic competition, but of future military conflict, has come to the fore. Although the United States and forty-two other nations have recently agreed to a set of principles for the peaceful exploration of space, known as the Artemis Accords, there exists no such agreement with other key space-faring nations, most notably China and Russia.

Parallel lunar ambitions

The United States and its allies are developing a major space program to return to the moon and establish a permanent presence with a lunar base and an orbiting lunar space station. The project has ignited public excitement and forged new agreements between the United States and partner nations. At the same time, China is leading a very similar project called the International Lunar Research Station to establish a permanent lunar presence, working with Russia and several other countries, including Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, and South Africa.

Two groups of nations separately working on the same goal, establishing separate lunar bases with no cooperation between them is a disappointing setback from earlier achievements. One might ask: What happened to the spirit that drove the handshake on Apollo-Soyuz?

There are of course challenges and barriers to sparking and sustaining cooperation. The growing conflicts on Earth and the threats posed by anti-satellite weapons provide arguments against initiating a dialogue. However, similar dynamics were present in the past, when leaders decided to work together to embrace the common objectives of exploring the cosmos and harvesting space for the betterment of life on Earth. Despite major tensions and conflicts, the two sides gained a measure of mutual understanding and respect for each other’s humanity through the efforts of scientists, engineers, and astronauts, as they joined in a common purpose.

Starting points for US-China space cooperation

The logical question is: Given substantial concerns regarding military hostility in space, where should the United States and China start? How can they find common ground in an environment of such intense mistrust?

Washington and Beijing can begin with a principle that has already been agreed upon and that touches a core human value. The UN Rescue and Return of Astronauts Agreement came into effect in 1968. It commits nations to come to the assistance of astronauts in distress, no matter what country they launched from. It was a noble step forward, and a theme largely taken from the finest of maritime traditions. The agreement, however, is hollow without plans, procedures, and systems in place to enable meaningful action. Spaceships and space suits are complex and unique, and without forethought and the right equipment it is highly unlikely that astronauts from separate nations could possibly provide any meaningful aid. For instance, how would a Chinese astronaut connect and supply the right pressure to provide oxygen to an American astronaut in distress without first having the right connecting gear and knowing the pressure settings? How can countries make their ships compatible to dock if medical support is needed? What would be the communication protocols to use when determining whether assistance is necessary?

A bilateral working group between NASA and China’s National Space Administration (CNSA) should be established to prepare for joint rescue operations. This interaction would lead to improved communication between the respective space communities. The collaboration would also establish readiness for potential rescue missions, which would have profound benefits in the event that an astronaut rescue was needed.

Once the rescue working group is formed, further bilateral agreements should be pursued. These could include mutual use of lunar communication and navigation services, as well as agreements on providing consumables, power, habitats, and transport.

What steps does the United States need to take? The United States should repeal the Wolf Amendment, which was put in place in 2011 due to concerns about space technology transfer to China. The establishment of this barrier has not slowed China’s space technology development. Instead, it has only hindered useful interchange between NASA and the CNSA.

And China? Beijing should foster more open communication with the United States regarding norms of behavior in space exploration and the preservation of the space environment. It should take a leading role in space sustainability, including being transparent about its plans to remedy issues with the Long March 6A rocket that broke apart earlier this month and left significant space debris. China should also initiate discussions to join moratoria on destructive direct-ascent anti-satellite missile testing, which it has so far opposed.

Eisenhower and Johnson advocated for cooperation to prevent misunderstandings and mistrust from growing into armed conflict in space. They saw the need to take firm steps to avoid such a tragic result. To that end, the United States and China must now take swift steps to initiate space cooperation and lead a more unified world into the final frontier.

Dan Hart is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s GeoTech Center.

The post The case for the United States and China working together in space appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Perhaps none have been as active, nor shown a greater commitment to bipartisanship, than Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who made their sixth trip to Kyiv on August 12. This was no recess joyride down Kyiv’s Khreshchatyk Street. Most notably, the two senators met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and then quickly announced what could be a blueprint for US policy toward Ukraine in the waning months of the current Congress.

In a joint press release, Blumenthal and Graham outlined four pillars for a strong US policy on Ukraine through 2024 and 2025. First, they called on NATO to “issue an invitation this year to Ukraine for membership,” an obvious but crucial next step to more formally bind the country into the Alliance.

Second, the two announced that Blumenthal would introduce the Stand with Ukraine Act when Congress returns to Capitol Hill in September to “codify the bilateral security agreement” that the Biden and Zelenskyy administrations reached in June. This, too, is a sensible and necessary move. While Ukraine has signed security pacts with a host of Western partners, nearly all of them have been non-binding, including the US-Ukraine agreement. An act of Congress would seal its implementation over the length of its ten-year lifespan.

The senators joined a growing chorus of US lawmakers and experts calling on the Biden administration to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of US weapons against military targets in Russia. After months of pressure, the administration assented in May to allow limited strikes inside Russia, but only under specific conditions. Blumenthal and Graham see the folly in limiting when and how Ukraine can use US weapons and vowed to “urge the Biden administration to lift restrictions on weapons provided by the United States so they can strike the Russian invaders more effectively.”

Finally, and perhaps most interestingly, the senators offered the prospect of a strategic economic partnership between the United States and Ukraine centered on metals and rare earth elements development. Their press release hinted that their suggestion was a welcome surprise for Zelenskyy, whose government has expressed hopes of leveraging Ukraine’s vast mineral wealth to become a major exporter of lithium and rare earths, raw materials key to new technologies and the energy transition. In a veiled reference to China’s dominant position in the rare earths market, the senators noted that “an agreement with Ukraine in this area would make the US less dependent on foreign adversaries for rare earth minerals.”

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

After the House of Representatives belatedly passed the national security supplemental package that unlocked further US aid to Ukraine in April, experts and lawmakers alike began to wonder how Washington might continue to support Ukraine throughout the rest of 2024. The Blumenthal-Graham priorities outline what could be an ambitious, re-energized US policy on Ukraine through the end of the current year.

US President Joe Biden has been skittish at the last two NATO summits about pushing for Ukraine’s membership in the Alliance, largely for fear of escalating tensions with Russia. But with Biden now out of the 2024 presidential race, he may be thinking more about his foreign policy legacy. Having already helped usher Finland and Sweden into the Alliance, opening Ukraine’s accession bid in earnest would be the third in a hat-trick of transatlantic security wins for Biden. Meanwhile, the Kremlin’s underwhelming response to Ukraine’s offensive into Russia’s Kursk Oblast should certainly tamp down any misplaced fears of escalation.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Blumenthal’s Stand With Ukraine Act will likely run up against latent partisanship and electoral jitters when he introduces it in September. Much of Congress will be campaigning this fall, avoiding difficult votes while trying to score political points against the other party. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer could very well bring the bill to a floor vote, both to support Ukraine and to force a vote from anti-Ukraine Republicans, but Speaker of the House Mike Johnson may be loath to spend political capital to do the same. Even so, the bill may get the ball rolling on further Ukraine legislation, especially as some pro-Ukraine Republicans indicate they want funding to continue uninterrupted, even under the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency.

As for dropping restrictions on the use of US weapons, only the Biden administration can reverse this policy, something it has repeatedly declined to do. It may take further public and private calls from Democrats such as Blumenthal before the White House agrees to a change. In the meantime, Russian rockets will continue to kill Ukrainian civilians using launch systems that could have been taken out by US-provided Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) and other Western-supplied weapons.

The senators’ proposal for a US-Ukraine economic partnership has all the ingredients for bipartisan consensus in Washington: Support for Ukraine without US taxpayer dollars, reduced dependence on China, and the potential for economic gain by importing one of the few materials the United States can’t make itself. A formal agreement would likely be highly technical and take many months to negotiate, but all the incentives are there for a new element in US-Ukraine relations.

Congressional delegations can sometimes be high on style and discussion but low on action and deliverables. This time, Blumenthal and Graham delivered on all counts and laid out a road map outlining US support for Ukraine through the end of 2024. Their list is as ambitious as it is sounds, both in its support for US interests and in helping Ukraine move toward victory on the battlefield. That combination of vision and vigor is exactly why their initiatives deserve bipartisan support.

Andrew D’Anieri is a resident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Aug 13, 2024

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive proves surprise is still possible in modern war

By Mykola Bielieskov

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive has succeeded in demonstrating that surprise is still possible despite the increased transparency of the modern battlefield, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 11, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines

By Peter Dickinson

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has erased the last of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and made a complete mockery of the West’s frequently voiced escalation fears, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 8, 2024

Ukraine continues to expand drone bombing campaign inside Russia

By Marcel Plichta

Ukraine’s long-range drone bombing campaign targeting military and industrial sites inside Russia has had a dramatic series of successes over the last few weeks, writes Marcel Plichta.

Conflict Defense Technologies

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post New US-Ukraine partnership proposal from influential senators is a recipe for bipartisan success appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Robert Bassett Cross is a former British Army officer and the founder and CEO of the UK-headquartered AI software developer Adarga. He is a nonresident senior fellow at the Forward Defense practice of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and an honorary research fellow at the University of Exeter’s Strategy and Security Institute.

Writing in 1946, just a few years before NATO was founded, Director of the US Office of Strategic Services Bill Donovan knew precisely how valuable publicly available information could be.

“[E]ven a regimented press,” he wrote, “will again and again betray the national interest to a painstaking observer . . . Pamphlets, periodicals, scientific journals are mines of intelligence.”

Today, seventy-five years after the Alliance was formed, such open-source intelligence (OSINT) is more important—and more powerful—than ever. However, underinvestment in OSINT capabilities and a culture favoring classified data currently hold back member states’ intelligence-collection potential. To fully utilize the available technology to detect threats from adversaries, NATO member states must overcome these barriers to embrace open-source intelligence enabled by artificial intelligence (AI).

Understanding the threat landscape

OSINT can help leaders get a fast, up-to-date understanding of their operating environment. If you want to know who’s doing what, where, and when, then an open-source specialist can quickly tell you.

If, for example, you want to find out who’s jamming GPS systems in the Baltic region, the relevant data isn’t hard to come by. Similarly, OSINT analysts can provide insights into issues ranging from the effectiveness of Iran’s attack on Israel (and the Israeli response) to China’s current role in fueling the Russian war machine. 

In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that, in addition to insight into current and recent events, OSINT can help leaders forecast what an adversary might be planning to do weeks, months, or even years from now.

By exploiting OSINT more fully and by integrating it into the wider intelligence cycle, NATO can preempt, deter, and defeat its adversaries’ efforts to expand their influence and undermine the security of member states. Here are several ways that OSINT can be used:

1. Across the physical domains of land, air, sea, and space, NATO can exploit publicly and commercially available data to explore an adversary’s order of battle and—more importantly—monitor changes in the strength and disposition of its military units and formations to infer its intent.
2. In the cyber domain, NATO can leverage commercially available information to detect and counter the penetration of networks governing critical infrastructure, as well as those related to research organizations, academic institutions, and technology developers.
3. In the information space, OSINT can help NATO identify, understand, and counter influence campaigns, specifically when it comes to the detection and attribution of disinformation and misinformation.
4. NATO can draw on vast swaths of open-source data to infer long-term strategic intent. Every subtle change to a government’s policies, every adjustment to its economic positioning and investment strategy, every new law and regulation it enacts, every new treaty and trade agreement—all of these can help the Alliance reverse engineer an adversary’s confidential playbooks.

Given the vast quantity, complexity, and diversity of the data, it is vital that NATO employs AI to extract the maximum value from it—to enhance analysts’ abilities, accelerate the analysis cycle, and build a reliable, contextual understanding of what Donovan called “the strategy developing silently behind the mask.”

The barriers to OSINT adoption

While AI is, of course, an emerging technology, its utility is already being realized across industries and sectors outside defense. From corporate intelligence and advisory services to finance and media, more and more private-sector organizations are using AI to make sense of the information environment, drawing on an ever-expanding range of sources to manage risk, identify opportunities, and adapt to geopolitical volatility.

However, the barriers to its widespread adoption and effective exploitation in political and military circles remain considerable. A paper published in 2022 by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), in collaboration with the Centre for Emerging Technology and Security and the Alan Turing Institute, identified three in particular.

First, there are tradecraft barriers relating to the methodologies governing everything from the analysis of publicly available information to the evaluation and dissemination of the resulting intelligence. Second, there are resourcing barriers stemming from underinvestment in the requisite tools, technologies, data sets, and training.

The third barrier identified by the RUSI authors—and the most daunting one—is cultural. Presented with so much open-source data, analysts and decision makers tend to favor classified information and internal data sets. These sources and insights are easier to trust and are imbued with what the authors call “the perceived power of the ‘secret’ label.” 

Speaking at the Eurosatory exhibition in Paris in June, US Major General Matthew Van Wagenen, deputy chief of staff for operations at NATO, confirmed how great this cultural barrier is. Up to 90 percent of “what Western militaries are looking for,” he said, can be derived from open sources:

This is a revolution in how we look at information. The ways of discerning information through classical means and techniques, tactics, and procedures that militaries have been adapted to—that’s really an old model of doing business. The new open source that’s out there right now, and the speed of information and relevance of information is coming, this is how things need to be looked at.

It is reasonable to believe that the tradecraft and resourcing barriers can be overcome. Methodologies are evolving swiftly, as are the requisite technologies. In fact, many of the tools NATO needs to capitalize on OSINT already exist. New AI applications are coming online almost every week. But if NATO fails to overcome the cultural barrier, it risks going into the next conflict underinformed and ill-prepared.

How AI-enabled OSINT can earn NATO leaders’ confidence

The cultural barrier to AI-enabled OSINT cannot be surmounted simply by decree or directive. Nor can it be overcome by intelligence professionals alone. The technology—and the discipline—must earn the justified confidence of civilian leaders and military commanders across the international staff, the military committee, and the supporting agencies. This could happen if AI-enabled OSINT were applied first to the simplest intelligence-gathering tasks before being applied to the most complex. To borrow the terminology made famous by former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, NATO should apply the discipline to corroborating “known knowns,” resolving “known unknowns,” and surfacing “unknown unknowns.”

Corroborating “known knowns”: NATO should start by recognizing where the skills of the human analyst currently outperform even the most sophisticated models, and where AI can best be applied to elevate these skills. This means asking the right kind of questions, and employing OSINT to corroborate what is already known and to triangulate insights gathered from well-established secret sources. In this way, NATO can begin to overcome the skepticism that’s too often associated with publicly available information and OSINT. 

Resolving “known unknowns”: With so much data to draw on, it is essential that NATO uses AI to help collate, process, and (where necessary) translate that data so it is ready for analysts to interpret. If AI-enabled OSINT can prove useful to intelligence professionals in this capacity, those professionals may be more willing to apply it to the most complex and valuable intelligence tasks of all—surfacing risks and opportunities that civilian and military leaders would otherwise struggle to identify.

Surfacing “unknown unknowns”: Perhaps the greatest contribution that AI can make to the intelligence-gathering discipline is identifying patterns and connections that are invisible to the human eye. Dedicated, AI-powered information-intelligence applications that synthesize publicly available information with proprietary data can help analysts and decision makers tease out insights they would otherwise miss.

This combination of publicly available information with classified data will enable NATO analysts to give military and political leaders a uniquely rich, nuanced, and highly contextualized understanding of the operating environment. Decision makers at every level will be able to examine intelligence from every angle, and apply their experience and imagination to infer an adversary’s intentions based on the interplay of evidence.

The critical need for human-machine teaming

The necessary tools and methodologies exist. What’s missing is the determination to get these tools into users’ hands, to supply the requisite training, and to capitalize on the integrated output derived from all sources of intelligence, open-source and otherwise.

OSINT is becoming known among some intelligence professionals as “the intelligence of first resort.” Compared with clandestine methods of information gathering and analysis, OSINT is fast, low-cost, and low-risk. But if it can be combined with those same methods then NATO’s analysts and leadership will have an enduring competitive edge, with access to the kind of strategic information that would likely be, in Bill Donovan’s words, “of determining influence in modern war.”

NATO’s seventy-fifth anniversary is a milestone in a remarkable story of reinvention, adaptation, and unity. However, as the Alliance seeks to secure its future for the next seventy-five years, it faces the revanchism of old rivals, escalating strategic competition, and uncertainties over the future of the rules-based international order.

With partners and allies turning attention from celebrations to challenges, the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Security Initiative invited contributors to engage with the most pressing concerns ahead of the historic Washington summit and chart a path for the Alliance’s future. This series will feature seven essays focused on concrete issues that NATO must address at the Washington summit and five essays that examine longer-term challenges the Alliance must confront to ensure transatlantic security.

The post NATO must recognize the potential of open-source intelligence appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Click on the banner above to explore the Tiger Project.

Late last month, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken headed to the Philippines to meet with their counterparts and Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. Their visit was the latest in a series of top-level diplomatic meetings between the two countries highlighting, among other factors, their shared interest in security and a free and open Indo-Pacific region. As the officials emphasized, this trip was also a reaffirmation of each country’s concerns about Chinese actions that threaten maritime security in the region.

Marcos did not mention China by name in his state of the nation address on July 22, but it was clear who he was talking about when he said the Philippines “cannot yield . . . cannot waver.” Marcos then continued, “The West Philippine Sea”—meaning the portion of the South China Sea that the Philippines claims as its exclusive economic zone—“is not merely a figment of our imagination. It is ours. And it will remain ours as long as the spirit of our beloved country, the Philippines, burns brightly.” As a demonstration of this resolve, Philippine armed forces continued their work to resupply the BRP Sierra Madre on the Ayungin (Second Thomas) Shoal in the days that followed Marcos’s speech.

After a year of working alongside Philippine Marines and servicemembers, I can say that the attitude of national resolve to defend their homeland and surrounding waters is widely shared in the country. It is reflected in Balikatan, for example, arguably the most well-known Joint-Combined exercise in the Philippines, which translates as “shoulder to shoulder.”

This cross-cutting sense of purpose is important because the true strength of US and Philippine efforts—and the efforts of both with other countries in the Indo-Pacific—lies not simply in diplomacy among top officials and leaders. It also rests on what is happening on the ground among US and Philippine servicemembers and officials—the action officers. It’s in the day-to-day communication, coordination, planning, and relationship-building that is required to establish deterrence. This work is part of what the US Department of Defense calls “integrated deterrence,” an important but often misunderstood concept.

Taking integrated deterrence from concept to reality

In 2022, when the current National Defense Strategy was released with its “primary focus on the need to sustain and strengthen US deterrence against China,” I was working as an operations analyst for the Department of Defense, contributing toward the development of the Joint Warfighting Concept. As concept writers do, my fellow officers and I dismantled, debated, and explored what the words on screen meant and how they should be translated into action at each echelon of command within the Department of Defense—particularly the new idea of “integrated deterrence.” The idea was often met with skepticism early on. Some people asked: How is this different from what the United States has always done? At the same time, there was a shared belief in our discussion group that making deterrence a reality required a new conceptual approach.

After this experience, I wanted to take what we had done conceptually and see it implemented in practice. The Indo-Pacific seemed the most logical place for this, and I asked for my next assignment to return me to the tactical level, a regiment in the Marine Corps, hoping to take ideas discussed in wargames and within the walls of the Pentagon and do my small part to help see them realized at the forward edge of the first island chain. My request was granted, so I write this while in the Philippines, deployed with one of the most lethal, modern US military formations. We are manned by some of the smartest and most capable humans I have ever met and equipped with cutting-edge technology that has yet again changed the character of warfare. But, with each month of being here and working with our allies in the Philippines, especially as a logistician, it becomes clearer to me that integrated deterrence is not simply a product of measured combat power born of sheer numbers of postured tanks and ships; there is something more to getting deterrence right.

Preparation is essential. It is hard to imagine today, but during World War II, the United States wrote and trained its military leaders on plans written to contend against many of the credible military powers of the day: Japan, Mexico, Latin American countries, and even the British empire. These plans prepared military leaders for a multitude of scenarios that may require action from them. Hearkening back to the spirit of these color-coded plans, the Joint Staff continues to develop concepts for employment and wrestle with what it would take to win. To be ready for a potential conflict, the United States and its allies and partners must find innovative ways to implement the capabilities and tools they have developed. This leads to another essential requirement: integration.

All the components contributing to defense need to work together to be effective. Traditional measures of military strength, such as the number of servicemembers, ships, and tanks available, count for little if they cannot operate together and be sustained. This integration must happen across several areas, including:  

• Integration to reinforce and balance Joint Force and ally capabilities. Host nations are ready to defend their homelands, and US international partners and allies are eager to contribute; the United States must be ready to stand by them as leaders. That means knowing what everyone brings to the table. As the Joint Force, the world will look to the United States to provide the structure. A combat-credible force must have clear command relationships, a clear understanding of available combat power, and be ready to exercise decision-making authority quickly and effectively. Forces must be ready to find commonalities and overlaps that can mutually benefit each other’s maneuver and sustainment.

• Integration across multiple spectrums of conflict to sustain military operations posturing. The spectrum of conflict ranges from competition to crisis to armed conflict. To integrate across this spectrum, senior leaders must attain a greater understanding of what stakeholders bring to the table. How do nations in the competition phase strengthen their militaries, develop new technologies, and deter hostilities? Educating all parties on the gruesome realities of war and the amount of resources required to sustain open conflict could be just as important as the technology required to wage such a war. 

• Integration of capabilities across terrestrial with non-terrestrial domains. Even today, tanks, piloted airplanes, and battleships appear to many people as national power realized. It is one of the reasons why Hollywood remains obsessed with World War II movies. And while the terrestrial domains of land, air, and maritime remain important, before these weapons are wielded, there are tools that have already been at work, clearing a path. It is important to understand how the information environment, cyberspace, and space contribute toward integrated deterrence and how they will aid in the rapid decision-making needed to execute warfare.

Deterrence is and will continue to be a team effort. The United States and its allies and partners must work together across all levels, from meetings among top-level officials to servicemembers on the ground helping teach close-quarter battle tactics. Success will be measured by maintaining order, under a structure agreed to by multiple nations as equals, benefiting as many peoples as possible.

Kevin M. Wheeler is a nonresident fellow in the Indo-Pacific Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. Wheeler is an active-duty US Marine Corps Major serving as the regimental logistics officer for the 3d Marine Littoral Regiment. He was previously assigned to the Joint Staff J-7, focusing on assessments and analysis for future employment of the US military Joint Force. His comments are his own views, and do not represent those of the Department of Defense, the United States Marine Corps, or any other US government or military organization.

The post From the Pentagon to the Philippines, integrating deterrence in the Indo-Pacific appeared first on Atlantic Council.

These steps are encouraging and indicate welcome Western awareness of the repression that continues to define the political climate in today’s Belarus. Nevertheless, there is still a sense that not nearly enough is being done by the international community to challenge the impunity enjoyed by Lukashenka and members of his regime.

These concerns were amplified recently when the largest prisoner swap between the Kremlin and the West since the Cold War went ahead without featuring any Belarusian political prisoners. Lukashenka himself was closely involved in the complex negotiations behind the exchange. The Belarusian dictator agreed to free German national Rico Krieger, who was being held in Minsk on terrorism charges, as part of efforts to convince the German government to release Russian secret service assassin Vadim Krasikov.

Many have questioned why prominent Belarusian pro-democracy leader Maria Kalesnikava, who had previously lived for many years in Germany, was not also freed as part of the trade. Kalesnikava was jailed amid nationwide protests following Lukashenka’s rigged 2020 election. One of the figureheads of the anti-Lukashenka protest movement, she has reportedly been suffering from deteriorating health for the past year and a half. Similar questions were also asked regarding fellow political prisoners Ales Bialiatski, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2022, and Ihar Losik, a prominent blogger and journalist for RFE/RL’s Belarus Service.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Four years since the sham ballot that sparked the biggest protests of Lukashenka’s three-decade reign, he appears more comfortable than ever with the idea of holding large numbers of political prisoners as hostages. This must change. With no regime-linked Belarusians in Western custody who are anything like as valuable as Krasikov was to Putin, other approaches are clearly needed to increase the pressure on Lukashenka and convince him to release political prisoners.

Economic measures can be used to target the largely state-controlled Belarusian economy, but this is more likely to have an impact as part of a long-term strategy. One alternative approach would be to engage third parties such as China, which has considerable influence in Minsk. Earlier diplomatic efforts succeeded in securing the release of US citizen Vital Shkliarau, indicating that negotiations of this nature can yield results.

Finding the right formula to keep up the pressure on individual members of the Lukashenka regime is crucial. At present, comparatively few of those involved in repressive measures are subject to international sanctions. For example, I was recently sentenced in absentia by a Belarusian court to ten years in prison alongside nineteen other independent Belarusian analysts and journalists. The judge in our case has a history of handing down lengthy sentences to prominent opposition figures, but has yet to be sanctioned.

During the past four years, only 261 Belarusians have been placed on the EU sanctions list. While the work of sanctions teams is commendable, their capacity is limited. Past experience has also demonstrated how sanctions can be sabotaged, as was the case in 2020 when Cyprus was accused of blocking the introduction of new restrictions against Belarus. There is also room to improve cooperation between Western partners, with a view to developing a more unified approach to sanctions.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Strikingly, the quantity of Belarusians currently facing Western sanctions is far less the almost 1,400 political prisoners in the country’s prisons. According to human rights groups, tens of thousands of Belarusians in total have been detained in recent years for political reasons. Behind these arrests and prosecutions stands an army of enablers including government officials, security personnel, and judges. The vast majority of these people have yet to be held accountable by the international community for their role in the repressive policies of the Belarusian authorities.

There are some indications that Western policymakers are looking to broaden the scope of sanctions and increase individual accountability. However, while the recent round of sanctions included new measures targeting officials responsible for regime propaganda, other representatives of the Belarusian state media received international accreditation to cover the Olympics in Paris.

The West already has powerful tools at its disposal that can realistically make Belarusian officials consider the consequences of their actions. Standard personal sanctions such as travel bans and asset freezes go far beyond mere symbolism and are capable of creating problems that can have far-reaching practical implications in everyday life. However, more leverage is required in order to maintain the pressure on the regime and on the individuals responsible for specific abuses.

Looking ahead, the West needs to make the issue of political prisoners far more uncomfortable for the entire Lukashenka regime. There is no single solution to this problem; instead, a range of options should be explored including broad economic restrictions, personal sanctions, and diplomatic pressure. Crucially, sanctions should be applied to thousands of officials rather than just a few hundred. The end goal must be to significantly raise the costs of the repressive policies pursued by Lukashenka and all those who enable his regime.

Hanna Liubakova is a journalist from Belarus and nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Aug 13, 2024

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive proves surprise is still possible in modern war

By Mykola Bielieskov

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive has succeeded in demonstrating that surprise is still possible despite the increased transparency of the modern battlefield, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 11, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines

By Peter Dickinson

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has erased the last of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and made a complete mockery of the West’s frequently voiced escalation fears, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 8, 2024

Ukraine continues to expand drone bombing campaign inside Russia

By Marcel Plichta

Ukraine’s long-range drone bombing campaign targeting military and industrial sites inside Russia has had a dramatic series of successes over the last few weeks, writes Marcel Plichta.

Conflict Defense Technologies

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Belarus’s political prisoners must not be forgotten appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Wechsler joins Scripps News to discuss potential Iran retaliation against Israel appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The Ukrainian military’s ability to maintain a veil of secrecy around preparations for the current operation is all the more remarkable given the evidence from the first two-and-a-half years of Russia’s invasion. The war in Ukraine has been marked by the growing importance of drone and electromagnetic surveillance, creating what most analysts agree is a remarkably transparent battlefield. This is making it more and more difficult for either army to benefit from the element of surprise.

Given the increased visibility on both sides of the front lines, how did Ukraine manage to spring such a surprise? At this stage there is very little detailed information available about Ukraine’s preparations, but initial reports indicate that unprecedented levels of operational silence and the innovative deployment of Ukraine’s electronic warfare capabilities played important roles.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukraine’s political leaders have been unusually tight-lipped about the entire offensive, providing no hint in advance and saying very little during the first week of the campaign. This is in stark contrast to the approach adopted last year, when the country’s coming summer offensive was widely referenced by officials and previewed in the media. Ukraine’s efforts to enforce operational silence appear to have also extended to the military. According to The New York Times, even senior Ukrainian commanders only learned of the plan to invade Russia at the last moment.

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive appears to have been a major surprise for Ukraine’s Western partners. The Financial Times has reported that neither the US nor Germany were informed in advance of the planned Ukrainian operation. Given the West’s record of seeking to avoid any actions that might provoke Putin, it is certainly not difficult to understand why Kyiv might have chosen not to signal its intentions.

UkraineAlert Aug 11, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines

By Peter Dickinson

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has erased the last of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and made a complete mockery of the West’s frequently voiced escalation fears, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

New Atlanticist Aug 9, 2024

Is Ukraine’s raid into Russia a ‘crossing the Delaware’ moment?

By Daniel Fried

With echoes of earlier raids, Ukraine’s recent push into the Kursk region of Russia shows its tactical cunning, audacity, and tenacity against a superior foe.

Conflict Russia

Fast Thinking Aug 8, 2024

How Ukraine’s incursion into Russia could change the war

By Atlantic Council

Ukrainian forces launched a surprise raid into Russia’s Kursk region on Tuesday. Our experts explain how this could affect the course of the war.

Conflict Defense Policy

This approach seems to have worked. In recent days, the US, Germany, and the EU have all indicated their support for the Ukrainian operation. If Ukraine did indeed proceed without receiving a prior green light from the country’s partners, planners in Kyiv were likely counting on the reluctance of Western leaders to scupper Ukrainian offensive actions at a time when Russia is destroying entire towns and villages as it continues to slowly but steadily advance in eastern Ukraine.

Ukraine’s expanding electronic warfare capabilities are believed to have been instrumental in safeguarding the element of surprise during preparations for the current campaign. The Ukrainian military appears to have succeeded in suppressing Russian surveillance and communications systems across the initial invasion zone via the targeted application of electronic warfare tools. This made it possible to prevent Russian forces from correctly identifying Ukraine’s military build-up or anticipating the coming attack until it was too late.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

It is also likely that Ukraine benefited from Russia’s own complacency and overconfidence. Despite suffering a series of defeats in Ukraine since 2022, the Kremlin remains almost pathologically dismissive of Ukrainian capabilities and does not appear to have seriously entertained the possibility of a large-scale Ukrainian invasion of the Russian Federation. The modest defenses established throughout the border zone confirm that Moscow anticipated minor border raids but had no plans to repel a major Ukrainian incursion.

Russia’s sense of confidence doubtless owed much to Western restrictions imposed on Ukraine since the start of the war that have prohibited the use of Western weapons inside Russia. These restrictions were partially relaxed in May 2024 following Russia’s own cross-border offensive into Ukraine’s Kharkiv Oblast, but the Kremlin clearly did not believe Kyiv would be bold enough to use this as the basis for offensive operations inside Russia. Vladimir Putin is now paying a steep price for underestimating his opponent.

It remains far too early to assess the impact of Ukraine’s surprise summer offensive. One of the most interesting questions will be whether Ukraine can force the Kremlin to divert military units from the fighting in eastern Ukraine in order to defend Russia itself. Much will depend on the amount of Russian land Ukraine is able to seize and hold. Putin must also decide whether his military should focus on merely stopping Ukraine’s advance or liberating occupied Russian territory.

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive has succeeded in demonstrating that surprise is still possible on the modern battlefield. This is a significant achievement that underlines the skill and competence of the Ukrainian military. The Ukrainian invasion has also confirmed once again that Putin’s talk of Russian red lines and his frequent threats of nuclear escalation are a bluff designed to intimidate the West. Taken together, these factors should be enough to convince Kyiv’s partners that now is the time to increase military support and provide Ukraine with the tools for victory.

Mykola Bielieskov is a research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and a senior analyst at Ukrainian NGO “Come Back Alive.” The views expressed in this article are the author’s personal position and do not reflect the opinions or views of NISS or Come Back Alive.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Aug 11, 2024

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines

By Peter Dickinson

Ukraine’s invasion of Russia has erased the last of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and made a complete mockery of the West’s frequently voiced escalation fears, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Aug 1, 2024

Ukraine’s new F-16 jets won’t defeat Russia but will enhance air defenses

By Mykola Bielieskov

Ukraine’s fledgling fleet of F-16 jets will not win the war but should strengthen the country’s air defenses and help protect the civilian population from Russian bombardment, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Aug 8, 2024

Ukraine continues to expand drone bombing campaign inside Russia

By Marcel Plichta

Ukraine’s long-range drone bombing campaign targeting military and industrial sites inside Russia has had a dramatic series of successes over the last few weeks, writes Marcel Plichta.

Conflict Defense Technologies

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Ukraine’s Kursk offensive proves surprise is still possible in modern war appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ukraine’s summer offensive is a watershed moment in the current war and an historic milestone in its own right. For the first time since World War II, Russia has been invaded by a foreign army. Initial reports indicate that this ambitious operation was prepared amid great secrecy over a period of months. Ukraine managed to catch the Russians completely off-guard, with Ukrainian forces advancing tens of kilometers into Kursk Oblast during the first days of the campaign.

Ukraine’s political and military leaders have so far remained remarkably tight-lipped about the invasion, saying very little publicly and providing few details. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify a number of likely objectives.

Ukraine’s most obvious intention is probably to ease the military pressure in the south and east of the country, where Russia has been slowly but steadily advancing in recent months. By attacking across the lightly defended border and seizing Russian territory, Ukrainian commanders believe they can force the Kremlin to withdraw troops from the front lines of the war in Ukraine in order to redeploy them for the defense of Russia itself.

The offensive also creates opportunities for Ukraine to regain the military initiative after a year of costly and demoralizing defensive operations. It has long been obvious that Ukraine cannot realistically hope to win a war of attrition against the far larger and wealthier Russian Federation. Kyiv’s best chance of military success lies in returning to a war of mobility and maneuver that allows Ukrainian commanders to take advantage of their relative agility while exploiting the Russian army’s far more cumbersome decision-making processes. This is exactly what the invasion of Kursk Oblast has achieved.

In psychological terms, bringing the war home to Russia has allowed Ukraine to strike a powerful blow against enemy morale. The Ukrainian army’s advances in Kursk Oblast are spreading panic throughout the surrounding region and undermining Putin’s efforts to prevent the invasion of Ukraine from disrupting the daily lives of ordinary Russians. On the home front, Ukraine’s surprise summer offensive has provided Ukrainian society with a desperately needed morale boost, reviving hopes that the war-weary nation can still achieve meaningful military success.

The Kursk offensive may ultimately be part of Ukraine’s preparations for a future peace process, with Kyiv looking to occupy as much Russian territory as possible to use as a bargaining chip in any negotiations with the Kremlin. Indeed, during the initial days of the invasion, there was widespread speculation that Ukraine’s primary target may be the Kursk nuclear power plant, with a view to trading it for the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southern Ukraine. An eventual land swap on a far larger scale may be part of Kyiv’s calculations.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The Ukrainian army’s advance into Russia has profound implications for perceptions of the war. It directly challenges the widespread belief that Russia’s invasion has reached a stalemate and can no longer be decided on the battlefield. Crucially, it also exposes the emptiness of Vladimir Putin’s red lines and the folly of the West’s emphasis on escalation management.

Ever since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began in February 2022, the international response has been hindered by fear of escalation. Western leaders have allowed themselves to be intimidated by Putin, who has used thinly veiled nuclear threats and frequent talk of Russian red lines to restrict the flow of military aid and convince Ukraine’s partners to impose absurd restrictions on the use of Western weapons inside Russia. As a result, Ukraine has effectively been forced to wage war with one hand tied behind its back.

UkraineAlert Aug 13, 2024

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive proves surprise is still possible in modern war

By Mykola Bielieskov

Ukraine’s Kursk offensive has succeeded in demonstrating that surprise is still possible despite the increased transparency of the modern battlefield, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Policy

New Atlanticist Aug 9, 2024

Is Ukraine’s raid into Russia a ‘crossing the Delaware’ moment?

By Daniel Fried

With echoes of earlier raids, Ukraine’s recent push into the Kursk region of Russia shows its tactical cunning, audacity, and tenacity against a superior foe.

Conflict Russia

Fast Thinking Aug 8, 2024

How Ukraine’s incursion into Russia could change the war

By Atlantic Council

Ukrainian forces launched a surprise raid into Russia’s Kursk region on Tuesday. Our experts explain how this could affect the course of the war.

Conflict Defense Policy

Ukraine’s offensive is now posing serious questions about the credibility of Russia’s saber-rattling and the rationality behind the West’s abundance of caution. After all, the Ukrainian army’s current invasion of Russia is surely the reddest of all red lines. If Russia was at all serious about a possible nuclear escalation, this would be the moment to make good on its many threats. In fact, Putin has responded by seeking to downplay the invasion while pretending that everything is still going according to plan.

In his first public statement following the start of Ukraine’s invasion, Putin euphemistically referred to it as a “large-scale provocation,” a phrase that seemed specially tailored to disguise the gravity of the situation. The Kremlin then declared a “state of emergency” in Kursk Oblast, which was subsequently upgraded to a “counter-terrorism operation.” The difference between this restrained law-and-order language and the usual soundbites trumpeting existential war with NATO could hardly have been starker.

Russian propagandists have adopted an equally low-key approach. There have been no appeals to the Russian people or attempts to rally the country against the invader. On the contrary, the Kremlin media has reportedly received instructions to avoid “stirring up the situation,” while Russian officials have been told to refrain from commenting on developments in the Kursk region altogether. These are most definitely not the actions of a self-confident military superpower on the verge of a major escalation.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

What we are currently witnessing is entirely in line with a well-established pattern of Russian threats being exposed as bluffs by Ukrainian boldness. During the first year of the war as Putin prepared to announce the annexation of occupied Ukrainian city Kherson, he warned that any attempt to reclaim this “Russian land” would result in a nuclear reply. “I’m not bluffing,” he famously declared. But when Ukraine liberated Kherson just weeks later, Putin did not reach for the nuclear button. Instead, he ordered his beaten troops to quietly retreat.

Russia’s reaction to wartime setbacks in Crimea has been similarly underwhelming. The 2014 seizure of the Ukrainian peninsula remains Putin’s crowning glory and serves as the basis for his claim to a place in Russian history alongside the country’s greatest rulers. Nevertheless, when Ukraine deployed missiles and marine drones to sink or disable around one-third of the entire Russian Black Sea Fleet, there was no apocalyptic response from the Kremlin. On the contrary, Putin instructed his remaining warships to withdraw from Crimea and seek safety in Russian ports.

This record of inglorious Russian retreats makes the West’s frequently voiced fear of escalation all the more difficult to justify. Ukrainians will now be hoping Putin’s characteristically weak response to the Kursk offensive can persuade Western leaders to belatedly abandon their failed policies of escalation management and acknowledge that the quickest way to end the war is by arming Ukraine for victory.

There are some indications that attitudes among Ukraine’s Western allies may finally be changing. The EU has led the way, with European Commission spokesperson Peter Thano responding to the Ukrainian cross-border push into Kursk Oblast by saying Ukraine has the “legitimate right” to defend itself, including inside Russia. Berlin has reacted in the same manner, with the German Foreign Ministry issuing a statement confirming that Ukraine’s right to self defense “is not limited to its own territory.” Meanwhile, US officials have also signaled their approval. “Ukraine is doing what it needs to do to be successful on the battlefield,” commented a Pentagon official.

This broadly supportive international reaction is welcome news for Ukraine, but officials in Kyiv are also well aware that further steps are required in order to set the stage for Putin’s eventual defeat. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy underlined this point in his August 11 evening address, when he once again called for the lifting of all Western restrictions on long-range strikes against military targets in Russia. Until that happens, Moscow will retain the ability to pummel Ukrainian cities at will and Putin will have little reason to end his invasion.

The West has spent more than two years slow-walking military aid to Ukraine for fear of provoking Putin. And yet time after time, Ukraine has proved that whenever the Russian dictator is confronted with the prospect of defeat, he is far more likely to retreat than escalate. Now that the Ukrainian military has crossed the last of Putin’s red lines and invaded Russia without sparking World War III, there are no more excuses for restricting Kyiv’s ability to defend itself or denying Ukraine the weapons it needs to win the war.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jul 30, 2024

Paris Olympics: Ukrainian dedicates medal to athletes killed by Russia

By Mark Temnycky

Ukrainian fencing star Olga Kharlan has won the country’s first medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics and dedicated her medal to the Ukrainian athletes “who couldn’t be here because they were killed by Russia,” writes Mark Temnycky .

Conflict France

UkraineAlert Aug 1, 2024

Ukraine’s new F-16 jets won’t defeat Russia but will enhance air defenses

By Mykola Bielieskov

Ukraine’s fledgling fleet of F-16 jets will not win the war but should strengthen the country’s air defenses and help protect the civilian population from Russian bombardment, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Aug 6, 2024

Russia’s Black Sea defeats get flushed down Vladimir Putin’s memory hole

By Peter Dickinson

Vladimir Putin’s readiness to flush Russia’s Black Sea naval defeats down the memory hole is a reminder that the Kremlin propaganda machine controls Russian reality and can easily rebrand any retreat from Ukraine, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Disinformation

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Ukraine’s invasion of Russia is erasing Vladimir Putin’s last red lines appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Panikoff joins BBC to discuss escalating tensions in the MENA region appeared first on Atlantic Council.

• Executive summary
• History of attacks on shipping
• Threats to commercial vessels in the Black Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and the South China Sea
• Houthi attacks on merchant vessels: A new form of aggression
• International response to the Houthis’ attacks
• The shipping industry’s response
• Improving strategies to counter attacks on shipping
• Preemptive diversion of shipping
• Intra-industry risk updates
• Use of directed-energy weapons
• Selective protection dependent on flag registration
• Freedom-of-navigation operations
• Disrupting the delivery of weapons
• Armed guards on board
• Conclusion

Executive summary

For as long as shipping has existed, merchant vessels have been vulnerable to attacks, especially in wartime. Starting in the beginning of the twentieth century, when international trade expanded rapidly, nations signed a string of treaties to protect merchant vessels from attacks by hostile states. With a few notable exceptions, most importantly the Iran-Iraq “Tanker War” in the 1980s, countries have complied with these rules.

Since the late 2010s, however, there has been a radical increase in state-linked attacks and harassment of merchant vessels. Around that time, Iran and, to a lesser extent, Israel began attacking vessels linked to the other side, primarily in the Strait of Hormuz, a situation that persists. China, for its part, has taken to harassing merchant vessels in the South China Sea in a strategy to enforce its unilateral territorial claims. The harm imposed on merchant vessels further increased in November 2023, when the Iran-linked Houthi rebels launched geopolitically linked attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Eight months later—despite interventions by the US Navy, the United Kingdom’s (UK) Royal Navy, European Union (EU) navies, and other Western navies—the attacks continue and have caused large-scale rerouting to the Cape of Good Hope.

The increasing attacks on merchant vessels pose an acute threat not just to seafarers and shipping companies, but also to the global maritime order on which modern economies are based. This report discusses the history of attacks on shipping, the rules implemented to keep shipping safe, and the new and serious threats posed by the Houthis and other actors. It also discusses steps Western governments and the shipping industry can take to reduce the harm posed by such attacks. These steps include:

• collective threats of rerouting away from risky waters;
• directed-energy weapons on naval vessels protecting merchant shipping; and
• increased focus on disrupting militias’ supply chains.

History of attacks on shipping

“Japan’s dependence on international economic ties for its survival is well recognized…In recent years, however, another source of vulnerability has assumed importance-the threat of international shipping disruptions in the Middle East.” Thus begins an article in the academic journal Pacific Affairs—not from 2023, but from 1986. In the Persian Gulf, Iraq had taken to attacking merchant ships linked to Iran as part of its war against the Islamic Republic.

The attacks began in 1981, the war’s second year, when Iraq attacked five merchant vessels, “largely to reduce Iran’s oil exports, which go entirely by sea and which help finance Iran’s war effort.”¹ The following year, Iraq attacked sixteen vessels carrying Iranian oil; the next year, it was twenty-two. In 1984, Iran began responding in kind. That year, Iraq attacked fifty-three tankers linked to Iran, while Iran attacked sixteen tankers linked to Iraq. By 1987, the numbers had risen to eighty-eight attacks by Iraq and ninety-one by Iran. The systematic attacks on the other side’s merchant vessels became known as the Tanker War, and it alarmed the outside world, which by that point was dependent on the supply of oil through the Persian Gulf. “Mizuo Kuroda, Japanese ambassador to the United Nations, in the Security Council debate on the gulf conflict in May 1984, made an appeal that Iran and Iraq and all other states exercise the utmost restraint, and asked that both countries respect the right of safe navigation. (However, attacks on neutral shipping have continued.),” the Pacific Affairs article noted. In the summer of 1987, after neutral Kuwait had concluded that Kuwaiti-flagged tankers could no longer travel through the Gulf and asked for permission to have them reflagged as American, the tankers were reflagged and the United States launched Operation Earnest Will, which saw US Navy vessels escort the US-flagged Kuwaiti vessels between the Gulf of Oman and their home ports.²

When the Iran-Iraq war ended the following year, more than 320 merchant mariners had been killed, injured, or were missing. Three hundred and forty merchant vessels had been damaged, some more than once. Some 30 million tons of cargo had been damaged, while eleven ships had been sunk and three dozen declared total losses.³

The Tanker War became infamous because it was a blatant case of aggression against merchant shipping as a tool of war, and it took place during a period in which countries’ economies were beginning to globalize. The Warsaw Pact countries largely operated in parallel with Western market economies and China was still a mostly closed economy, but Japan and South Korea were trading heavily with Western economies,Latin American economies had also begun opening up, and Middle Eastern oil fueled many countries’ growing economies. It was against this background that the Tanker War was such a shock. It demonstrated to increasingly commercially linked countries that global shipping—the most important tool of global trade—could easily be targeted by interested nations and that there was little other countries could do to stop the attacks.

However, geopolitically motivated attacks on shipping are nearly as old as shipping itself.⁴ Indeed, merchant vessels have been regularly attacked during wars. As H. B. Robertson, Jr. notes

• During the Napoleonic era, both France and England utilized their differing strengths in an attempt to curtail the other’s logistic and commercial capabilities. In the American Civil War, the blockade of the Confederacy was a principal component of the Union’s war strategy. The indispensable condition for victory by Japan in its 1905 war with Russia was control of the seas. Without this advantage, Russia could have resupplied its superior land armies from the sea. During the progress of both WorId Wars, success of the maritime resupply effort of the Allied Powers, particularly Great Britain, was the sine qua non of victory.⁵

Until the nineteenth century, “privateers” also attacked merchant vessels on behalf of a country’s armed forces in exchange for bounties from the vessels.⁶

The reason merchant vessels have so systematically been attacked during wars is, of course, that they carry vital supplies to the adversary. “If it is true that merchant shipping can be critical to a nation’s ability to prosecute a war effort, it is equally true that the opposing power will seek to interdict that supply effort,” Robertson notes. “Tactics, weapons systems and geography are variables that will affect any interdiction effort but the interdiction effort fits nearly with the general principles of war.”⁷

Yet, by the time World War I erupted, nations realized that unrestricted warfare against merchant shipping was unsustainable and sought to restrict it. Traditional (or customary) international law had established a distinction between enemy naval ships and enemy merchant vessels, with the latter granted protection from attacks. The Hague Conventions, to which forty-four countries agreed in 1907, included an article on the status of merchant ships following the outbreak of hostilities. It stipulated that “the belligerent may only detain it, without payment of compensation, but subject to the obligation of restoring it after the war, or requisition it on payment of compensation” and that “enemy merchant ships which left their last port of departure before the commencement of the war, and are encountered on the high seas while still ignorant of the outbreak of hostilities cannot be confiscated.”⁸

The Hague Convention became international customary law, the de facto legal baseline governing merchant shipping during armed conflict. This meant that “merchant ships, even those sailing under the flag of the enemy, are considered as civilian objects and manned by civilian crews, and so long as they maintain their proper role, are subject only to seizure as prize and subsequent condemnation in prize courts of the capturing belligerent. Only in special circumstances is the capturing power allowed to destroy the prize, and then only after removing the passengers, crew and ship’s papers to a place of safety.”⁹ Germany had, however, developed a submarine fleet. During World War I, these submarines set about attacking merchant vessels supplying the Allies. In the first months of 1917, following German submarine attacks on several US merchant ships, the United States declared war on Germany.¹⁰

In the years after World War I, states sought to further codify merchant vessels’ rights, which resulted in the London Protocol of 1936. By 1939, all of World War I’s combatant countries except Romania had joined the protocol, which stipulated

• A warship, whether surface vessel or submarine, may not sink or render incapable of navigation a merchant vessel without having first placed passengers, crew and ship’s papers in a place of safety. For this purpose the ship’s boats are not regarded as a place of safety unless the safety of the passengers and crew is assured, in the existing sea and weather conditions, by the proximity of land, or the presence of another vessel which is in a position to take them on board.¹¹

Even so, World War II saw regular attacks on merchant vessels. International customary law was simply ignored. As a result, some vessels sought to reduce the risk of attack by sailing under neutral countries’ flags (including the increasingly popular flag of Panama). As Robertson notes, both the Allies and the Axis powers attacked enemy merchant vessels—and sometimes even neutral merchant ships—and did so without ensuring the safety of the passengers, the crews, or the ships themselves, even though the protocol obliges warring parties to take such action.

• Both sides justified these practices either on the basis of reprisal (which in itself is an admission that absent the first violation by the other side, the practice is illegal under international law) or on assertions that the other side had incorporated its merchant fleet into the combatant force by mounting offensive weapons on the ships, convoying them, requiring them to report enemy submarine sightings, and ordering them to take offensive action against surfaced submarines.¹²

Toward and after the end of World War II, the world’s nations attempted to create a global system of rules and institutions, with the United Nations (UN) at its center. In addition to the United Nations itself, nations created the International Civil Aviation Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization (WHO), and a string of other bodies. In 1948, they adopted the Convention on the International Maritime Organization and agreed to form the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO). The name was later changed to the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and came into force ten years after its adoption. The organization’s statutes placed little emphasis on maritime security, focusing instead on promoting economic action in support of freedom and reducing discrimination in some countries.¹³ Article C, for example, states an IMCO aim “to provide for the consideration by the Organization of matters concerning unfair restrictive practices by shipping concerns.”¹⁴

Indeed, such was the desire for safe shipping among the world’s nations that a focus on security in the IMCO’s founding statute seemed unnecessary. Harm caused by pirates and criminals posed a problem, but even the most ideologically opposed governments agreed that shipping needed to be kept safe. Countries deliberately harming merchant vessels was no longer acceptable.

Even with the IMCO’s rules in place, ships continued to face considerable threats, but such threats came from criminals, terrorists, and malcontents. In 1961, a group led by Captain Henrique Galvao hijacked the Portuguese passenger ship Santa Maria in protest against the regime of Antonio de Salazar. In subsequent years, Cuban exile groups attacked Russian and Cuban merchant vessels, though they sometimes got the wrong ship, and the Palestinian terrorist group PLFP attacked vessels bound for Israeli ports. Groups with other causes similarly found shipping a convenient target. RAND researchers summarized the problem.

• Besides guerrillas and terrorists, attacks have been carried out by modern day pirates, ordinary criminals, fanatic environmentalists, mutinous crews, hostile workers, and foreign agents. The spectrum of actions is equally broad: ships hijacked, destroyed by mines and bombs, attacks with bazookas, sunk under mysterious circumstances; cargos removed; crews taken hostage; extortion plots against ocean liners and offshore platforms; raids on port facilities; attempts to board oil rigs; sabotage at shipyards and terminal facilities; even a plot to steal a nuclear submarine.¹⁵

The Tanker War received such global attention because it was an extremely rare example of nation-states targeting merchant vessels. The attacks created considerable risks for vessels beyond those linked to the two respective countries. “Like the Houthis today, the Iraqi and Iranian armed forces at that time weren’t always that accurate in their targeting,” noted Svein Ringbakken, a maritime executive with several decades in the business who now serves as managing director of the Norway-based maritime war insurer DNK.¹⁶ Of the vessels attacked, sixty-one sailed under the Liberian flag, forty-one under the flag of Panama, thirty-nine under the flag of Cyprus, and twenty-six under the flag of Greece. A number of other Western countries similarly saw vessels sailing under their flag attacked. Forty-six were Iranian flagged. Ringbakken added that “the ships that were going back and forth to [in the Gulf] were often attacked several times each, so the number of attacks were much higher than the 340 ships that were listed as having been attacked.” Had the merchant vessels carrying oil and other supplies through the Gulf been less sturdy, the human and material losses caused by the Tanker War would have been even more dramatic.

But not even during the height of the Cold War, in the 1960s and 1970s, did NATO or Warsaw Pact member states systematically seek to harm merchant vessels linked to the other side. NATO and Warsaw Pact countries indisputably acted unethically in other ways, but in the maritime domain they respected rules, conventions, and the neutrality of merchant shipping. They did so not least because they also depended on ships carrying goods to and from their countries being able to travel safely.

Indeed, when the attacks by terrorists and other non-state entities continued, the world’s nations convened to negotiate and adopt the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), the fifth version of global shipping’s cornerstone safety treaty, which governs the safety of the vessels themselves. (Previous versions had been adopted in 1914—in response to the Titanic disaster—and then in 1929, 1948, and 1960.)¹⁷ Five years later, in 1979, nations adopted the International Convention on Maritime Search and Rescue (SAR), which entered into force in 1985. SAR governs the responsibilities of coastal states in maritime search and rescue; the 1979 version divided the world’s oceans into thirteen search-and-rescue regions and introduced the obligation for countries to operate rescue co-ordination centers on a twenty-four-hour basis with trained, English-speaking, staff.¹⁸

The crowning achievement of Cold War maritime agreements took place in 1982, when negotiators representing 160 nations adopted the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the “constitution of the oceans.”¹⁹ UNCLOS covers crucial areas including exploitation of ocean and seabed resources, as well as maritime transit rights. Crucially, coastal states are given territorial rights over waters extending twelve nautical miles from their coastlines; foreign vessels have the right to sail through these waters under UNCLOS’s “innocent passage” provision. Coastal states are also given limited rights in the Exclusive Economic Zones extending another two hundred nautical miles beyond their territorial waters.²⁰

A rare case of apparently state-linked attacks on merchant shipping took place in 1984, when nearly twenty vessels transiting the Red Sea were struck by mines. Egyptian and Western authorities subsequently identified the Ghat, a Libyan-flagged merchant vessel, as the culprit. Libya’s motivation for the attacks appears to have been ruler Muammar al-Qaddafi’s desire to demonstrate what he punish other Arab regimes’ misguided policy of maintaining close relations with the West.²¹

From the early 1990s, the end of the Cold War and the beginning of more harmonious relations between crucial groupings of countries decreased geopolitically linked risk everywhere, including in shipping. Crucially, the end of the Cold War delivered an extraordinary rise in commercial relations between previously hostile countries. In addition, China had begun opening up its closed economy in the 1980s and was quickly becoming a manufacturing hub for Western companies. The rapidly growing trade and resulting globalization were facilitated by global shipping. Between 1990 and 2019, global shipping grew nearly threefold, from 4,008 million tons loaded to 11,076 million tons loaded.²²

During the 1990s and 2000s, and until the late 2010s, shipping had to contend with spikes in piracy attacks, but geopolitically linked attacks remained minimal. The few attacks that took place, most prominently an explosion on the French-flagged oil tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen, were carried out by terrorists.²³ In Nigeria in the early 2000s, the Movement for the Development of the Niger Delta—a local militant group—kidnapped oil workers and attacked oil facilities and pipelines, though this was done in protest against inequalities in Nigeria.

The mostly peaceful period ended around 2019, when a proxy war targeting merchant vessels unfolded in the Strait of Hormuz, an indispensable body of water through which more than 20 percent of global petroleum travels.²⁴ In 2018, Donald Trump’s administration took the United States out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the “Iran nuclear deal.” Soon after that, Iran began to regularly harass merchant vessels in the Strait of Hormuz. In a particularly high-profile incident, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) seized the Swedish-owned, UK-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero passing through the Strait of Hormuz on July 19, 2019, and took the crew hostage.²⁵ Though the IRGC alleged that the tanker had struck a fishing boat and failed to obey IRGC instructions, there was no evidence of this. Since then, attacks on merchant vessels have continued. Merchant vessels sailing under flags ranging from those of Norway to the United Arab Emirates have been struck by mines, magnetic mines, and torpedoes.²⁶ In August 2023, the United States dispatched a naval and Marine force to the strait to “support deterrence efforts.”²⁷ By that point, there had been twenty attacks on merchant shipping in the strait since the beginning of 2021, including two on July 5, 2023, when Iranian naval vessels attempted to seize two oil tankers.²⁸ The US Navy and Marine presence appears to have succeeded in deterring the aggression, which subsided after the force’s arrival. As with all deterrence measures, though, it’s impossible to know whether the attackers had already been planning to reduce their aggression or whether the deterrence measures changed their cost-benefit calculus.

Threats to commercial vessels in the Black Sea, the Taiwan Strait, and the South China Sea

In early 2022, another threat to global shipping emerged when Russia deployed close to two hundred thousand troops to its border with Ukraine. It was clear that any invasion by Russia would also involve attacks on Ukraine’s Black Sea ports and on shipping in the Black Sea. In the weeks immediately following the invasion, several merchant vessels in Ukrainian waters and ports were struck in suspected Russian attacks. On February 25, for example, a tanker was struck by missiles. Two crew members were injured, and the crew was forced to abandon ship.²⁹ On March 2, a Bangladeshi seafarer was killed when a shell hit his vessel in the Ukrainian port of Olvia.³⁰ In addition, when Russia invaded, ships crewed by some 800–1,000 seafarers were docked in seven Ukrainian ports and, in practice, unable to leave. Being stuck in Ukrainian ports, of course, made them an easy target for Russian attacks and also raised the risk of their becoming collateral damage of attacks against other targets.³¹ “There were more than 90 vessels [stuck in Ukrainian ports] to start with, and during the [UN-negotiated grain] Corridor [between Russia and Ukraine that allowed ships carrying grain to leave Ukrainian ports, traveling through a Black Sea corridor on to international destinations], about 30 got out. We ended up with around 65 claims for total loss,” said Neil Roberts, the secretary of the maritime insurance industry’s Joint War Committee, which lists international waters according to risk level.³²

Shipping in the Taiwan Strait has been similarly threatened, but has not yet been attacked. When, in April 2023, President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan met with US Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy in California, Beijing registered its displeasure by launching an offensive military exercise targeting Taiwan and sending a coast guard “inspection flotilla” to the Taiwan Strait. The strait is the main passage for cargo moving between Southeast Asia and Japan, South Korea, and northern China, which makes it one of the world’s busiest maritime thoroughfares; some 240–500 ships per day, including nearly nine in ten of the world’s largest container vessels, pass through the strait on an average day.³³ Beijing, which considers Taiwan a region of China, argues it has “sovereignty and jurisdiction” over the strait, while Taiwan and countries including the United States consider it international waters divided along the strait’s unofficial median line.

By threatening to inspect ships passing through the strait, on the basis of legal powers not recognized by Taiwan and large parts of the international community, China would be able to severely disrupt shipping in the strait and, thus, cause considerable problems for shipping globally. Yet, the deployment of an inspection flotilla—whether or not it carries out any inspections—hardly reaches the threshold where the US Navy or another navy would consider it necessary to intervene. In its law-enforcement scope of inspections of merchant vessels (albeit on Taiwan’s side of the median line), China’s inspection flotilla differs from the overtly aggressive actions China’s coast guard, maritime militia, long-distance fishing fleet, and other maritime entities take. All, though, constitute a risk to civilian vessels. Roberts noted

• China has long been “leaning in” via its fishing fleet, and it’s been building all these little islands in the South China Sea. The Chinese government issues white papers to float their ideas, for example saying they’ll allow their Coast Guard to fire on all vessels in their territorial waters. And if nobody reacts, then they make it policy. Whilst the littoral states do not agree, they’re up against a huge nation and there’s no one in the area who’s in a position to react. That comparative disparity is what China has leveraged in deploying the inspection flotilla to the Taiwan Strait.³⁴

In addition, China’s maritime militia, coast guard, and long-distance fishing fleet habitually harass vessels, including civilian ones. These activities are of particular concern in the South China Sea, through which approximately one-third of global trade travels, as China claims some 90 percent of these waters under its “nine-dash line” policy.³⁵ These practices, which will be analyzed in a subsequent report as part of the Atlantic Council’s Maritime Threats project, are not specifically targeted against shipping but instead target a wide range of vessels, including civilian ones. Survey vessels sailing under the flags of Norway and Vietnam, for example, have been harassed by a combination of Chinese vessels.³⁶ Since the beginning of the 2020s, the harassment has increased significantly, creating an environment of heightened uncertainty and risk for merchant vessels. This uncertainty is heightened because it’s entirely unclear how coastal states and de facto protectors of the global maritime order, most notably the US Navy, can deter such activities. As Ringbakken noted

• China has its Navy, it has its Coast Guard and it has the militia and the fishing boats and this kind of crossover between the fishing boats and the militia, which is a strange construct. And China has a long-term perspective. These small skirmishes and the small transgressions are not viewed as an attempt to undercut the global maritime regime, but that’s what they are. It’s what you might call the Chinese water torture method. Any kind of countermeasure from the Americans or others would seem disproportionate. The activity is just merely little bit out of normal and not like what the Houthis are doing in the Red Sea, and that makes responding even harder. You don’t send a naval group to try to stop this kind of behavior because it seems too minor. So it goes on.³⁷

The US military has come to much the same conclusion. “It’s getting more aggressive, they’re getting more bold and it’s getting more dangerous,” Admiral John Aquilino told media in late April 2024, shortly before handing over command of the US Indo-Pacific Command. He added that China was increasing its aggression through a “boiling the frog” strategy. “There needs to be a continual description of China’s bad behavior that is outside legal international norms,” he noted. “And that story has to be told by all the nations in the region.”³⁸

Indeed, China’s maritime harassment can easily be expanded to target many more cargo ships, in addition to the fishing vessels and supply vessels that have until now been the most frequently targeted categories. In the area of unilateral inspection flotillas , if the flotilla that was dispatched during Tsai’s visit to California were to be followed by similar measures, shipping companies and their insurers would need to assess whether it’s worth sending vessels through the Taiwan Strait. “Even if the US Navy wanted to intervene, it would be seen a gross intrusion, and it could spark something far worse. The merchant ships are on their own,” Roberts noted.³⁹ Ships don’t need to go through the strait to reach destinations other than Taiwan; they can simply travel along Taiwan’s eastern coast. That route, however, would render them unable to call at Taiwan’s main port—the massive Port of Kaohsiung—or the Port of Taipei. This is what makes a blockade of Taiwan, whether executed by the China Coast Guard, the People’s Liberation Army Navy, China’s maritime militia, or a combination of the three, possibly with other entities also involved, such a troubling scenario.⁴⁰ “What would happen to Taiwan if ships don’t call at its ports? Well, ultimately the people of Taiwan will starve ,” Roberts said. “But shipowners have to focus on crew welfare and they’d just go around [east of Taiwan] and take a bit more fuel. It’s really difficult.”⁴¹

Houthi attacks on merchant vessels: A new form of aggression

On November 19, 2023, armed commandos belonging to the Yemeni Houthi militia stormed the Galaxy Leader, a Bahamas-flagged roll-on, roll-off (RORO) carrier traveling through the Red Sea near the Yemeni port of Hodeida. The commandos, who filmed themselves arriving in a helicopter, took the twenty-five-strong crew hostage and directed the Galaxy Leader to Hodeida and then the port of Al Saleef, which is also controlled by the Houthis.⁴² The Galaxy Leader had apparently been targeted because it is part-owned by Israeli national Abraham “Rami” Ungar, though his firm is registered in the United Kingdom.

“The Yemeni Naval Forces managed to capture an Israeli ship in the depths of the Red Sea taking it to the Yemeni coast. The Yemeni armed forces deal with the ship’s crew in accordance with the principle and values of our Islamic religion,” Houthi spokesman Yahya Sare’e declared on X on the same day.

• The Yemeni armed forces reiterate their warning to all ships belonging to or dealing with the Israeli enemy that they will become a legitimate target for armed forces. […] Yemeni armed forces confirm that they will continue to carry out military operations against the Israeli enemy until the aggression against Gaza stops and the heinous acts against our Palestinian brothers in Gaza and the West Bank stop…If the international community is concerned about regional security and stability, rather than expanding the conflict, it should put an end to Israel’s aggression against Gaza.⁴³

“All ships belonging to the Israeli enemy or that deal with it will become legitimate targets,” the Houthis added in a statement after the hijack.⁴⁴ The opportunistic labeling of the attacks as being an act of support for the people of Gaza was a clever move by the Houthis, gaining the attacks attention far beyond the global maritime community and gaining the Houthis sympathy for their actions among the public in countries troubled by Gazans’ plight. It also made any response by the United States and other Western countries geopolitically fraught. A few days later, assailants identified as Houthis attacked the Israel-linked tanker Central Park in the Gulf of Aden, the body of water that leads into the Red Sea.⁴⁵ On December 3, the Houthis attacked three additional vessels.⁴⁶

The attacks continued, though the targeted vessels’ alleged Israeli links were not always clear or even existent. On December 9, the militia expanded its scope, saying it would also target ships headed for Israeli ports. Two days later, it hit the Strinda, a tanker owned, managed, and flagged in Norway and crewed by Indians, which the Houthis said was headed for Israel, though the owner said the tanker was bound for Italy.⁴⁷

On December 15, a Houthi drone struck the Liberian-flagged Al Jasrah and two Houthi missiles struck the MSC Palatium III, which was also sailing under Liberian flag; both were thought to be headed for Israeli ports. On the same day, the Houthis threatened another Liberian-flagged vessel, the MSC Alanya, and told it to turn around.⁴⁸ “The Houthis’ targeting mechanism wasn’t that good, or their intelligence wasn’t entirely up to speed,” Ringbakken said. “And we don’t know for sure whether that was by chance or whether they didn’t mind a little bit of collateral damage because that got them more attention.”⁴⁹

Indeed, the Houthis appear to have decided to make necessity into an extraordinary virtue. Instead of having to conduct painstaking research into vessels’ complex ownership and management structure, and their cargo’s provenance and destination, the Houthis—while declaring that they were targeting Israeli-linked vessels—attacked a range of merchant vessels in the Red Sea, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and the Gulf of Aden. That, of course, has made the waters unsafe for vessels form all countries, though the Houthis appear to consistently have exempted vessels linked to Russia and China. Retired Rear Admiral Nils Wang, a former chief of the Danish Navy, noted the following.

• It’s instructive to compare the Houthis’ attacks to the piracy of the Horn of Africa [that was particularly frequent in the early 2010s]. With the pirates off the Horn of Africa, the intimidation of international shipping was the same. That made launching a counter-piracy operation straightforward. Everybody, including China, Pakistan, Iran, everybody was of the opinion that this piracy had to be stopped. Indeed, the military operations against piracy at that time were probably the biggest multinational military operation that has ever taken place, if you count on how many countries, regions, and continents were involved. Everyone agreed that the piracy had to be stopped. If you then compare that to the situation now in the Red Sea, the Houthis only seem to be targeting ships linked to the West, not to Russia and China. And it’s only the Western world that is intervening to protect the ships there.⁵⁰

By pure coincidence, the IMO Assembly—the IMO’s governing body—was scheduled to hold its biannual meeting in late November and December 2023. Various items had been submitted for consideration by the assembly, including measures to prevent the growing dark fleet.⁵¹Unsurprisingly, the Houthis’ attacks received urgent attention. The Bahamas, the world’s eighth-largest flag state, criticized the Houthis’ attacks on merchant vessel as a “violation of all of the norms relating to innocent passage of ships.”⁵² And, referring to the Houthis, the country added, “Here we have non-state actors so who do you hold responsible?”

That is the dilemma posed by the Houthis’ novel campaign against shipping. The militia attacks ships ostensibly for geopolitical reasons, and it’s backed by a nation-state, but it’s not an official government. The militia is also linked to Iran but doesn’t officially represent this country either. “That makes it difficult to make this a matter between a hostile country and other countries, but at the same time, the Houthis are a completely different category from pirates and other opportunistic attackers without government links,” Wang said.⁵³

It should, therefore, come as no surprise that Western governments have struggled to formulate strategies to deter the attacks.

International response to the Houthis’ attacks

On December 18, the United States announced the establishment of Operation Prosperity Guardian, a naval task force comprising the United States, the United Kingdom, Bahrain, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, the Seychelles, Spain, and several other nations, amounting to a total of twenty countries.⁵⁴ Some opted not to divulge their participation out of concern that doing so could increase the risks for their countries. “The recent escalation in reckless Houthi attacks originating from Yemen threatens the free flow of commerce, endangers innocent mariners, and violates international law,” US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said in the press release announcing the task force. “The Red Sea is a critical waterway that has been essential to freedom of navigation and a major commercial corridor that facilitates international trade. Countries that seek to uphold the foundational principle of freedom of navigation must come together to tackle the challenge posed by this non-state actor launching ballistic missiles and uncrewed aerial vehicles (UAVs) at merchant vessels from many nations lawfully transiting international waters.”⁵⁵

Operation Prosperity Guardian is set up as “highway patrol in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden” with the task of averting attacks on merchant vessels, not punishing the Houthis.⁵⁶ It will “respond to and assist as necessary commercial vessels that are transiting this vital international waterway,” Pentagon spokesman Major General Pat Ryder said in a briefing on December 21.⁵⁷ “It’s a defensive coalition meant to reassure global shipping and mariners that the international community is there to help with safe passage.”⁵⁸

Prosperity Guardian is a fitting name for a naval coalition tasked with thwarting the attacks on merchant vessels in the Red Sea and the adjacent Bab el-Mandeb Strait and Gulf of Aden. The water forms a crucial thoroughfare in the globalized economy; under normal circumstances, some 15 percent of global maritime trade passes through it.⁵⁹ Indeed, in deciding to attack shipping, the Houthis have opted for the form of aggression that would yield by far the most global disruption and attention.

Since December 19, Prosperity Guardian’s members have escorted merchant vessels with links to a wide range of countries (not just the countries involved in the operation). They have also regularly thwarted attacks. This is deterrence by denial: by denying the attackers the gain they seek, the defenders are changing the attackers’ cost-benefit calculus. “You always have the right to self-defense,” Wang noted. “So if you are shot at, you or your defenders can shoot back. That’s mandate for all the ships participating in Prosperity Guardian: they can shoot as soon as they see any threat emerging.”⁶⁰

Retired Vice Admiral Andrew Lewis, who until 2021 commanded the US Navy’s Second Fleet and in an earlier posting commanded the US Navy’s Carrier Strike Group 12, described the situation as follows.

• The Houthis’ attacks are essentially a culmination of the threats we’ve seen over the past 15 years. At the beginning of that period, we broadly saw terrorist and piracy threats. As things progressed, we saw the Houthis become more active. As recently as nine years ago, when I was a carrier strike group commander, we were intercepting Iranian convoys of dhows that were transiting to either Oman or Yemen to go to Yemen with the weaponry the Houthis are now using to target vessels in the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb Strait. For a period of time, we intercepted these convoys and forced them to turn around, so the equipment wasn’t flowing through, but they continued to build up that capability, and that is the result we’re seeing now.⁶¹

The fact that there was no global body policing Iran’s shipments of weapons through the Red Sea thus became the source of the dramatic threats to shipping in the Red Sea once the Houthis acquired enough weaponry to launch their attacks.

Indeed, despite the launch of Prosperity Guardian, the Houthis’ attacks accelerated. On December 26, for example, US naval vessels and aircraft in the Red Sea shot down twelve one-way attack drones, three anti-ship ballistic missiles, and two land-attack cruise missiles within a period of ten hours.⁶² Such lack of success would convince a conventional adversary to give up. But the novel aspect of the Houthis’ campaign against shipping is not just their comparatively modern weaponry (including the fact that they’re the first non-state group to have fired anti-ship ballistic missiles) but also that the ability to harm merchant vessels is secondary in their cost-benefit calculus. “The difference between piracy and the Houthis is that piracy is criminality. It’s to make money,” said retired Vice Admiral Duncan Potts, who until 2018 was the UK armed forces’ director general of joint force development and previously commanded the EU’s ATALANTA counter-piracy mission. “And like any other business model, if the cost and the risk gets too high, you just move elsewhere. But for the Houthis the attacks are not about money.”⁶³ The Houthis’ priority is not even to sink vessels, which is what a traditional adversary attacking vessels would intend. Instead, their top priority has turned out to be to gain global attention and to cause fear among shipping companies, their insurers, and their customers, and thus to gain a global platform.

The Houthis’ cost-benefit calculus also differs from that of the West’s traditional adversaries, as they primarily use cheap drones and missiles. An often-quoted cost per Houthi missile is $2,000. Simon Lockwood, head of shipowners at Willis Towers Watson, noted that it is these weapons’ relative lack of sophistication that—together with the Houthis’ sloppy research—causes the most fear in the shipping industry. “How do you cause a massive amount of disruption? You just create that level of uncertainty that causes companies in the maritime industry to say, ‘we can’t go into the Red Sea,’” he said. “If I were that way inclined, I would laud the Houthis’ ability to create absolute mayhem with relatively unsophisticated weapons, just to scare off merchant vessels.”⁶⁴

However, the Houthis’ current weapons are a significant improvement from the weaponry used by militias in the early 2000s. The Limburg was attacked by a suicide bomber driving an explosive-laden small boat into the vessel’s hull. Today, by contrast, the Houthis have sophisticated missiles as well as relatively simple drones. “Improvements in technology are a key reason these attacks are happening,” Ringbakken noted. “When I started in this job and even ten years into the job, my experts were telling me that for groups of terrorists and others to hit a moving target like a vessel is extremely difficult. Now the Houthis have proved that it’s quite easy. There’s technological development in targeting technology that has made it possible for groups like the Houthis to drag their equipment around on a lorry and then target and hit a ship far away out in the sea. That was not possible a decade ago.”⁶⁵ Even the best of these missiles and drones don’t reach the technological sophistication of those used by first-rate armed forces, and the Houthis’ drones only hit ships randomly. But the combination is powerful. “The Houthis’ weapons are a mix of very, very advanced missiles and very, very cheap drones. It’s dangerous cocktail,” Wang said.⁶⁶ The fact that a non-state group that has signed no maritime conventions and feels bound by no maritime rules has access to this dangerous cocktail is a serious threat to global shipping.

Indeed, the drones and missiles cause fear among shipping companies, and thwarting them requires far more sophisticated—and far more expensive—technology. Offensive missiles don’t need to be very precise, at least if the attacker’s objective is not to harm specific targets. By contrast, defensive missiles—whose task is to shoot down the offensive missiles—must be extremely precise. US Navy defensive missiles cost, on average, between $1.5 million and $2.5 million each.⁶⁷ For the Houthis, $2,000-a-piece missiles supplied by Iran are a bargain, especially because the missiles spread fear in the shipping industry, regardless of whether they hit their intended target.

Despite Operation Prosperity Guardian’s efforts, the Red Sea has become too risky for many shipping lines and their insurers. By late December 2023, shipping traffic through the Red Sea had decreased by nearly 20 percent.⁶⁸ On January 3, the United States, UK, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and several other Western countries (and, again, Bahrain) issued a stern statement, warning the Houthis of consequences should the attacks continue:

• Ongoing Houthi attacks in the Red Sea are illegal, unacceptable, and profoundly destabilizing. There is no lawful justification for intentionally targeting civilian shipping and naval vessels. Attacks on vessels, including commercial vessels, using unmanned aerial vehicles, small boats, and missiles, including the first use of anti-ship ballistic missiles against such vessels, are a direct threat to the freedom of navigation that serves as the bedrock of global trade in one of the world’s most critical waterways. These attacks threaten innocent lives from all over the world and constitute a significant international problem that demands collective action.⁶⁹

The Houthis—logically, according to their cost-benefit calculus—responded with a highly complex attack comprising Iranian-designed one-way attack drones, anti-ship cruise missiles, and an anti-ship ballistic missile.⁷⁰ Shooting them down required the efforts of F/A-18s from USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, USS Gravely (DDG 107), USS Laboon (DDG 58), USS Mason (DDG 87), and the Royal Navy’s HMS Diamond (D34).⁷¹ The fact that Iran supplies the drones and missiles and, in some cases, intelligence to the Houthis, is well-known both to maritime executives and to Western militaries. It would, however, be legally dubious and highly risky for Western armed forces to militarily punish Iran for the Houthis’ attacks. “The maritime domain is unfortunately a welcome arena for escalation without making it state to state,” Ringbakken said.⁷²

Indeed, the Houthis have demonstrated that they can keep escalating because the United States and other Western allies are loath to retaliate against Iran. On January 11, the United States and UK, supported by Australia, Bahrain, Canada, and the Netherlands—operating as part of a new coalition operating in parallel with Prosperity Guardian—launched strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen. “These strikes are in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea—including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history,” President Joe Biden said in a statement. “These attacks have endangered US personnel, civilian mariners, and our partners, jeopardized trade, and threatened freedom of navigation.”⁷³ Further strikes have followed; by the end of February, the United States and the UK had carried out strikes on an almost daily basis.⁷⁴

Not even this punishment has convinced the Houthis to end their attacks. In early 2024, they instead expanded the scope of their attacks, targeting vessels linked to the United States and the UK in addition to those linked to Israel. On January 18, for example, they launched two anti-ship ballistic missiles against a Marshall Islands-flagged, US-owned, Greek-operated tanker.⁷⁵ Since then, the United States and the Prosperity Guardian allies have thwarted Houthi drones, missiles, and anti-ship missile attacks on an almost daily basis, while the US- and UK-led strike coalition has continued its strikes against strategic installations in Houthi-held Yemeni territory.⁷⁶

As before, the Houthis decide what constitutes links to the countries concerned, which puts every vessel at risk of attack. “We can disagree with them and argue that a ship they’ve attacked is not linked to one of these three countries, but once the rocket has hit your ship, it’s too late,” Ringbakken noted.⁷⁷ Lockwood added, “US links, UK links, Israeli links: that’s rubbish. The attacks are about targeting shipping for effect, and it’s crippling shipping.”⁷⁸ By April 2024, sixty-five countries’ interests had been affected by the campaign, according to the US Defense Intelligence Agency.⁷⁹ Only ships linked to Russia and China have appeared safe. Indeed, in an effort to keep their vessels safe, by the beginning of 2024 some captains had adopted a strategy of incorrectly communicating to the Houthis that they had an all-Chinese crew. On February 19, the EU announced the formation of another naval mission in the Red Sea. Operation Aspides, comprising France, Germany, Italy, and Belgium, would protect merchant vessels alongside Prosperity Guardian and the strike coalition.⁸⁰ The Houthis, meanwhile, appeared to continue sparing any vessels linked to Russia and China.⁸¹

By March 2024, forty merchant vessels had been successfully attacked, thirty-four of which had sustained damage.⁸² A few weeks later, the rate of Houthi attacks appeared to have slowed. “Their pace of operations is not what it was,” US Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich, the top US Air Force commander for the Middle East, told a press conference.⁸³ Grynkewich attributed the slowdown to the effect of the US strikes, which had curtailed the Houthis’ arsenal of drones and missiles.⁸⁴ Crucially, despite a reduced arsenal, the Houthis appeared undeterred and kept up their missile and drone strikes. The US Central Command, communicating through its Twitter (X), reported Houthi attacks on a near-daily basis.⁸⁵ Yet the United States seemed to have little confidence the strikes would fundamentally improve security for Red Sea shipping. Grynkewich told reporters that Iran’s continued supply of weapons was a “complicating factor.”

Indeed, in the second half of April, the attacks increased again. On April 26, for example, the Houthis launched three anti-ship ballistic missiles from Yemen into the Red Sea, where they nearly hit one vessel and struck another, an apparently erroneously targeted suspected shadow vessel.⁸⁶ By the end of the month, the US Navy and allies had shot down Houthi drones and missiles or struck Houthi installations around 130 times, according to publicly known numbers.⁸⁷ An exact figure of how many vessels have been targeted by the Houthis is impossible to establish, precisely because the Houthi attacks are vague and may not always hit a vessel, though the attacks are always successful in spreading fear.⁸⁸ Without Prosperity Guardian’s defense of merchant vessels, the harm to vessels would, of course, be far more extensive. The number of vessels available to attack had also dropped significantly as Western-linked vessels’ owners were diverting them to the Cape of Good Hope route. By the end of February, traffic in the Suez Canal (and thus the Red Sea) had dropped by 50 percent.⁸⁹ By contrast, Red Sea traffic by Chinese merchant vessels rose by 73 percent between October 2023 and March 2024, compared to the same period one year earlier.⁹⁰ “The fact that you’ve got so many ships now avoiding the area tells you everything,” said Guy Platten, secretary general of the International Chamber of Shipping. “We absolutely welcome Operation Prosperity Guardian and the EU naval forces, because their presence does provide some sort of protection, but you can’t get every ship. But what does this mean for seafarers? These ships have crews, they’re not just inanimate objects. Nobody wants to risk their lives, and owners also have a responsibility and a duty of care for the seafarers on their ships.”⁹¹

The attacks have an effect on seafarers far beyond the ones working on vessels that have been struck by the Houthis—and, thus, on the globalized economy. “Shipping depends absolutely on its crew,” Roberts noted. “People have compared being a member of crew to being in prison, but with worse internet. It’s just not a great life. They don’t get many breaks, they get criminalized at the drop of a hat. It’s really not very attractive. And then on top of that, now you’ve got attacks on vessels. If you haven’t got crew and you haven’t got security, then the supply chain isn’t going to work for you. There’s got to be some serious thought given to this. If the crews don’t want to go, then nothing happens.”⁹²

Indeed, the global shortage of seafarers is becoming so severe that, if not enough of them are willing to crew ships having to pass through perilous waters, ships risk being unable to leave port. “There’s a limited number of people in our navies who could be drafted in to help on commercial ships,” Roberts said. “And would they be willing or able or allowed to do that? Governments would have to set priorities and start with the oil tankers and absolutely vital food. Luxury goods traveling on container ships, not so much. What is the appetite for consumer goods when you’ve got a threatened environment?”⁹³

The Houthis have continued their attacks despite paying a significantly higher price, measured in damaged or destroyed infrastructure in Houthi-held Yemeni territory. By April 2024, the militia appeared to have expanded its campaign into the Indian Ocean, to which the Gulf of Aden’s eastern end is connected but which is located several hundred nautical miles from the Red Sea. On April 26, the militia struck the MSC Orion, a container ship sailing under the flag of Madeira, off the coast of Somalia.⁹⁴

Then, on May 2, the militia announced it was expanding its attacks to the eastern Mediterranean. “We will target any ships heading to Israeli ports in the Mediterranean Sea in any area we are able to reach,” Houthi military spokesman General Yahya Saree said. He added that the decision would be implemented “immediately, and from the moment this statement is announced.”⁹⁵ By the end of June, no such attacks had occurred, but the Houthis kept up their attacks in the Red Sea and surrounding waters and expanded their arsenal. On May 13, EUNAVFOR Aspides reported that it had escorted 100 vessels since its inception less than three months earlier.⁹⁶ On May 28, the Marshall Islands-flagged bulk carrier Laax was hit—twice.⁹⁷ In June, the Antigua and Barbuda-flagged cargo ship Norderney was hit.⁹⁸ Five days later, a Liberia-flagged, Greek-owned coal carrier was hit so badly that its crew had to be evacuated, with one member unaccounted for.⁹⁹ Two days after that, another vessel reported two explosions nearby—apparent failed attempts to hit it.¹⁰⁰ As the attacks continued, the Houthis expanded their arsenal. On June 23, the militia reported having attacked a Liberia-flagged bulk carrier, this time using not flying drones or missiles but an uncrewed boat (which can also be referred to as a waterborne drone).¹⁰¹ Four days later, another Houthi uncrewed boat attacked a vessel, this time a Malta-flagged bunker.¹⁰² The Houthis’ use of uncrewed boats continued in July. On July 20, for example, an uncrewed boat appearing to be loaded with explosives approached a Liberian-flagged vessel the Houthis subsequently described as American. Armed guards onboard the merchant vessel managed to repel the attack.¹⁰³ In the subsequent 24 hours, US forces destroyed four such boats.¹⁰⁴ DNK and other maritime companies had been predicting this expansion, especially because the Houthis were already using airborne drones. The expansion also continued along the path of ever more sophistication. On June 26, the Houthis claimed to have struck another vessel with a hypersonic missile, a highly sophisticated weapon heretofore not used by militias.¹⁰⁵

Because modern merchant vessels are sturdy, even the successful attacks caused mostly minor material damage. They did, however, have a human toll. At the time of writing, the attacks have cost four seafarers their lives, and many seafarers whose ships were attacked have been left traumatized.¹⁰⁶ On June 25, the Philippines—the world’s leading provider of seafarers—announced it was considering banning its nationals from serving on vessels transiting the Red Sea.¹⁰⁷ While such plans are hardly surprising, they will further harm Western ships, as Philippine seafarers overwhelmingly crew Western-linked vessels, while Russian and Chinese vessels are primarily crewed by Russian and Chinese nationals.

The attacks have also continued to illustrate the Houthis’ inaccuracy in targeting (and their faulty due diligence). On April 26, for example, they struck the Andromeda Star, a vessel owned in the UK, flagged in Panama, and operated in the Seychelles.¹⁰⁸ On May 18, they struck the M/T Wind, a Greek-owned, Panamanian-flagged oil tanker. The two were, however, hardly Western vessels; they’re part of the dark fleet carrying Russian oil. In another illustrative turn of events, Western coalition ships in the Red Sea came to their aid.¹⁰⁹

Measured in the cost-benefit term of vessels hit by strikes compared to losses and damage to the attacker side, the Houthis’ campaign has, as we have seen, largely been a failure. Indeed, traditional armed forces would likely have ceased their attacks after such an increase on the cost side of the cost-benefit calculus. Yet the Houthis have not only kept up their campaign but expanded it. This again illustrates how the Yemeni militia reacts differently than traditional armed forces because it uses a different cost-benefit calculus. From the Houthis’ perspective, the benefit is not the number of vessels destroyed or severely damaged, but the inordinate global attention and power the attacks generate. The militia appears to measure cost purely in monetary expenses for its weaponry, and that cost is modest. In the Houthis’ calculus, the cost in number of targets missed, environmental damage in Yemeni waters, and infrastructure destroyed by US-UK airstrikes appears to be marginal. Attacks on shipping “are a great weapon that can be used, for want of a better expression, to prevent or effect change in a particular area or cause damage to other nations and to shift the order of the world,” Lockwood said. “That’s the real danger that we face with the Houthis.¹¹⁰” Captain (Navy) Niels Markussen, the director of NATO’s Shipping Center, added

• The Houthis’ capability appears to have been reduced to around 50 percent as we speak [in March 2024], but they still have the will to continue as long as we’re not taking over their territory with land forces, which we’d have to do to prevent them from using their coastline to launch attacks. Western and allied navies can do what they’re doing right now, they can lie outside the coast and they can protect ships, they can shoot down the drones and the missiles that are coming out, but some of these drones and missiles will get through, meaning that the Red Sea is not safe for shipping. We cannot guarantee safe passage through the Red Sea. And it’s that uncertainty that they will keep using against us.¹¹¹

The Houthis are so illustrative because they’re not a one-off campaign but represent a triply new threat to shipping. The militia is not an officially recognized state and doesn’t operate according to the same calculus as traditional armed forces. At the same time, it’s linked to a government that supplies it with a range of weaponry, including highly sophisticated kinds. Because the Houthis’ objective is to wreak havoc on Western-linked merchant shipping, it matters little how successful their strikes are. What’s more, because global trade is so intense, they can wreak havoc on not just shipping, but on the globalized economy. Wang summarized the predicament facing Western nations, the default protectors of global shipping.

• Is the Western defense against incoming missiles sustainable? When you’re using two-million-dollar missiles to shoot down a drone worth a few hundred dollars, there’s a long-term problem. Of course, if you are attacked by a ballistic missile, you need to engage it with a very advanced missile. That’s the only way you can counter it. But the combination of advanced missiles and very, very cheap weapons is basically drawing resources from the Western coalition at a pace that’s not sustainable in the long run. When it comes to drones, it takes a lot of courage to wait and to engage a drone when it comes into gun range, which would be the cheap way of doing it. But if you have a warship worth a billion dollars, you need to engage the drone or missile as soon as you can in order to cope with the threat as far out as possible. So you will have to waste expensive missiles on drones in order to be safe on board. And that raises, you could say, a technological challenge that you have on warships today because all warships are filled with advanced missiles. That has been the rule of the game because to engage a peer adversary you need advanced missiles and you also need to have precision deep strike capability to engage the enemy ashore from the sea. So that part is still valid. But you need another way of dealing with cheap drones that is coming towards you.¹¹²

Indeed, as Wang had predicted, the Biden administration appeared to conclude that the Houthis—with their fundamentally different cost-benefit calculus—could not be defeated militarily. In April, the US government appeared to be trying to find a diplomatic solution with the Houthis. One such solution involved removing the designation as a terrorist group, which the United States had imposed in January 2024, in a quid pro quo that would see the Houthis cease their attacks. “We would certainly study that but not assume it’s an automatic thing,” Tim Lenderking, President Biden’s special envoy for Yemen, told news media.¹¹³

The shipping industry’s response

The shipping industry (including shipping lines and insurers) possesses centuries-long experience assessing new and growing threats. Lloyd’s Market Association, a large marketplace for underwriters, traces its origins to Edward Lloyd’s coffeehouse in central London, where from 1688 seafarers, bankers, and underwriters met to discuss business. Today the insurance industry maintains bodies like the Joint War Committee (JWC), which operates a list of so-called listed areas. In regular meetings and emergency sessions, the JWC’s members assess risky waters. The most dangerous ones are “listed,” which means that shipping operators must clear passage with their insurers before sending their vessels through them. About a week before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the JWC listed Russia’s and Ukraine’s parts of the Black Sea, as well as the Sea of Azov. In mid-December, the JWC expanded its listed parts of the Red Sea.¹¹⁴

Red-flagging bodies of water is a logical measure for the shipping industry: it creates a common basis on which a critical mass of the industry can act. The JWC’s listing of Black Sea waters and the Sea of Azov was followed by Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine , which left no doubt that sailing through these waters was inadvisable.¹¹⁵ In cases short of war, where the case for not sailing may be less obvious, the listed designation prompts shipping companies and insurers to approach perilous waters with caution, which creates a somewhat unified industry response.

This is what has taken place since the Houthis’ hijacking of the Galaxy Leader. Some shipping companies have diverted all their ships away from the Red Sea to the route around the Cape of Good Hope, which adds some 10–12 days to a vessel’s journey and added logistical complexity involving the reception and delivery of cargo and arrival and departure of crews. Other shipping lines have diverted some of their vessels. In late March 2023, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait had a seven-day moving average of thirty-one vessels; one year earlier, the seven-day moving average was seventy-six vessels.¹¹⁶ In early April 2023, the Cape of Good Hope had a seven-day moving average of forty-three vessels; by early March 2024, the seven-day moving average was seventy-eight vessels.¹¹⁷

Avoiding risky waters is a feasible strategy in the short term, but it doesn’t solve the problem of the Houthis and other state-linked outfits targeting shipping. “If you just look at these rebels, whether their actions are backed by Iran or not, the impact they’re having on not just shipping in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, but on global trade generally, is substantial,” Lockwood said. “It will lead to shortages, and it will have an inflationary impact on trade. It will also lead to opportunism among people who see an opportunity to push prices.”¹¹⁸

Indeed, the attacks will create a contentious debate across the shipping sector (and its clients) about what added costs are acceptable—the alternative being to stop shipping goods altogether—and who should pay for them. “You have commercial pressures,” Ringbakken noted. “You have cars on the way from China to be launched in the European market and [the client] saying, ‘you have to get the cars to the market.’ But as insurers, we have to assess the risk, and if the risk increases we increase the premiums, which increases the costs.”¹¹⁹ The costs haven’t become prohibitive, meaning they are not so high that customers opt not to ship their goods.

• It’s quite expensive to go around the Cape, and the Egyptians are pretty good at calculating what the cost is to go through the Suez Canal. As an example, if you have a 65-million-dollar tanker [a tanker insured for a value of $65 million], that’s our average ship going through [the Red Sea and the Suez Canal]. She will pay one million dollars to go through the canal and it would pay $650,000 in war risk premium to go through. That makes it slightly cheaper to go around the Cape, but it’s also 16 days more.¹²⁰

By contrast, Chinese-owned and Chinese-flagged vessels, which are under no threat of attack, don’t face additional premiums in the Red Sea.

Indeed, it may only be when the number of total losses—vessels sunk or rendered unusable—begins accumulating that the Western shipping industry and maritime insurers will collectively opt out of the Red Sea route. By May 2024, there had been two total losses resulting from the Houthis’ attacks. Had modern vessels not been so sturdy, the total losses would have been significantly higher. And, added Ringbakken, “there’s of course a duty of care for the crew, and at some point most operators will have realized that there is a chance if not of being targeted at least of being subject to collateral damage.”¹²¹ Rerouting to the Cape of Good Hope, however, also brings additional expense. By April 2024, ports along the cape route had also reached, and in many cases surpassed, capacity as a result of the sudden influx of ships. As a result, vessels calling at these ports frequently need to wait for a berth, and storage yards struggle to handle the cargo.¹²²

The Houthis’ campaign against shipping is, in fact, brilliantly executed gray zone aggression (sometimes referred to as hybrid aggression). It causes real harm to the entities, people, and countries targeted, but—because it’s not a military aggression by a government—the targeted countries struggle to respond. The peril posed by the Houthis is not just that shipping in the Red Sea will continue to be dangerous. Their campaign also sends the message that the global maritime order is crumbling and those violating its rules can do so with impunity.

The lesson other militias and hostile states are likely to draw from the Houthi campaign is that a militia or hostile state can cause immense and immediate harm to countries through similar campaigns by groups that are not officially or technically armed forces. Wang notes that

• in global maritime strategy, there has always been a strong focus on choke points—a narrow strategic important strait, like the Malacca Strait, the Strait of Hormuz, the Great Belt in Denmark, the channel area between Europe the UK, the Strait of Gibraltar and so on. And you also have choke points in the Northern Sea route [the route that leads from the Barents Sea near Russia’s border with Norway, along Russia’s Arctic coast and on to the Bering Strait]. And those chokepoints will always potentially be subjects for aggression against global shipping because it’s so easy to inflict the sea waves from the shore thanks to the short distance from the shore.¹²³

In the early 2000s, the Strait of Malacca—a crucial shipping lane located between Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand—experienced a spike in piracy, which subsided dramatically when Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and Thailand began jointly patrolling the strait.¹²⁴ It and similar narrow, strategic bodies of water may see the emergence of militias backed by a state in the region, perhaps even ad hoc militias created to attack shipping for geopolitical purposes. The Strait of Gibraltar, the English Channel, and the Great Belt, all located between nations that maintain friendly relations, are less at risk of geopolitically motivated attacks on shipping. The Great Belt, however, is a crucial thoroughfare for “shadow vessels” going to and from Russia.¹²⁵ Such vessels could be used to harm regular shipping in the Great Belt and the neighboring Baltic Sea.

In each case, the attackers’ objective would not be to sink merchant ships but to frighten the shipping industry for geopolitical reasons—for example, to gain global attention or, in the case of separatist groups, to gain some kind of legal recognition. The Baltic Sea could, for example, see the emergence of a maritime-style Wagner Group that might officially simply operate merchant vessels but unofficially frighten other merchant vessels by its mere presence.

As with the Houthis, such groups’ cost-benefit calculus is likely to fundamentally differ from that of traditional armed forces. Indeed, states with hostile intentions could create proxy groups to harm merchant vessels associated with other countries. Similarly, China could expand its use of maritime harassment by making it more frequent, using it in more areas, or both, and other countries could decide to similarly send geopolitical signals by dispatching inspection flotillas or initiate maritime harassment. Indeed, from China’s perspective, the Philippines engages in maritime harassment in parts of the South China Sea that Beijing considers Chinese waters, though the Philippines and other governments consider the waters Philippine.¹²⁶

As we have seen, the Houthis’ attacks are just the most dramatic example of geopolitically linked forms of aggression currently facing global shipping. If these forms of aggression are not deterred, they will continue to grow in quantity and will be joined by new forms. In the immediate term, such aggression will pose a threat to shipping operations in affected waters. In the longer term, it will also threaten functioning of the global maritime order, which depends on a critical mass of countries and other entities—whether they be militias or shipping companies—respecting maritime rules. If such compliance with maritime rules can’t be taken for granted, shipping lines and other companies involved in global shipping will be wary of sailing through certain bodies of water. This would harm not only countries located adjacent to such bodies of water but the entire conduct of global shipping.

Improving strategies to counter attacks on shipping

When the Houthis attacked the Central Park, it was clear that the countries trying to protect the global maritime order were facing a new type of adversary. This recognition among Western governments and maritime companies, though, was only marginally helpful, because it was entirely unclear what strategies Western governments could use against such an adversary. As we have seen, Western governments have struggled to establish an effective response to the Houthis’ attacks precisely because the Houthis are a new kind of adversary, whose logic differs from that of nation-states and traditional armed forces. Lewis notes:

• If the Houthis were not an enemy, I would have an admiration for their strategy, but as it is I just have a distaste for their whole approach. They’re putting military forces, nation states, and industry at risk because they’re playing by different rules. How do you defend against this thing, how do you prepare to nullify it? It’s very costly for industry, and it’s very costly for militaries trying to enforce maritime rules. When it comes to the Houthis, we know who their backer is, Iran, so an extreme solution would be to hit it and all the military targets associated with it. But that would be too risky.¹²⁷

Indeed, hitting the state sponsor of every kind of aggression against merchant shipping would not only be highly risky, but would also quickly overextend the capacity of Western navies. The Russian and Chinese navies have not intervened against the Houthis’ attacks. This is regrettable from a maritime-order protection perspective but hardly surprising, given that both countries violate maritime rules in other ways.¹²⁸ They also seem to tolerate the Houthis’ attacks, which have—with the exception of a few cases of apparently misdirected attacks—spared vessels linked to Russia and China.

However, there are several steps Western governments and the shipping industry can take to at least partly blunt the impact of state-linked aggression against merchant vessels. They include the following.

Preemptive diversion of shipping

A yet-untried way to defang the Houthis and prospective similar attackers would be for a core group of governments and Western-based shipping companies and maritime insurers to declare that all merchant shipping linked (by flag, ship ownership, or cargo) to a core group of countries will be diverted. “As soon as you are away from the coasts, on the oceans, it’s much more difficult for paramilitary organizations to attack,” Wang noted. “The solution to the Red Sea attacks may be to collectively put everything on the southern route around the Cape of Good Hope.”¹²⁹

This kind of collective action would involve an extraordinary diplomatic effort to bring together enough countries—including flag-of-convenience states—as well as shipping companies and underwriters. But success in assembling such a coalition would produce significant power. The threat of shipping diverting to the Cape of Good Hope—not out of fear, but as part of a collective decision by a wide-ranging group of governments and companies in the shipping industry—would, in the case of the Houthis, turn the Yemeni militia from a self-proclaimed anti-Western fighting force into a force driving business away from the Red Sea, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the Gulf of Aden, and the Suez Canal. Such an undertaking would have to be led by the US State Department, the Egyptian government, or, given the number of EU-linked vessels affected, the European Commission. If the lead entity were to succeed in getting enough governments and companies to commit to the plan, it could present the plan as an ultimatum. In the case of the Houthis, given that the plan would leave the militia and its sponsor Iran isolated, Iran may well conclude that the Houthis’ campaign has achieved its objectives and force the Houthis to end it.

Intra-industry risk updates

Vessels would be helped by risk updates not just when sailing in waters such as the Red Sea that are known to be home to attacks, but also in waters where new attacks are being orchestrated. The International Chamber of Commerce operates a Kuala Lumpur-based organization called the ICC International Maritime Bureau (IMB), which is meant to function as a hub for maritime threat updates. But Peter Broadhurst, head of Inmarsat Maritime Safety, noted that updates logged with the IMB are often forwarded slowly and may not reach vessels at all.

• The information is there. If you’ve got a ship that’s just been hit by a rocket, it’s got a crew on board, and they’ll want to abandon it. The nearest rescue is another vessel, either a military vessel that’s shadowing it or another commercial ship. Somebody needs to go and help these guys, and if you don’t tell them they’re not going to know.¹³⁰

Shipping companies and related firms could, he suggested, form an industry-funded outfit that would function as the hub for such updates.

Such a hub could be further aided by artificial intelligence (AI)-aided risk updates. Mature AI companies and AI startups could train artificial intelligence to detect anomalies in maritime thoroughfares and other strategic bodies of water and forward any anomalies—such as the accumulation of hardware or personnel in locations from which attacks could be launched—to the hub. After assessing whether the anomalies posed a risk to merchant vessels, the hub would alert shipping companies.

Use of directed-energy weapons

Directed-energy weapons use concentrated electromagnetic energy to “incapacitate, damage, disable, or destroy enemy equipment, facilities, and/or personnel.”¹³¹ The Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes that these weapons include high-energy lasers, which are used by “ground forces in short-range air defense, counter-unmanned aircraft systems, or counter-rocket, artillery, and mortar missions [and] could theoretically provide options for boost-phase missile intercept.”¹³² That makes these weapons—if they can easily be produced and used—an extremely cost-effective alternative to defensive missiles and, indeed, more cost-effective than missiles of the kind the Houthis use.¹³³ “If you can engage the enemy with laser weapons, you don’t have the logistics problem anymore because you can reload while you are at sea. It’s just a matter of having enough energy,” Wang said. “And that development of energy weapons is likely to be accelerated now as a result of the war in Ukraine, but definitely also as a result of the situation in the Red Sea.”¹³⁴ These defensive capabilities could also be developed as exportable, commercially procurable, standalone systems that commercial shipowners can procure and install on their fleets, which would enhance vessels’ defensive capability and, thus, lower risk and insurance premiums. For military customers, manufacturers could modify and enhance the weapons to meet military requirements such as increased power output and integration with other weapons.

For fiscal year 2024, the US Department of Defense has requested around $1 billion for unclassified directed-energy weapons. In a speech in January 2024, Vice Admiral Brendan McLane, the commander of the US Pacific Fleet’s Naval Surface Force, “called for a directed energy weapon to be deployed on every Navy ship.”¹³⁵ Such large-scale development, though, is likely to take some time. At the time of writing, only nineteen directed-energy weapons are installed on US naval vessels.¹³⁶

Selective protection dependent on flag registration

Countries sending naval forces to the Red Sea (and prospective future flashpoints) to defend merchant vessels could also announce that they will only protect vessels sailing under their flags. “To a certain extent, you can send naval vessels to the Red Sea in order to protect shipping,” Wang noted.” But it’s the same ships that are needed in the Indo-Pacific and in the North Atlantic and in the Baltic Sea and off the coast of Norway. When it comes to Western naval resources, it’s a zero-sum game.”¹³⁷ During the Tanker War, when the government of Kuwait asked the US government to allow Kuwaiti-flagged tankers—which were coming under attack—to be reflagged under US flag, Washington complied and provided the tankers with naval protection.¹³⁸

Western governments could declare that they will only seek to protect ships flagged in their countries, on the basis that shipowners that don’t commit to the rules of Western countries also can’t expect their protection. China and Russia, for example, have a history of only protecting merchant vessels sailing under their flags. Restricting protection would, however, do little for the general protection of the global maritime order, especially because the past several decades have seen the trend toward flags of convenience accelerate. In 2022, more than 70 percent of global ship capacity, as measured in deadweight tons, was registered under a foreign flag with beneficial owners and registries being in different countries, UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) reports.¹³⁹ Only 0.9 percent of merchant vessels (measured in deadweight tons) sail under US flag, 0.5 percent sail under UK flag, and 0.3 percent sail under German flag. The three largest flag states are Panama and Liberia, with more than 16 percent each, and the Marshall Islands with 13.2 percent.¹⁴⁰

Indeed, trying to reverse the shipping industry’s pervasive use of flags of convenience while, at the same time, trying to protect shipping against state-linked attacks would likely be impossible. “If you look at all our economies in the West, irrespective of where the vessels are flagged, the goods they are transporting are fundamental to our economy,” said Potts, who has commanded the US-led Coalition Task Group in the northern Gulf and has also commanded NATO’s High Readiness Force (Maritime).¹⁴¹ He added:

• In the Red Sea, Persian Gulf, and Strait of Hormuz region, historically we used to say we’re absolutely flag blind about who we’re protecting. Because the West, all our economies, rely on freedom of navigation for global trade and the well-being of our economy. Whether you’re Marshall Island-flagged or US-flagged or UK-flagged or Greek-flagged or anything else, we would treat them exactly the same because it’s only when the whole system works that the shipping works.¹⁴²

And, Potts noted, “Often the cargo is more valuable than the ship. Who owns the cargo? Where’s it going? Who’s insuring it? Who owns the ship? With many ships, you can identify several different countries who have a stake in the ship and should take responsibility.”¹⁴³

Freedom-of-navigation operations

In freedom-of-navigation operations (FONOPs, also known as FON operations or FON assertions), a country’s naval vessels underline the importance of innocent passage by sailing through waters over which another country wrongfully claims jurisdiction or otherwise tries to interfere with civilian traffic. FONOPs are regularly conducted by the Royal Navy, and especially the US Navy, as a constabulary measure to protect the global maritime order.

In the South China Sea, the US Navy now regularly undertakes FONOPs through waters that are internationally recognized as belonging to the Philippines or other countries but are claimed by China under its “nine-dash line” policy. Noted retired Rear Admiral David Manero, a former US defense attaché to Russia and the UK, respectively, said, “In order to be successful doing freedom and navigation operations, you have to be consistent, and your messaging has to be on, and it has to always be refined. Imagine taking that whole message among several nations and coordinate it. This is why we’re doing it, citing the law of the sea. But it involves a great deal of coordination.”¹⁴⁴

To date, FONOPs have rarely been conducted in response to state-linked attacks on merchant vessels, simply because such attacks have been so rare. The US Navy has, however, conducted FON-related operations in the Strait of Hormuz and in the Bab el-Mandeb. The latter challenge Yemen’s requirement for foreign warships and nuclear-powered vessels to obtain Yemen’s permission prior to transiting its territorial waters. The United States also regularly conducts FONOPs in the South China Sea.¹⁴⁵ There would be little point conducting FONOPs against attackers like the Houthis because they don’t represent nation-states and have such a different cost-benefit calculus. FONOPs would, however, be useful against inspection flotillas, should China or other countries begin to regularly deploy such flotillas in internationally disputed waters. In practice, such FONOPs would need to involve the US Navy or the Royal Navy, as other Western governments would be hesitant to lead such operations.

Yet it would be illusory to think that the US and UK navies could conduct simultaneous FONOPs around the world and, in essence, provide a global maritime constabulary. This would stretch the two navies’ resources beyond the breaking point. In the Taiwan Strait, FONOPs would also involve the risk of confrontation with the world’s largest navy, that of China, “with a battle force of over 370 platforms, including major surface combatants, submarines, ocean-going amphibious ships, mine warfare ships, aircraft carriers, and fleet auxiliaries.”¹⁴⁶

Indeed, the attacks against, and harassment of, merchant vessels have reached a quantity that key Western navies would struggle to tackle. The Royal Navy, for example, has some eighty vessels, but only twelve of them are frigates, while eight are offshore patrol vessels and six are destroyers.¹⁴⁷

Disrupting the delivery of weapons

As previously noted, the US Navy has long tried to interdict weapons supplies being shipped to the Houthis. Indeed, it began doing so long before it was evident that the militia would use the weapons to attack shipping. Now that it’s clear the weapons are being used not just in Yemen’s civil war but also to harm global shipping, the United States and its allies could ramp up these efforts. They could also announce they’re expanding such efforts to other weapons-smuggling operations. Until now, the smuggling has primarily harmed civilians in countries affected by civil war. But with the Houthis likely to inspire copycat attacks on shipping, disrupting the supplies of weapons and weapons components has gained additional urgency. “We need to really understand the Houthis’ supply chains and how the components for weapons that they then assemble get into the country,” Potts said. “It will be complex to map this, but it’s a practical step we can take.”¹⁴⁸ To map these supply chains, governments could also confer with the private sector, as some companies are likely to have information that could help governments establish a clearer picture.

They could also confer with AI companies that can track and trace movements of suspected arms components to Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. Indeed, governments could establish cooperation with AI companies, especially with startups seeking to prove their technologies, to receive early indications of patterns suggesting potentially worrying developments involving other groups and states. Such collaboration would add to observations already provided by intelligence services.

Armed guards on board

When piracy increased heavily off the coast of Somalia in the early 2000s, many shipping companies responded by hiring armed guards. The Houthis’ seizure of the Galaxy Leader quickly prompted suggestions of armed guards onboard merchant vessels in the Red Sea. Guards on merchant vessels are, however, relatively lightly armed and would not be able to protect a vessel against trained militias like the Houthis. Indeed, because ship guards are not soldiers, they’re legally prevented from operating military equipment and would thus not be able to protect ships from missile and (most) drone attacks. They would likely also struggle to thwart a professionally executed hijacking of the kind the Houthis mounted against the Galaxy Leader. This is illustrated by the fact that, even though ships in the Red Sea have increased “armed guards on board” signals since the Houthis began their attacks, the attacks have continued.¹⁴⁹ In addition, armed resistance against a seizure attempt by a militia would risk escalating into a situation in which navies would feel compelled to intervene.

Western countries could, however, offer vessels protection by law-enforcement officers. Such officers’ task could be defined as defending the cargo rather than the ship. That would mean the exporting or importing country could offer embarked law enforcement that would be able to employ military or quasi-military defensive capabilities. The United States has tried this concept: the Navy and Marine task force that was deployed to the Strait of Hormuz in August 2023 included the offer of servicemembers embarking on merchant vessels if the vessels’ owners and managers requested such protection.

Conclusion

Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, the world’s nations have gradually built a set of rules and agreements that allows merchant shipping to operate without constant fear of attacks by hostile states. They have done so because nations’ economies—at least since the Industrial Revolution—rely on global shipping.

The Houthis’ attacks in the Red Sea, however, have introduced a new threat to merchant shipping: geopolitically connected attacks that are linked to a hostile state but not carried out by it. The Yemeni militia has, in fact, demonstrated that building up a capacity to act in the maritime domain is possible for a non-state actor with no maritime tradition. The fact that the Houthis are not the armed forces of an internationally recognized country and operate with a completely different cost-benefit calculus than traditional armed forces make them such a fierce threat to global shipping. So does the fact that they use more sophisticated weapons than previous generations’ militias have had at their disposal, and that the weapons are inexpensive and attractive to use. Other militias (including ones yet to be formed) will likely want to copy the Houthis’ successful concept in other maritime chokepoints and heavily trafficked waters.

For the global shipping industry (except vessels linked to Russia and China, which the Houthis exempt from their attacks), this means that a neutral sector can be severely harmed and disrupted, at great expense to the shipping industry. The Houthis’ different cost-benefit calculus means retaliating against their strikes has little effect on their motivation. The harm to seafarers as a result of the Houthi attacks now presents an additional problem for Western shipping companies and, thus, global supply chains. So far, the shipping industry has managed to recruit seafarers—these days, predominantly from India, the Philippines, and Indonesia.¹⁵⁰ If attacks continue, shipping’s already precarious recruitment situation will worsen significantly. “Who wants to work in a war zone?” Broadhurst asked. “Unless we can protect seafarers, how can global trade continue?”¹⁵¹ At the end of June 2024, the Philippine government banned Philippine seafarers from working on ships that had been attacked in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.¹⁵²

Instead, Western governments and the shipping industry will need to use means other than traditional military force to reduce the pain caused by the Houthis (and prospective future attackers of a similar kind). These efforts—including the preemptive threat of collective rerouting away from perilous waters and the use of direct-energy weapons—will require public-private collaboration. Western governments and shipping companies could start by announcing that they are increasing their collaboration beyond the immediate needs in the Red Sea. This would signal to prospective attackers that Western governments and companies are prepared for new maritime gray zone aggression and will have a better strategy to thwart it than has been the case in the Red Sea.

Econographics Sep 8, 2022

Russia Sanctions Database

The Atlantic Council’s Russia Sanctions Database tracks the level of coordination among Western allies in sanctioning Russian entities, individuals, vessels, and aircraft, and shows where gaps still remain.

Eastern Europe Economic Sanctions

Issue Brief Apr 18, 2023

NATO deterrence and defense: Military priorities for the Vilnius Summit

By Franklin D. Kramer

Ahead of the NATO Summit in Vilnius, this issue brief sets forth six priority actions that NATO should undertake to enhance its deterrent and defense posture.

Defense Technologies Europe & Eurasia

The Transatlantic Security Initiative, in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, shapes and influences the debate on the greatest security challenges facing the North Atlantic Alliance and its key partners.

Learn more

The post What attacks on shipping mean for the global maritime order appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Some raids have no impact on the course of a war. In the summer of 1864, with Union forces besieging Richmond and Petersburg, Confederate General Jubal Early mounted a large and spectacular raid north into Maryland and then southeast into the District of Columbia. Early’s troops stopped just five miles from the US Capitol. It was spectacular but inconsequential, however: The raid distracted the Union command for a few days but made no difference to the outcome of the war.

Other raids do have strategic impact. In 1776, George Washington’s forces had been routed from New York and chased out of New Jersey. Morale was low and political support for the American fight for independence was flagging. In a risky maneuver that December, Washington led a large raid across the Delaware River, surprised enemy forces, and returned to Pennsylvania with captured prisoners and supplies. The raid revived morale and support for the war, demonstrated the Continental Army’s tactical cunning, audacity, and tenacity against a superior foe, and presaged eventual victory.

While it is too early to say with certainty, there is at least a case that the Kursk raid more resembles Washington crossing the Delaware than Early’s raid on Washington; namely, that it has strategic significance. In a war in which battlefield transparency is supposedly universal, the Ukrainians achieved surprise, demonstrating Russia’s failure of intelligence and weakness along its border. The attack thus upends the Kremlin narrative of inevitable Russian victory, a narrative that Kremlin propaganda deploys in Europe and the United States to advance its argument that Ukrainian resistance is useless and support for Ukraine is futile. The raid and the public alarm in Russia it has generated may compel the Kremlin to shift forces from its current offensive in the Donbas region to defend its own territory. Certainly, the raid is a morale booster for Ukrainians.

Politically, the raid undercuts the current Russian demand that, as a precondition for negotiations, Ukraine withdraw from all of the territory of the four Ukrainian provinces that Russia partially occupies and claims but does not totally control. The Russians were in effect demanding Ukrainian capitulation as a condition for opening peace negotiations. Even before the raid, the demand that Ukraine withdraw from its territory that Russia has tried but failed to conquer seemed an arrogant overstretch. This demand is now revealed as feckless in the face of Ukraine’s ability not only to limit Russian attacks to marginal advances, but also to launch successful surprise attacks of its own, defending its own land while seizing Russia’s.

It is premature to make final judgments about a raid still in progress. While some military analysts have suggested that the raid seeks to seize and hold Russian territory as a bargaining chip in eventual negotiations, that seems a stretch: Raids are one thing, a full-scale offensive is another. After all, Washington crossed the Delaware to attack exposed Hessian mercenaries. He then retreated back across the Delaware to avoid a full-scale British assault. But, in the end, Washington, with a lot of help from France, won the war. Ukraine’s current raid does not mean that Ukraine will win its war of national survival. It does suggest that Ukraine could win, given the right and timely help from its friends.

Daniel Fried is the Weiser Family distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council, former US ambassador to Poland, and former US assistant secretary of state for Europe.

The post Is Ukraine’s raid into Russia a ‘crossing the Delaware’ moment? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

This progress has come as no surprise: Ukrainian military planners have been working to capitalize on Russia’s air defense vulnerabilities from the first year of the full-scale invasion. Ukraine’s attacks have escalated significantly since the beginning of 2024, with oil refineries and airfields emerging as the priority targets.

In a July interview with Britain’s Guardian newspaper, Ukrainian commander-in-chief Oleksandr Syrskyi confirmed that Ukrainian drones had hit around two hundred sites connected to Russia’s war machine. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has vowed to continue increasing the quality and quantity of Ukraine’s long-range drone fleet. Underlining the importance of drones to the Ukrainian war effort, Ukraine recently became the first country in the world to launch a new branch of the military dedicated to drone warfare.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Long-range attack drones are a good fit for Ukraine’s limited offensive capabilities. Kyiv needs to be able to strike military targets inside Russia, but is prevented from doing do with Western-supplied missiles due to restrictions imposed by the country’s partners. While Ukraine has some capacity to produce its own missiles domestically, this is insufficient for a sustained bombing campaign.

Drones are enabling Ukraine to overcome these obstacles. Ukrainian drone production has expanded dramatically over the past two-and-a-half years. The low cost of manufacturing a long-range drone relative to the damage it can cause to Russian military and industrial facilities makes it in many ways the ideal weapon for a cash-strapped but innovative nation like Ukraine.

Ukraine’s drone industry is a diverse ecosystem featuring hundreds of participating companies producing different models. The Ukrainian military has used a variety of drones with different characteristics for attacks inside Russia, making the campaign even more challenging for Russia’s air defenses.

The decentralized nature of Ukraine’s drone manufacturing sector also makes it difficult for Russia to target. Even if the Kremlin is able to identify and hit individual production sites located across Ukraine, this is unlikely to have a major impact on the country’s overall output.

Since 2022, Ukraine has taken a number of steps to reduce bureaucracy and streamline cooperation between drone makers and the military. The result is a sector capable of adapting to changing battlefield conditions and able to implement innovations quickly and effectively. This includes efforts to create AI-enabled drones capable of functioning without an operator, making it far more difficult for Russia to jam.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

As it expands, Ukraine’s drone bombing campaign is exposing the weaknesses of Russia’s air defenses. Defending a territory as vast as Russia against air strikes would be problematic even in peacetime. With much of Russia’s existing air defense systems currently deployed along the front lines in Ukraine, there are now far fewer systems available to protect industrial and military targets inside Russia.

During the initial stages of the war, this shortage of air defense coverage was not a major issue. However, Ukraine’s broadening bombing offensive is now forcing Russia to make tough decisions regarding the distribution of its limited air defenses.

In addition to strategically important sites such as airbases, the Kremlin must also defend prestige targets from possible attack. In July, CNN reported that air defenses had been significantly strengthened around Russian President Vladimir Putin’s summer residence. Protecting Putin’s palace from attack is necessary to avoid embarrassment, but it means leaving other potential targets exposed.

Ukraine’s drone program is the biggest success story to emerge from the country’s vibrant defense tech sector, and is helping Ukraine to even out the odds against its far larger and wealthier adversary. The country’s partners clearly recognize the importance of drones for the Ukrainian military, and have formed a drone coalition to increase the supply of drones from abroad. This combination of international support and Ukrainian ingenuity spells trouble for Russia. It will likely lead to increasingly powerful and plentiful long-range strikes in the months ahead.

Marcel Plichta is a PhD candidate at the University of St Andrews and former analyst at the US Department of Defense. He has written on the use of drones in the Russian invasion of Ukraine for the Atlantic Council, the Telegraph, and the Spectator.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Aug 6, 2024

Russia’s Black Sea defeats get flushed down Vladimir Putin’s memory hole

By Peter Dickinson

Vladimir Putin’s readiness to flush Russia’s Black Sea naval defeats down the memory hole is a reminder that the Kremlin propaganda machine controls Russian reality and can easily rebrand any retreat from Ukraine, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Disinformation

UkraineAlert Aug 1, 2024

Ukraine’s new F-16 jets won’t defeat Russia but will enhance air defenses

By Mykola Bielieskov

Ukraine’s fledgling fleet of F-16 jets will not win the war but should strengthen the country’s air defenses and help protect the civilian population from Russian bombardment, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Jul 30, 2024

Paris Olympics: Ukrainian dedicates medal to athletes killed by Russia

By Mark Temnycky

Ukrainian fencing star Olga Kharlan has won the country’s first medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics and dedicated her medal to the Ukrainian athletes “who couldn’t be here because they were killed by Russia,” writes Mark Temnycky .

Conflict France

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Ukraine continues to expand drone bombing campaign inside Russia appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The August surprise came from Ukraine. Beginning on Tuesday, as many as a thousand Ukrainian troops reportedly crossed the border into the Kursk region in Russia, capturing an estimated seventeen square miles of territory. Russian President Vladimir Putin called the move a “major provocation,” while the Ukrainian government has largely declined to comment. The size and depth of the incursion adds a significant new dimension to the ongoing conflict. Below, our experts share their insights on the thinking in Kyiv and what could come next.

• Daniel Fried (@AmbDanFried): Weiser family distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council and former US assistant secretary of state for Europe
• John E. Herbst (@JohnEdHerbst): Senior director of the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center and former US ambassador to Ukraine
• Konstantin Eggert (@kvoneggert): Deutsche Welle Russian affairs analyst and program host
• Shelby Magid (@shelbyjmag): Deputy director of the Eurasia Center

The element of surprise

• “In a war where battlefield transparency is supposedly universal, the Ukrainians achieved surprise, demonstrating a Russian failure of intelligence and weakness along its border,” says Dan. “The attack thus upends the Kremlin narrative of inevitable Russian victory,” which “Kremlin propaganda deploys in Europe and the United States to advance its argument that Ukrainian resistance is useless and support for Ukraine futile.”

• “Even if Ukrainian forces are soon forced out of Kursk, this is a clear shot in the arm for Ukraine,” John tells us. In recent weeks, Russia has made advances in eastern Ukraine, but this incursion may now “force the Kremlin to relieve its current pressure on Ukrainian positions in the Donbas or north of Kharkiv.” If Ukrainian forces do establish defensible positions on Russian territory, then “Moscow will have to consider even more adjustments of its forces in Ukraine” and “a ceasefire in place” would be “less attractive to the Putin clique.”

Subscribe to Fast Thinking email alerts

Sign up to receive rapid insight in your inbox from Atlantic Council experts on global events as they unfold.

• Email*
• Email
  This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

A rattled Russia and uplifted Ukraine

• As with the short-lived mutiny by Wagner Group mercenary leader Yevgeniy Prigozhin in June 2023, Ukraine’s incursion into Kursk revealed “the vacuousness and inefficiency of modern Russia’s governance system, based on corruption and fear,” argues Konstantin. “Even reports in Russian state media (which are generally upbeat) had to mention the evacuation of the population and hint at the intensity of the fighting,” while “pro-Kremlin Telegram channels paint a picture of a major strike that took Russia’s military and civilian authorities by surprise.” 

• Dan notes that another risky and successful raid, George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware River in December 1776, boosted troop morale and political support at a critical moment in the American Revolutionary War. Like Washington’s raid, Ukraine’s Kursk incursion reveals its “cunning, audacity, and tenacity against a superior foe” and could have “strategic significance.”

• Ukrainians are closely following reports of the raid. “As a further sign of success and a morale boost for the exhausted Ukrainian troops and society, video is circulating of dozens of Russian troops surrendering to Ukrainian forces,” Shelby points out.

• For Ukrainians, it’s an opportunity to “show to Russia’s ruling class how vulnerable the country is,” Konstantin explains, noting that the situation has been made all the more urgent by the fact that the Kursk nuclear power plant is within reach of Ukraine’s forces. The incursion also “shows Kyiv’s determination to incorporate the politico-psychological warfare factor into purely military operations.” 

What’s next?

• While some Ukrainians have characterized the raid as an effort to “seize and hold Russian territory as a bargaining chip in eventual negotiations, that seems a stretch,” according to Dan. “Raids are one thing, a full-scale offensive is another.” Shelby agrees, noting that “entering and seizing land is different than holding it.” 

• It’s “highly likely” that part of Ukraine’s goal is to demonstrate its capability to its partners, observes John. Kyiv faced a months-long delay in receiving additional US aid, and continues to be restricted by US and German reluctance to provide more advanced weapons in large quantities and allow their use against strategic targets deeper inside Russia, he explains. The Kursk incursion, John maintains, “should be a reminder to the more timid Western leaders that Ukraine can win this war if we enable and allow them to win.”

The post How Ukraine’s incursion into Russia could change the war appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Ukraine’s efforts to persuade partner countries focused on the US, which had to grant permission as the manufacturer of F-16s. Ukrainian pilot Andriy Pilschikov deserves a special mention for the key role he played in the campaign to win American backing. A fluent English speaker and experienced air force pilot known to many by his callsign “Juice,” Pilschikov became the unofficial public face of Ukraine’s appeal for F-16s. Crucially, he was able to articulate why the F-16 was the best choice for Ukraine, arguing that it was the most widely available modern jet and relatively easy to use.

In the initial months of Russia’s full-scale invasion, there was no consensus over which aircraft Ukraine should request from the country’s allies. Various Ukrainian government officials mentioned a range of different models, leading to some confusion. Pilschikov provided much-needed clarity and managed to convince everyone to focus their efforts specifically on the F-16. With support from Ukrainian civil society, he personally travelled to the US and established productive relationships with a number of US officials and members of Congress.

US President Joe Biden finally gave the green light to supply Ukraine with F-16s in summer 2023. However, it would take another year before the the Ukrainian Air Force received the first batch of jets. Sadly, Pilschikov did not live to see this historic day. The pilot who did so much to secure F-16s for his country was killed in a mid-air collision during a training exercise in August 2023.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Despite achieving a breakthrough in summer 2023, the process of preparing for the delivery of F-16s to Ukraine proved frustratingly slow. Ukrainian pilots spent many months training, with only a limited number of slots made available. As a result, Ukraine still has very few pilots able to fly F-16s. Identifying and upgrading Ukrainian airfields capable of accommodating F-16s also created challenges.

The planes that Ukraine has received from the country’s European partners are from the older generation, which is being phased out elsewhere as air forces transition to more modern models. This imposes some limitations on the functions Ukraine’s F-16 fleet can perform. Limited radar reach means that deployment of F-16s on the front lines of the war is seen as too risky, as they could be shot down by both Russian aircraft and Russian air defenses.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

With a combat role unlikely at this stage, Ukrainian F-16s will primarily be used to strengthen the country’s air defenses. The planes Kyiv has received are ideally suited to the task of shooting down the Russian missiles and drones that are regularly fired at Ukrainian cities and vital infrastructure.

Their effectiveness in this role will depend on the kinds of missiles they are armed with. F-16s can carry a range of armaments that are more advanced that the types of weapons used by the majority of planes in service with the Russian Air Force. Initial indications are encouraging, with the first F-16s arriving in Ukraine complete with weapons ideally suited to air defense. It is now vital for Ukrainian officials and members of civil society to focus their advocacy efforts on securing sufficient numbers of missiles from partner countries.

Ukraine should also prioritize the supply of long-range radar detection aircraft, such as the planes recently promised by Sweden. In May 2024, the Swedes announced plans to deliver two surveillance aircraft as part of the Scandinavian nation’s largest support package to date. These “eyes in the sky” can monitor airspace for hundreds of kilometers. Together with Ukraine’s growing F-16 fleet, they will significantly enhance the country’s air defenses.

As Ukraine acquires more F-16s in the coming months, and as the country’s limited pool of pilots grows in size and experience, we will likely see these jets used in more adventurous ways. This may include targeting Russian planes and helicopters operating close to the front lines with long-range strikes. For now, though, the main task of Ukraine’s F-16s will be to improve the country’s air defenses and protect the civilian population from Russian bombardment.

Olena Tregub is Executive Director of the Independent Anti-Corruption Commission (NAKO), a member of the Anti-Corruption Council under the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Aug 6, 2024

Russia’s Black Sea defeats get flushed down Vladimir Putin’s memory hole

By Peter Dickinson

Vladimir Putin’s readiness to flush Russia’s Black Sea naval defeats down the memory hole is a reminder that the Kremlin propaganda machine controls Russian reality and can easily rebrand any retreat from Ukraine, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Disinformation

UkraineAlert Jul 30, 2024

Paris Olympics: Ukrainian dedicates medal to athletes killed by Russia

By Mark Temnycky

Ukrainian fencing star Olga Kharlan has won the country’s first medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics and dedicated her medal to the Ukrainian athletes “who couldn’t be here because they were killed by Russia,” writes Mark Temnycky .

Conflict France

UkraineAlert Jun 12, 2024

Ukraine is making the Russian occupation of Crimea untenable

By Olivia Yanchik

Ukraine’s growing air strike capabilities are decimating Russian air defenses in Crimea and making the occupation of the peninsula increasingly untenable, writes Olivia Yanchik.

Conflict Defense Technologies

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post F-16 jets will help defend Ukrainian cities from Russian bombardment appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Open-source intelligence (OSINT) refers to intelligence derived exclusively from publicly or commercially available information that addresses specific intelligence priorities, requirements, or gaps. OSINT encompasses a wide range of sources, including public records, news media, libraries, social media platforms, images, videos, websites, and even the dark web. Commercial technical collection and imagery satellites also provide valuable open-source data. The power of OSINT lies in its ability to provide meaningful, actionable intelligence from diverse and readily available sources.

Thanks to technological advances, OSINT can provide early warning signs of a conflict to come long before it actually breaks out. On land, the proliferation of inexpensive and ubiquitous sensor networks has rendered battlefields almost transparent, making surprise maneuvers more difficult. Through open-source data from smartphones and satellites, persistent OSINT provides early warning of mobilization and other key indicators of military maneuvers. This capability is further augmented by artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced reconnaissance and real-time data analysis, which have proven remarkably effective in modern conflicts including in Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Gaza and Israel, and Sudan. As this paradigm extends to maritime operations, it brings unique challenges and characteristics compared to land operations.

As technology races forward, Blue OSINT stands out as a key tool in the arsenal of contemporary naval warfare during global great-power competition. Blue OSINT harnesses data from commercial satellites, social media, and other publicly available sources to specifically enhance maritime domain awareness, identify emerging threats, and inform strategic decisions.

The current state of Blue OSINT across the spectrum of conflict points to an accelerating technology-driven evolution enabling maritime security and sea-control missions. The US Navy (USN) can enhance Blue OSINT collection with its own commercially procured sensor networks and bespoke uncrewed systems to shape operational environments, prevent and resolve conflicts, and ensure accessibility of sea lines of communications.

Commercially procured sensors span a wide array of technologies, including sonar and acoustic sensors, as well as video and seismic devices that are utilized to detect activities in strategic locations. These sensors can function independently or operate from uncrewed systems, providing flexibility and adaptability in various maritime operations. For instance, uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) equipped with high-resolution cameras and radar can deliver persistent surveillance over expansive oceanic areas, while uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs) with sonar capabilities can monitor subsea activities, such as submarine movements and underwater installations. These uncrewed platforms enable the continuous collection of critical data, enhancing the Navy’s situational awareness and operational readiness without putting sailors at risk.

For the US Navy to best support the joint force and maintain its strategic edge, it must integrate ubiquitous sensor networks and Blue OSINT into naval strategies adapted for tomorrow’s increasingly complex maritime environment. The Navy’s multiyear Project Overmatch is a good start to developing its “network of networks” and contributing to the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) program.

With escalating tensions in the South China Sea, conventional forces are stretched thin and face asymmetric threats such as the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN)’s undersea sensing arrays and China’s maritime militia forces. Integrating Blue OSINT and sensor networks into the Navy’s strategies complements traditional naval power, while allowing intelligence missions to be conducted at lower risk and cost. Moreover, the open-source nature of this information enhances the Navy’s ability to share information and collaborate with allies and partners while bypassing cumbersome security classification issues. By relying on easily shareable information, the Navy can better synchronize efforts with partner navies, making command of the sea a more coordinated and viable endeavor.

The impact of evolving open-source intelligence on warfare

The table above provides a comparison between OSINT and traditional intelligence methods, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. OSINT offers global, real-time updates at a lower cost by leveraging existing commercial infrastructure. This approach presents a lower risk, as it involves minimal direct exposure and facilitates easier information sharing due to fewer classification issues.

On the other hand, traditional intelligence methods such as human intelligence (HUMINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT) provide selective, targeted insights based on specific operational requirements. These methods often involve higher costs and risks due to the need for extensive human and technical resources, as well as the nature of clandestine operations. While traditional intelligence can offer deep, targeted insights, it is often limited by operational scope and security classification issues, making information sharing more challenging.

In the maritime domain, these distinctions are particularly significant. The concept of Blue OSINT integrates these principles specifically for naval operations, emphasizing the need for continuous monitoring and rapid-response capabilities.

Blue OSINT and persistent maritime monitoring

In the pre-conflict stage, global satellite coverage and social media provide a wealth of data that can map maritime activity with unprecedented detail. Nonprofit organizations like Global Fishing Watch use commercial satellite constellations to track ships and monitor maritime activity. Increased affordability and accessibility of satellite technology have enabled nongovernmental and commercial entities to contribute to maritime domain awareness in new ways. For instance, maritime radar emissions—once the exclusive domain of military and intelligence satellites—are now easily observable and “tweetable,” allowing for vessel identification to be accomplished more easily when actors execute deceptive techniques. Similarly, platforms like X (formerly Twitter) host numerous “ship spotting” accounts, where enthusiasts post photos and updates of vessels passing through strategic chokepoints and major straits, further enriching the available data.

Through persistent monitoring and large-scale data analysis, Blue OSINT can be used to significantly mitigate the challenge of monitoring large exclusive economic zones (EEZs). It offers a cost-effective alternative to traditional patrols, allowing these navies to adopt a more targeted approach when deploying their limited resources. By embracing Blue OSINT, naval forces can enhance their surveillance and response capabilities without a heavy financial burden, ensuring that these forces remain agile and effective in their maritime operations. Additionally, data streams from ubiquitous sensor networks can be coupled with Blue OSINT collection to give naval intelligence experts near-endless amounts of data in support of complex reconnaissance operations, without placing sailors and special operators at increased risk to collect it.

In addition to myriad opportunities for intelligence collection, using Blue OSINT presents technological challenges for the US Navy. The sheer volume of data generated by ubiquitous sensor networks and Blue OSINT tools necessitate substantial investments in software and analytic tools to manage and interpret this information effectively. Intelligence professionals must sift through endless amounts of data to identify actionable insights. Even the most skilled analysts need software and computer processing that can help organize and parse raw data.

To address these challenges, the US Navy and other maritime forces are ramping up investments in commercially procured sensor networks and cutting-edge analytic tools. In June 2024, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency issued its first-ever commercial solicitation for unclassified technology to help track illicit fishing in the Pacific. Such investments aim to access, exploit, and process the massive amounts of data generated, a key step to achieving comprehensive maritime domain awareness. Better software and analytic tools can help maximize the potential of Blue OSINT and sensor networks, ensuring that intelligence analysts can better inform decision-makers at the speed of relevance.

Strategic deployment of distributed sensors

While Blue OSINT provides valuable insights into chokepoints and shipping lanes, it does not yet offer comprehensive coverage of the open ocean. Its effectiveness is greater in populated and coastal areas, where the density of electronic devices and human activity is significantly higher than on the high seas. Moreover, OSINT data can often be easily manipulated, presenting challenges in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the information gathered. For example, although ships emitting Automatic Identification System (AIS) signals can be tracked on the web, navies are aware that bad actors often tamper with their transponders in order to disguise their locations, ultimately limiting the signals’ reliability.

To bypass these limitations of open-source data, navies and intelligence agencies can enhance their Blue OSINT capabilities by augmenting them with strategically deployed clandestine sensor networks in key locations, such as harbors, straits, and other critical chokepoints. This combination of data flows allows for effective monitoring and data collection on vessel movements, communications, and adversary intentions. Additionally, other covert sensors can be hidden on the seabed or disguised on civilian vessels, like fishing boats, in regions such as the South China Sea. Using distributed sensors along with Blue OSINT data ensures continuous and comprehensive maritime situational awareness, even in areas less frequented by military assets.

However, fixed sensor networks alone are insufficient to cover the dynamic maritime environment. Deploying a mobile network of distributed sensors necessitates a diverse array of platforms and technologies. While military satellites, ships, and aircraft equipped with advanced sensors can offer intermittent coverage, they are costly and limited in number, and their findings are less easily shareable with partners and allies. To bridge these gaps, allied navies should invest in affordable and scalable solutions such as uncrewed surface vehicles (USVs), UUVs, and UASs. Outfitted with various sensors, these platforms can effectively detect and track adversary movements, ensuring that navies maintain situational awareness across the vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean and other critical regions.

Small UASs launched from naval ships can be used to rapidly surveil large swaths of sea, providing real-time data on both surface and subsurface activities. Recognizing the strategic advantage of uncrewed systems, China has taken a bold step to outpace the US Navy by developing an aircraft carrier specifically designed to launch and recover UASs, rather than sophisticated manned platforms like the J-20 fighter jet. This significant investment in a carrier solely for uncrewed vehicles by the PLAN should prompt the United States to reconsider, and potentially adjust, its future resourcing strategy. Similarly, USVs can conduct long-duration patrols at a fraction of the cost of manned ship operations, exemplified by Saildrone vessels patrolling the Indian Ocean, providing the USN a robust sensor network. UUVs, deployed from submarines or surface ships, can monitor subsea activities, such as the movement of submarines and other submersible assets.

By monitoring the air, sea, and underwater environments, uncrewed vehicles and their sensors can significantly enhance overall maritime situational awareness. However, these tools are only effective if they are integrated into a cohesive architecture that combines traditional intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) with Blue OSINT data and affordable long-term leave-behind sensors. Project Overmatch exemplifies how to achieve this integration by developing a network that links sensors, shooters, and command nodes across all domains. For instance, Project Overmatch aims to leverage advanced data analytics, artificial intelligence, and secure communications to create a unified maritime operational picture, enabling faster and more informed decision-making. By incorporating these elements, the US Navy can ensure that uncrewed vehicles and their sensors are effectively utilized to maintain operational superiority in the maritime domain.

Moreover, the low-signature nature of some of these sensors increases the odds that they can operate undetected by adversaries, providing a strategic advantage. By deploying sensors in unexpected locations, and disguising them as civilian assets in some cases, navies can gather intelligence without alerting potential threats to their presence.

Blue OSINT and sensor networks in conflict

While Blue OSINT collection and distributed sensor networks can easily collect data in uncontested waters, they have immediate applications to modern maritime conflict as well. For instance, in the event of a cross-strait invasion by the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the transparency provided by Blue OSINT would make it difficult for navies to maneuver undetected. Satellites and social media continuously monitor naval piers, strategic chokepoints, and even some open ocean areas, making it increasingly difficult to achieve tactical surprise. Historical instances—such as Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor, the D-Day invasion, or the successful surprise dash to transit the English Channel by the German fleet during World War II—would be much harder to achieve in the modern era due to the pervasive nature of Blue OSINT.

In the context of a potential Taiwan invasion, Blue OSINT would likely be used to detect and closely follow Chinese naval activities, including the movement of amphibious assault ships and submarines. OSINT analysts frequently examine satellite imagery of Chinese shipyards and military installations, which could provide early indications of mobilization.

However, relying solely on satellite imagery and AIS for Blue OSINT is insufficient. Multi-intelligence capabilities are essential to provide a comprehensive assessment. For instance, in 2020, two commercial firms collaborated to use radio frequency and synthetic aperture radar collection to detect Chinese illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing near the Galapagos EEZ. This open-source technique revealed the ability to identify fishing vessels that turned off their AIS to cross into the EEZ. In a future conflict with China, the same methodology of combining multiple Blue OSINT sources could be used to identify and track vessels of the People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia (PAFMM). This would bypass the AIS vulnerabilities that the PAFMM traditionally exploits to avoid detection, while also revealing its intentions as directed by the PLAN.

The Russo-Ukraine conflict revealed how OSINT can thwart surprise maneuvers and provide crucial targeting data deep behind enemy lines. However, it also underscores the limitations of OSINT in sparsely populated environments, such as the open ocean. For example, in December 2023, as missiles flew over the Red Sea, 18 percent of global container-ship capacity was rerouted. While civilian mariners and commercial shipping significantly contribute to Blue OSINT during peacetime, their absence in a high-risk conflict scenario would shift the burden more heavily onto satellite and uncrewed systems.

Deception and stealth

While the US Navy can take advantage of these technologies, its adversaries can, and almost certainly will, do the same. The US Navy and its allies must develop countermeasures to mitigate the risks posed by sensor networks while also leveraging its benefits. One approach is to invest in advanced deception tactics designed to mislead adversaries. These include the use of decoys, electronic warfare, and signal spoofing to create false targets and confuse enemy sensors. The Navy has been quietly developing these tools to obscure its true movements and intentions, ultimately confounding adversaries and making it harder for them to accurately target US forces.

In addition to deception, the United States and its allies need to enhance their naval stealth capabilities to evade adversaries’ distributed sensor networks. This involves not only minimizing the electromagnetic signatures of their vessels, but also employing innovative designs and operational tactics to reduce their radar cross-sections and avoid detection.

Distributed sensors in conflict

The ability to complement Blue OSINT with distributed sensors will be a decisive factor in near-term conflict dynamics. Just as frontline units in Ukraine are detected and targeted by cheap drones and stationary sensors, naval forces can be identified and pinpointed by similar systems at sea. Distributed sensors can provide continuous monitoring and data collection, ensuring that navies can maintain situational awareness and respond swiftly to emerging threats.

Three pillars are necessary to distribute sensors effectively across the ocean.

First, large conventional fleets play a critical role in maritime strategy. These fleets must be capable of extended operations and diverse missions, providing the backbone of naval presence, power projection, sea lines of communication, and, ultimately, sea control. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the US Navy demonstrated its endurance with record-length deployments, showcasing an advantage that could be significant in future maritime campaigns.

Second, organic reconnaissance drones are essential. Each destroyer and aircraft carrier should be equipped with its own fleet of multi-domain drones to conduct surveillance and gather intelligence. Currently, US carrier strike groups rely on land-launched surveillance drones, which are vulnerable and limited in number. Integrating organic drones into each vessel would enhance situational awareness and operational flexibility, allowing for more effective and autonomous intelligence-gathering capabilities.

Third, large fleets of affordable USVs and UUVs can deploy sensors across the ocean, increasing sensor hours at sea and improving maritime domain awareness. The first Replicator tranche is equipping forces with thousands of attritable systems to turn the Taiwan Strait into “an unmanned hellscape,” demonstrating the strategic value of uncrewed systems in contested waters. Moreover, the Navy is experimenting with diverse types of uncrewed platforms, aiming to create a distributed fleet architecture that is even more lethal than today’s carrier-centric fleet. These unmanned systems provide a cost-effective means to enhance surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities across vast oceanic areas, ensuring that the Navy can maintain a strategic advantage in both peacetime and conflict scenarios.

Recommendations

To maximize the efficacy of maritime domain awareness, it is crucial to integrate data from both Blue OSINT and ubiquitous sensor networks. While these two systems of data collection are largely distinct, their combined use can significantly enhance the accuracy and comprehensiveness of intelligence assessments and naval warfare.

1. Leverage Blue OSINT. Significant investment in artificial intelligence and advanced analytics is necessary to manage and interpret the endless amounts of data generated by open-source intelligence. By fostering a coordinated approach to maritime security, Blue OSINT can facilitate easier information sharing with allies and partners, but only if its utilization is preplanned. Collaborative pathways for Blue OSINT data collection, processing, and analysis must take shape early in the concept and planning phases. This collaborative effort will significantly enhance collective situational awareness and operational effectiveness, making it easier for navies to synchronize their efforts. Additionally, complementing Blue OSINT with traditional intelligence collection such as HUMINT and SIGINT provides a comprehensive threat assessment. By integrating these capabilities, navies can more easily attain a well-rounded understanding of adversary actions.
2. Commercially procure distributed sensing capabilities and networks. The US Navy must invest in Replicator-style unmanned platforms that can affordably deploy sensors across maritime battlefields, similar to the use of small UAS for land reconnaissance. These commercially procured distributed sensing platforms will significantly enhance the Navy’s ability to continuously and comprehensively monitor vast areas, improving overall maritime domain awareness.
3. Recognize a new maritime operating environment. The US Navy must prepare for protracted missions away from easily monitored ports and chokepoints while penetrating adversary-controlled, denied waters. This mission set requires a robust logistical framework capable of supporting extended deployments in remote and contested waters. By developing sophisticated tactics to deceive and confuse distributed sensor networks, the Navy can minimize its visibility to adversaries and maintain strategic surprise. This necessitates investing in advanced deception technologies such as electronic warfare, signal spoofing, and decoys to create false targets and obscure true movements. Additionally, enhancing the stealth capabilities of vessels through innovative designs and operational practices will further ensure that naval forces can evade detection and operate effectively in a sensor-saturated environment. By embracing these realities, the Navy can sustain its operational effectiveness and strategic advantage across the competition continuum.

Conclusion

In an era of distributed sensing networks and Blue OSINT, adaptation is not just about leveraging technology but also about evolving operational doctrines to meet the challenges of contemporary maritime conflicts. By integrating Blue OSINT capabilities, deploying distributed sensors, and countering (and employing) deception, naval forces can maintain an asymmetric advantage in the increasingly visible and contested maritime domain.

The success of modern naval operations hinges on the ability to swiftly adapt to technological advancements and evolving threats. Navies must transcend beyond traditional methods and embrace innovative strategies to remain agile and effective. This demands a concerted effort from all levels of naval leadership, from policymakers to forward operators, to implement these changes.

On the unforgiving sea, only those who rapidly transform to the era of Blue OSINT will avoid the abyss, with the rest risk sinking into obsolescence as adversaries gain decisional advantage. Navies that fail to adjust to the realities of Blue OSINT and sensor networks risk ending up like the Russian Black Sea Fleet: at the bottom of the ocean.

Guido L. Torres is a nonresident senior fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Forward Defense Program and the executive director of the Irregular Warfare Initiative.

Austin Gray is co-founder and chief strategy officer of Blue Water Autonomy. He previously worked in a Ukrainian drone factory and served in US naval intelligence.

Report Jul 1, 2024

Executing distributed operations in an increasingly contested maritime environment

By Dmitry Filipoff

As the United States looks ahead to increased maritime competition in the Indo-Pacific and elsewhere, the US Navy needs to implement the right plans and capabilities. “Distributed maritime operations” is the warfighting concept at the heart of the Navy’s planning for current and future operations. How well is it poised for executing it?

Crisis Management Defense Policy

Report Apr 12, 2023

Atlantic Council Commission on Defense Innovation Adoption interim report  

By Eric Lofgren*, Whitney M. McNamara, and Peter Modigliani

The DoD must accelerate defense innovation adoption from the leading edge of the private sector. This report has ten recommendations to do so.

China Defense Industry

Forward Defense, housed within the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, generates ideas and connects stakeholders in the defense ecosystem to promote an enduring military advantage for the United States, its allies, and partners. Our work identifies the defense strategies, capabilities, and resources the United States needs to deter and, if necessary, prevail in future conflict.

Learn more

The post Sailing through the spyglass: The strategic advantages of blue OSINT, ubiquitous sensor networks, and deception appeared first on Atlantic Council.

These days, however, NATO is adapting its partnerships to respond to changed structural realities and the focus on strategic competition given the growing assertiveness and militarism of revisionist states such as Russia and China.

In that sense, there have been significant qualitative changes in the way NATO partnerships with the individual Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) countries—Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea—and the minilateral grouping operate today and challenges they face compared to when they were first created. Namely, both sides now see their respective partners as significant for their own defense and deterrence, rather than as interlocutors in the provision of security for third parties, as was the case in out-of-area missions, where crisis management and cooperative security were the central organizing principles of these partnerships.

NATO’s interest in the Indo-Pacific

Last month’s NATO Summit in Washington demonstrated that the IP4 countries occupy a pivotal place in the ecosystem of NATO’s partner states. This role began to emerge in its present form at the 2022 Madrid summit, which unveiled NATO’s current Strategic Concept. Substantive engagement between NATO and the IP4 countries has continued to develop since then. This year’s summit, for example, marked the third consecutive year that IP4 leaders attended, making it clear that this informal grouping is becoming a mainstay of NATO’s outreach to and strategic thinking about the Indo-Pacific.

The 2022 Strategic Concept referred to the Indo-Pacific as “important for NATO, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security.” Such a diagnosis of the international security environment converges with the general assessment of trends as seen from Canberra, Tokyo, Seoul, and Wellington, which have also witnessed firsthand how Russia’s war against Ukraine is reverberating in their region. Furthermore, the Strategic Concept characterized China’s ambitions and policies as major challenges to the Alliance’s security, interests, and values. It also raised concern over increased China-Russia cooperation, which threatens to undermine the rules-based international order. The Washington Summit Declaration, issued on July 10, also underscored how these trends have continued to grow in pace and magnitude as North Korea and Iran provide direct military support to Russia.

In response, coordination and engagement channels between NATO and the IP4 have become even more relevant to the security of both Europe and the Indo-Pacific, creating a strong common basis for cooperation. However, the intra-Alliance consensus for engagement has not been easy to reach due to some notable differences among the thirty-two allies.

At the Washington summit, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted the “strong and deepening cooperation” between the Alliance and the IP4. Emblematic of the greater ambition behind NATO-IP4 cooperation has been a move to the Individually Tailored Partnership Programme agreements, which replaced the Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme, and which all of the IP4 countries signed over the past year.

Moreover, NATO has pursued engagement with these partners as a minilateral group rather than as a collection of four individual partnerships. This commitment has resulted in four joint projects, announced by US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in July, which will focus on assistance to Ukraine, artificial intelligence, combating disinformation, and cybersecurity.

At the same time, IP4 countries have continuously demonstrated their commitment to Euro-Atlantic security by providing military and economic aid to Ukraine, sanctioning Russia, and initiating a range of direct and indirect capacity-building initiatives. Some of the IP4 members’ leaders, such as Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, have even urged US lawmakers to continue aiding Ukraine.

The future of NATO-IP4 cooperation

If managed well, NATO’s IP4 partnerships can be a vital tool to enhance the Alliance’s core tasks of cooperative security and crisis management. More importantly, these partnerships have the potential to contribute to NATO’s defense and deterrence, strengthen the Alliance’s competitive advantages, and shape the global security environment in ways that serve its interests and values.

To be successful, NATO must recognize and cater to the spectrum of ambition for cooperation among IP4 partners. The Alliance should tailor its approach and maximize the benefits of cooperation at various levels. For countries with lower levels of ambition, the benefits to cooperation with NATO come primarily from political consultations, and these talks should continue. These consultations foster a shared strategic domain awareness and enhance the understanding of how events in one region impact the security of others.

For those with greater ambitions for strengthening ties with NATO, there should be an emphasis on expanding cooperation in science and technology. This includes capacity building, which can have significant positive effects on the security of both NATO and its partners. With sufficient political will and consensus from both sides, individual IP4 partners can further develop their relationships with NATO. This cooperation could then lead to achieving, strengthening, and maintaining interoperability—that is, operating together according to agreed-upon rules and procedures, as well as using similar equipment. It also could mean working together on international standards-setting and the co-production and joint maintenance of military assets, expanding on existing cooperation between NATO and its partners in other initiatives.

The NATO-IP4 format has already proven useful for information sharing and presenting a unified front to promote common values vis-à-vis revisionist states. The Alliance should build on the significant groundwork that has already been laid for integrating the IP4 into various NATO structures and processes to continue the multiparty coordination and “regularize” these partnerships in a way that would shield them from domestic politics. However, considering that Chinese and Russian disinformation campaigns have propagated the narrative that NATO is attempting to expand into the Indo-Pacific, it is crucial for the Alliance to consistently emphasize that the partnerships with IP4 nations, or any future potential partners from the region, are not a prelude to full membership.

Finally, while it may seem self-evident, managing and reconciling expectations is crucial, as NATO operates on a consensus basis. Therefore, given the past episodes of disagreements among allies around NATO’s outreach to the Indo-Pacific, it is imperative to handle these relations carefully to avoid creating unnecessary intra-Alliance tensions and to demonstrate how nurturing ties with the IP4 serves the interests of both sides.

Gorana Grgić is a nonresident senior fellow at the Transatlantic Security Initiative of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

NATO’s seventy-fifth anniversary is a milestone in a remarkable story of reinvention, adaptation, and unity. However, as the Alliance seeks to secure its future for the next seventy-five years, it faces the revanchism of old rivals, escalating strategic competition, and uncertainties over the future of the rules-based international order.

With partners and allies turning attention from celebrations to challenges, the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Security Initiative invited contributors to engage with the most pressing concerns ahead of the historic Washington summit and chart a path for the Alliance’s future. This series will feature seven essays focused on concrete issues that NATO must address at the Washington summit and five essays that examine longer-term challenges the Alliance must confront to ensure transatlantic security.

The post How NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners can work together in an era of strategic competition appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Shukr’s killing has put Hezbollah in a bind. The group has been hesitant to provoke Israel since Lebanon’s economy collapsed almost five years ago—recognizing that every altercation could spiral into an undesired conflagration and not wanting to be blamed by the Lebanese for compounding their economic miseries with a war from which the country may not recover. After Hamas spearheaded the October 7, 2023 attack against Israel, however, Hezbollah joined in the next day to support its Gaza-based allies—both expecting a short conflict and feeling secure that their intervention would not spark a war since the Israelis were too preoccupied with operations in the Gaza Strip and restrained by American opposition to the conflict’s expansion into Lebanon. The group split the difference with a war of attrition, as Nasrallah noted in his latest speech that “we have been balancing between the support front [for Gaza] and the conditions in our country.” But as that conflict dragged on, a fatal mistake was inevitable.

That came on July 27, when an errant Hezbollah missile struck a soccer field in Majdal Shams in the Golan Heights, killing twelve Israeli children. Notwithstanding the group’s ongoing and desperate denials of responsibility, Israel had to exact a painful price on the group by killing Shukr in Hezbollah’s stronghold in the capital, Beirut. This wasn’t the first time the Israelis had assassinated such a high-ranking Hezbollah commander. In 2008, in a joint operation with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Israel assassinated Imad Mughniyeh, then Hezbollah’s commander-in-chief and most storied military commander in Damascus, Syria. Eight years later, in 2016, the Israelis eliminated his successor Mustafa Badreddine in Syria.

Either of those assassinations should have also warranted serious responses from Hezbollah. However, both occurred outside of Lebanon, during periods of quiet with Israel and during sensitive periods for the group. Mughniyeh was assassinated amidst a political crisis in Lebanon that began in December 2006—mere months after Hezbollah’s war with Israel that summer—and only ended in May 2008. Meanwhile, Badreddine was killed while Hezbollah was fully engaged in Syria’s civil war, perhaps the most existential battle in the group’s history, and could ill afford to open a second front with a foe as powerful as Israel. Yet Israeli silence in both instances allowed Hezbollah to quietly absorb the blows—even blaming Sunni Islamist militants in the case of Badreddine—and focus on more pressing matters.  

Shukr’s assassination is fundamentally different. The location alone—Beirut—violated a serious red line for the group. Coupled with his stature and the fact that the Israelis claimed the attack amidst an ongoing confrontation, the strike denied Hezbollah an off-ramp. The group must now respond, but a routine retaliation, akin to the ones it has been conducting for killings of lower-level commanders in south Lebanon, will not suffice given Shukr’s stature and the location of his killing. To avoid looking weak and permitting Israel to set the redlines of the conflict, Hezbollah must mount a more severe response—but this risks an escalation the group would prefer to avoid right now. Hence the group’s dilemma.

Enter Nasrallah. True to form over the past five years, the talkative secretary-general sought to cover his group’s exposed vulnerability with propaganda. Highlighting Hezbollah’s very real destructive power—the group has amassed 200,000 projectiles of different levels of sophistication, after all—he inevitably veered into exaggeration by claiming it could wipe out most of northern Israel’s vital infrastructure “in one hour, half an hour.” He also stressed just how much Hezbollah had established an equilibrium of pain with the Israelis. “Airlines stop arriving in Beirut and Tel Aviv, foreigners flee Lebanon and the entity alike, the villagers of the south and the colonizers of northern Palestine are both displaced, their homes are destroyed like our homes, their factories burn like ours, and their people fear just like ours,” Nasrallah said.

He also stressed the need for Hezbollah to have entered the conflict to prevent an Israeli victory over Gaza. If that occurred, Nasrallah claimed, the Israelis would be so emboldened that “there will be no Palestine, there will be no Palestinian people, there will be no Palestinian refugees—meaning they will be naturalized—and there will be no holy sites [in Jerusalem],” he claimed, stressing that both “Al-Aqsa Mosque will be in grave danger” of being brought down “by one bomb”—as would the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

Then he vacillated between talking points from this conflict. Nasrallah’s oft-repeated claim is that the Israeli army, which defeated several Arab armies in mere days, had become too weak to defeat Hamas over months, overlooking the differences in Israeli objectives and the added complexity of defeating a guerilla organization embedded in civilian areas. Namely, that Israel was “standing on a leg and a half” in anticipation of Hezbollah’s retaliation—and that “this Israeli anticipation for a week is part of the punishment, response, and battle, because the battle is psychological, one of morale and nerves and brains, [not just] weapons and blood.”

Here, Nasrallah was harking back to the last time the Israelis had flagrantly violated a Hezbollah redline by killing one of their fighters, Ali Kamel Mohsen, in Damascus in July 2020. “If you kill our fighters in Syria, we will kill you from Lebanon,” Nasrallah had thundered in August 2019. But when Mohsen was killed, with the COVID-19 pandemic further burdening Lebanon’s battered economy—which had practically imploded in October 2019—Hezbollah failed to act on its threats, quickly covering up their inaction by claiming that Israel’s fear of a response was, in and of itself, the punishment for Mohsen’s death.

But propaganda alone will not suffice now. Hezbollah will have to respond, and their responsibility must be obvious. Nasrallah promised—in his August 1 speech as with his last—that “our response is coming, God willing…precious blood [has been shed], and the resistance cannot, no matter the consequences, remain idle….our response will be strong, impactful, and effective,” without elaborating more.

It is quite possible the Israelis have crossed one of Hezbollah’s irreversible redlines, and the group, either alongside the rest of the Iran-backed Resistance Axis or separately, has decided to go to war or to undertake a retaliatory response that bears a high chance of leading to war—“no matter the consequences” for Lebanon. Nasrallah certainly hinted at that in his speech, both by detailing the alleged threat posed to the region by an Israeli victory in Gaza and by stressing, “No one can ask, in Lebanon or outside, that we deal with the aggression that happened last Tuesday [i.e., Shukr’s assassination] as if it was an ordinary aggression as part of the battle ongoing for ten months.”

But it’s likelier that Hezbollah is planning a more limited response. It’s not that the group does not desire a full war with Israel, one it hopes will bring about the Jewish state’s destruction, but it seeks to wage that war under optimal conditions that maximize its chances of success: when its arsenal is stronger and larger, Lebanon’s domestic conditions have improved, its regional partners are similarly positioned, and—preferably—when Iran can provide them with a nuclear umbrella. Indeed, Nasrallah indicated these conditions had not ripened by noting, “the objective of the current battle is not destroying Israel, but denying it victory and the ability to destroy the Palestinian resistance.” This was echoed the same day by Ibrahim al-Amine, Nasrallah insider and editor-in-chief of the secular left-leaning pro-Hezbollah daily Al-Akhbar. Al-Amine wrote that, whatever the nature of the retaliation against Israel, its effect on the central goal of the ongoing battle—“stopping the aggression against Gaza”—will remain the core consideration.

Therefore, Hezbollah and the Resistance Axis will not likely undertake any action that would complicate achieving a ceasefire in Gaza, the surest and quickest way to halt the Israeli campaign there.

Hezbollah could be planning a one-time, intense, individual retaliation. This would be the riskiest option for the group. It would carefully have to thread the needle between a retaliatory attack sufficiently painful to settle the score for Shukr while remaining below the threshold, which could lead to a spiral of escalation. Alternatively, the group could plan to participate in a one-time retaliatory strike alongside Iran and the remainder of the Resistance Axis. This would be more advantageous for Hezbollah, allowing the group to strike Israel with more intensity in that one instance but leaving it less exposed to individual consequences by blending its attack into the rest of the Resistance Axis retaliation.

Hezbollah could also be planning to overall permanently escalate the intensity, frequency, and depth of its attacks against Israel—but keep them limited below the threshold that would justify war. This could occur only on the Lebanon front or across all “support fronts” opened by the Resistance Axis.

David Daoud is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Follow him on X: @DavidADaoud.

The post Understanding Nasrallah’s speech: How will Hezbollah avenge Shukr? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The initiative also represents a significant part of Armenia’s peace agenda in the South Caucasus amid negotiations with Azerbaijan. Armenian leaders envision these renovated and newly built routes as conduits for cultivating economic, political, and cultural ties between the countries involved, thus advancing long-term peace and stability in the region. With the potential to economically benefit the region, promote peace and cooperation in the South Caucasus, and reduce Armenia’s dependence on Russia, the West should support the Crossroads for Peace plan with more robust diplomatic backing and infrastructure investment.

Decades of instability

The South Caucasus, straddling the juncture between Europe and Asia, has long been a region of strategic importance plagued by persistent instability and conflict. Most notable has been the Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which emerged in the early 1990s and led to the closure of the Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Turkey borders, severely restricting Armenia’s trade and hardening political divides.

The conflict experienced a significant turning point on September 27, 2020, when Azerbaijan launched a major offensive, triggering the worst escalation since 1994. After six weeks of intense fighting, a Russia-brokered ceasefire was signed on November 9, 2020, which stipulated concessions of Armenian-controlled territory within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan blockaded Karabakh for nearly ten months starting on December 12, 2022, leading to a humanitarian crisis. On September 19, 2023, Azerbaijan launched a military assault that seized full control of Karabakh and forced more than one hundred thousand ethnic Armenians to flee to Armenia. The United Nations estimates that only about fifty Armenians remain in the region.

The Karabakh conflict ended on January 1, 2024, with the Karabakh authorities announcing that their unrecognized government ceased to exist. Consequently, the initial rationale behind the closure of the Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Turkey borders no longer holds. Despite this, both Azerbaijan and Turkey, with the latter often aligning with the former’s policies, continue to refuse to reopen their borders with Armenia. This refusal persists even in the face of Armenia’s Crossroads for Peace initiative—a proposal that would be beneficial for regional development.

Corridors and crossroads

The Trans-Caspian Corridor, also known as the “Middle Corridor,” is an increasingly important channel for transportation and cross-border trade connecting the Central Asian states with Europe. It primarily involves the transport of goods and resources across the Caspian Sea, bridging Central Asian countries such as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to Azerbaijan via maritime routes. From Azerbaijan, the goods are then transported through Georgia and Turkey, reaching European markets. Though trade volumes and capacity are still relatively low, the corridor holds immense strategic opportunities, as it offers a viable alternative to the traditional, longer routes through Russia or the southern maritime paths via the Suez Canal, significantly reducing transit time and avoiding geostrategic hotspots.

The Eurasian Northern Corridor, offering both road and rail options, is currently the primary route for transcontinental transport but largely traverses Russian territory. Western sanctions, investment deterrents, and financial restrictions tied to Russia’s war on Ukraine complicate this corridor’s use, and potential instability in Russia might eventually further weaken this route’s reliability. More direct routes through Central Asian and South Caucasus nations could diminish the value of the Eurasian Northern Corridor, aligning with US and European Union efforts to reduce dependencies on Russia. The development of the Trans-Caspian Corridor offers such a strategic alternative, diversifying energy supplies to Europe and enhancing trade connectivity between Asia and Europe, while bypassing Russian influence.

Armenia’s Crossroads for Peace initiative, therefore, would create a vital complementary set of routes, enhancing the strategic depth and utility of the Trans-Caspian Corridor. By developing infrastructure such as the Yeraskh-Julfa-Meghri-Horadiz railway, Armenia would offer new logistic pathways linking the Caspian region directly to the Mediterranean and Black seas through Armenian territory. This would not only shorten transit times and distances between Asia and Europe but would also introduce reliable alternative routes.

Additionally, the integration of Armenia into the Trans-Caspian Corridor could stimulate economic growth in the region by attracting foreign investment focused on logistics and infrastructure development. Armenia could become a central node in Eurasian trade, enhancing the corridor’s capacity and security. This strategic expansion would diversify the transport routes available to major trading powers and fortify the economic independence of Armenia and its neighboring countries by reducing their reliance on Russia.

Moreover, the Crossroads for Peace initiative is premised on the principles of sovereignty and jurisdiction, ensuring that infrastructure within each country’s borders remains under its control. The idea is to promote mutual respect and cooperation among its neighboring nations, facilitating equal and reciprocal management of border and customs controls. This ensures that each country would be able to safeguard its interests while promoting shared economic growth.

Obstacles in the path

However, Crossroads for Peace faces significant geopolitical hurdles. Azerbaijan has so far refused to support Armenia’s initiative, with analysts stating that neither Baku nor Ankara had been consulted. While the Armenian government should intensify its outreach on Crossroads for Peace, Armenia’s neighbors should judge the initiative in good faith on commercial viability, rather than on geopolitical grounds.

If realized, Crossroads for Peace could significantly benefit both Azerbaijan and Turkey by boosting regional trade and opening new markets. For Azerbaijan, it could provide a more direct route to European markets, while Turkey could see enhanced trade corridors that bypass less stable regions. Additionally, the project could serve as a diplomatic bridge, easing longstanding tensions and transforming a historical conflict into a hub of international commerce. For Turkey in particular, supporting this initiative could strategically position it as a peace broker in the region, which could strengthen its diplomatic relationships not only with its immediate neighbors but also across Europe and into Asia. 

Baku has instead called for the development of the “Zangezur Corridor,” which would connect mainland Azerbaijan directly with its exclave of Nakhchivan through Armenia’s southernmost Syunik province. Azerbaijan’s conception of Zangezur includes not only a railway link, but also a highway between the two parts of Azerbaijan, and demands that it would have extraterritorial status, which would require Armenia to cede control over a strip of its own territory. Crucially, Zangezur envisions opening a single transit route with Azerbaijan, whereas Crossroads for Peace aims to open several border crossings with both Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Armenia has firmly stated that any discussions involving the loss of sovereignty and territorial integrity or third-party control over its territory are nonnegotiable red lines. Indeed, Baku has insisted that a detachment from Russia’s Federal Security Service guard Zangezur; having just kicked Russian border guards out of the country, it’s understandable why Armenia would balk at the installation of more Russian agents on its territory.

Azerbaijan’s Zangezur plan is also detrimental to Western interests in several ways. First, it would hinder the broader Western strategic objective of stabilizing and economically developing the South Caucasus—critical for energy routes and geopolitical balance among Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. By stalling broader regional integration initiatives, Azerbaijan’s position perpetuates dependence on existing routes that run through Georgia, which face logistical and capacity hurdles, and which could be susceptible to disruptions by external geopolitical influences.

This ongoing tension and the resultant lack of comprehensive peace and cooperation in the South Caucasus allows Russia and Iran to exert their influence there. Armenia’s isolation forces it to maintain its reliance on Russia, countering Western efforts to promote democratic governance and market liberalization in the area. This situation becomes increasingly dangerous as autocratic Azerbaijan deepens its ties with Russia. Simultaneously, Iran benefits by positioning itself as a crucial partner for Armenia in energy and trade, while also providing diplomatic support by rejecting the Zangezur plan to maintain clout in the South Caucasus.

By keeping the Armenia-Azerbaijan and Armenia-Turkey borders closed, Azerbaijan impedes Armenia’s economic and connectivity opportunities, limiting the scope for Western engagement and investment in the region. This keeps Armenia overly dependent on trade with Russia. Baku has long complained about Armenia’s close ties with Russia and should welcome Yerevan’s desire to open trade with Azerbaijan and Turkey, as well as its commitment to leave the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization.

The Crossroads for Peace initiative, therefore, offers a more promising path. By opening up the region and paving the way for a new era of mutual economic growth and cooperation in the South Caucasus, Crossroads for Peace could serve as a catalyst for regional stability and prosperity. This initiative not only counters the restrictive nature of the Zangezur plan but also aligns economic incentives with geopolitical opportunities.

How the West can help

Armenia’s Crossroads for Peace initiative deserves more robust support and engagement from Western nations. By backing Armenia’s efforts to integrate into the Trans-Caspian Corridor and promote cooperation across the South Caucasus, Western countries can help ensure that the region develops into a vibrant economic hub that is less dependent on Russia. Increased investment in infrastructure, clear diplomatic backing, and strategic partnerships, such as the recent upgrade in US-Armenia relations, can solidify the West’s commitment to promoting a more balanced geopolitical landscape in this region.

This should start with applying diplomatic pressure on Turkey and Azerbaijan to engage constructively with the initiative and entering security pacts with Armenia that help deter aggression and maintain open and secure trade routes. Subsequently, Western countries should implement targeted funding and financial incentives along with technical assistance for the construction and modernization of infrastructure in the region. Potential new trade agreements and the promotion of private sector involvement encouraging Western businesses to invest in and partner with local firms within the framework of Crossroads for Peace would also help make the initiative more viable.

Enhanced Western support for Armenia could also serve as a catalyst for broader regional cooperation and prosperity, setting a precedent for peaceful conflict resolution and cooperative development efforts. Western policymakers should therefore help integrate Crossroads for Peace into regional connectivity plans that promote open, stable, and cooperative international systems and can make Armenia a key player in the diversification of transit routes across Eurasia.

Sheila Paylan is a human rights lawyer and senior legal consultant with the United Nations. The views expressed herein are her own and do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations.

The post How Armenia’s ‘Crossroads for Peace’ plan could transform the South Caucasus appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The modern history of a single park in east Ukrainian city Luhansk offers insights into the memory war currently being waged by the Kremlin. In 1972, the Communist authorities in Soviet Luhansk decided to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the USSR by transforming a local cemetery into a Friendship of Peoples Park. Once construction got underway, workers soon began uncovering mass graves of people murdered during the Stalin era. This news was suppressed until 1989, when it was belatedly reported in the local newspaper. One year later, a memorial to the victims of Stalinist mass killings was erected at the site.

This initial monument was part of a broader movement for historical justice that emerged in the twilight years of the USSR as local historians, journalists, and officials sought to document the crimes of the Communist authorities in the Luhansk region. Following Ukrainian independence, the opening of national archives made it possible to identify and honor victims of the Communist regime and end decades of censorship that had suppressed knowledge of Soviet crimes against humanity including the Holodomor, an artificially engineered famine in 1930s Ukraine that killed millions of Ukrainians.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

During the early years of Ukrainian independence, Luhansk’s Friendship of Peoples Park remained a space of contested memory. While retaining its old Soviet era name, it gradually acquired a range of new memorials including a monument to Soviet soldiers who fought in Afghanistan, a cross marking the grave of the city’s former mayor, and a memorial to the victims of the Holodomor.

In 2009, following decades of public pressure, the park was renamed as the Garden of Remembrance. At this point, it seemed as though the long task of restoring historical memory in Luhansk was finally complete. However, the onset of Russian aggression against Ukraine in 2014 transformed the memory politics of the region once again and revived many of the darkest chapters of the Soviet years.

When Kremlin forces occupied Luhansk in the spring of 2014, they soon began attempting to transform remembrance of the Soviet era. While monuments to Lenin were being dismantled elsewhere in Ukraine, the Russian authorities in Luhansk were erecting new monuments glorifying the Soviet past and celebrating the “liberation” of the city from Ukrainian rule. This mirrored similar processes that were underway in other Russian-occupied areas of Ukraine, including nearby Donetsk and the Crimean peninsula.

Curiously, many memorials in Luhansk honoring the victims of the Soviet era initially remained untouched. This changed with the full-scale invasion of February 2022, which led to a more aggressive approach to the eradication of Ukrainian historical memory. In the second half of 2022, the Holodomor memorial in Mariupol was demolished. By summer 2024, the Russian occupation authorities had also dismantled monuments in Luhansk honoring the victims of the Holodomor and the Stalinist Terror.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

The occupation authorities in Luhansk have attempted to justify these measures by framing the Holodomor as a Ukrainian propaganda myth and positioning memorials to the victims of Soviet crimes as “pilgrimage sites for Ukrainian nationalists.” They have also argued that the dismantling of monuments is in response to grassroots demands from the local population.

Russia’s selective monument removals are part of a deliberate strategy to rehabilitate favorable aspects of the Soviet past while whitewashing the crimes of the Communist era. A similarly partisan approach has been adopted toward the historical role of Tsarist Russia. Throughout occupied regions of Ukraine, the Kremlin seeks to craft a narrative glorifying Russian imperialism that legitimizes Moscow’s land grab while suppressing any traces of a separate Ukrainian national identity. In this manner, Putin is weaponizing the past to serve his own present-day geopolitical ambitions.

The demolition of memorials is only one aspect of Russia’s war on Ukrainian national identity. In areas of Ukraine under Kremlin control, anyone deemed pro-Ukrainian is at risk of being detained or simply disappearing. Speaking Ukrainian is considered a serious offense. Ukrainians are pressured into accepting Russian citizenship, while thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted and sent to Russia, where they are subjected to indoctrination in camps designed to rob them of their Ukrainian heritage.

Unlike earlier attempts to erase entire nations, today’s Kremlin campaign to extinguish Ukrainian identity is taking place in full view of international audiences in the heart of twenty-first century Europe. This poses fundamental challenges to the entire notion of a rules-based international order and represents a major obstacle to any future peace process. As long as Russia remains committed to the destruction of Ukraine, a truly sustainable settlement to today’s war will remain elusive.

Yevhenii Monastyrskyi is a PhD student of history at Harvard University and a lecturer at Kyiv School of Economics. John Vsetecka is an assistant professor of history at Nova Southeastern University.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jul 16, 2024

Russia’s retreat from Crimea makes a mockery of the West’s escalation fears

By Peter Dickinson

The Russian Navy’s quiet retreat from Crimea highlights the emptiness of Putin’s red lines and the self-defeating folly of Western escalation management, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Jul 30, 2024

Paris Olympics: Ukrainian dedicates medal to athletes killed by Russia

By Mark Temnycky

Ukrainian fencing star Olga Kharlan has won the country’s first medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics and dedicated her medal to the Ukrainian athletes “who couldn’t be here because they were killed by Russia,” writes Mark Temnycky .

Conflict France

UkraineAlert Jun 12, 2024

Ukraine is making the Russian occupation of Crimea untenable

By Olivia Yanchik

Ukraine’s growing air strike capabilities are decimating Russian air defenses in Crimea and making the occupation of the peninsula increasingly untenable, writes Olivia Yanchik.

Conflict Defense Technologies

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Russia is destroying monuments as part of war on Ukrainian identity appeared first on Atlantic Council.

PKK penetration of the DAANES has also created a range of negative consequences for Syrians in the northeast, including relentless Turkish targeting of the area, anti-democratic governance by the PYD, systemic corruption, and armed clashes between the SDF and insurgents in Deir ez-Zor. To create conditions for a wider solution to the Syria crisis and satisfy their own interests, Washington and Ankara must find a mutually agreeable course of action; the two countries are due for a strategic dialogue on Syria later this year, where options can be scrutinized. A perennial idea for solving the impasse calls for the United States to facilitate delinking of the DAANES/SDF and the PKK. However, such a decoupling is easier said than done, and its feasibility hinges on US and Turkish willingness to make tough concessions.

Reign of the PKK

Despite unofficial US government claims to the contrary, the PKK has been intimately tied to the governance and security structures of northeast Syria from its inception. The foundational expertise and personnel that enabled the PYD and YPG to defend, administer, and expand their territorial holdings came from veteran PKK members. Turkish, Iraqi, and Iranian Kurds affiliated with the PKK and its franchises flocked to northeast Syria after the outbreak of the civil war in 2011, forming the core of the area’s administrative and military personnel. PKK veterans assumed greater responsibility as Syria’s security situation deteriorated and new adversaries like ISIS confronted the nascent self-administration. Senior YPG leaders were often Syrian Kurds who had spent time fighting abroad, such as future SDF commander Mazloum Abdi.

The network of experienced PKK operatives, or kadros in local parlance, subsequently became the chief conduit for PKK influence in the northeast’s civil and military architecture. While the DAANES has established myriad local political, security, and administrative councils and committees across its territory, power ultimately rests with the kadros assigned to “advise” them; no local authority can overrule the decisions handed down by the often foreign PKK veterans. Key economic functions, such as extracting, transporting, and selling oil from occupied fields in Deir ez-Zor, also fall under the kadros’ purview. Leaders in the DAANES-sponsored local councils have no oversight of the process, creating rampant opportunities for corruption. Smugglers allegedly seek the protection of kadros to protect their operations, and some experts contend that the YPG generates large swaths of its funding from kadros-linked oil diversion.

In the multi-ethnic SDF, kadros are a linchpin of the entire force; they comprise the most experienced fighters and often lead the forces’ non-Kurdish formations. An analysis of YPG casualty figures from 2013 to 2016 showed that nearly half of the militia’s battle deaths were Turkish citizens, demonstrating the importance of foreign fighters on the frontline. During the main phase of operations against ISIS in Syria, units of kadros frequently fought alongside embedded US troops in high-stakes operations, such as in amphibious crossings near Manbij and the liberation of Raqqa. The SDF’s—or, rather, the YPG leadership’s—lack of confidence in Arab partner forces tasked with holding Arab-majority areas like Deir ez-Zor, translated to the appointment of “shadow commander” kadros in these formations as well. PKK leadership reportedly even assigned kadros as minders for SDF commander Abdi.

Kadros are not the only PKK presence in the northeast. The party also works through a proxy known as the Revolutionary Youth (RY), a political organization that conducts civic and military programming but also engages in child recruitment for the PKK. The RY has also been instrumental in the recent PYD-instigated repression of opposing Kurdish political parties operating in the DAANES—a pattern dating back to the earliest days of the civil war in Syria. Offices of the Kurdish National Council (KNC), a Kurdish political alliance closely linked with the Iraq-based Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and opposed to the PKK, are frequent targets of RY-linked arson attacks. In spite of these actions, the SDF and other security elements make no public effort to stymie the RY. In March, the US Department of State delivered a rebuke to SDF leadership over its failures to halt attacks on KNC offices and officials.

Discord in the DAANES

The entrenchment of the PKK has further complicated the already complex dynamics in northeast Syria. Turkey has adopted a more aggressive strategy for countering the PKK in Syria and Iraq, leading to several major military operations, as well as recent assassination and airstrike campaigns targeting DAANES officials, SDF fighters, and civilian infrastructure in the northeast. Non-Kurdish Syrians have their frustrations with the kadros’ rule, as demonstrated by Arab grievances aired during last year’s uprising and ensuing SDF crackdown in DAANES-controlled Deir ez-Zor. The United States is well aware of Turkish concerns and the degree of PKK influence in the northeast, though it has little to show for its efforts to dilute the latter. In spite of years of US-facilitated negotiations between the two Kurdish parties, the PYD continues to obstruct any power-sharing agreement with the KNC.

The situation within the SDF and its civil Syrian Democratic Council counterpart is no less knotted. Insiders and analysts have noted signs of a schism between hardliners and pragmatists within the Kurdish power structures. The former dismisses the idea of delinking from the PKK and eschews any power-sharing settlement with other Kurdish parties; hardliners also allegedly maintain a firm hold on critical political and security functions in the northeast. Meanwhile, pragmatists are open to dialogue and compromise with groups like the KNC; they favor greater international engagement and, perhaps, even breaking with the PKK.

Mazloum Abdi, ostensibly the leader of the pragmatists, claimed in 2020 that the SDF was working to remove foreign kadros from positions of authority and eventually from Syria, stating that “regional Kurdish support” was no longer needed in the DAANES’s extensive network of civic and military bodies. Whether Abdi was unwilling or unable to follow through is an open question, but PKK influence remains just as strong, if not stronger, four years later. Observers on the ground in the northeast have also reported the training of fresh, local Syrian kadros who now operate in areas such as Manbij and Deir ez-Zor, according to speakers in an expert working group attended by the author.

The narrow path to a win-win-win

Beyond its firm grip on power in the area, a complete decoupling of the PKK from northeast Syria also faces obstacles from stakeholders. The PKK has little current incentive to abandon or reduce its presence in Syria while it is losing ground in its traditional refuge in northern Iraq. If claims of oil revenue diversion are correct, hypothesized to constitute 40 percent or more of DAANES oil production, the group also stands to lose a significant fundraising stream connected to the kadros-run extraction operations. The existence of the aforementioned pragmatists might demonstrate some willingness by certain DAANES authorities to delink, but their seeming lack of leverage compared to the more militant hardliners and the lack of incentives from Washington and Ankara dim the prospect of a peaceful transition.

Were the United States and Turkey to agree on the end of direct PKK influence over northeast Syria, a mutually acceptable result would require considerable policy gymnastics from each side. First, Washington must recognize, at least tacitly, that it has empowered the PKK, as refusal to recognize empirical links between the group and the US counter-ISIS campaign in Syria strains credulity and damages mutual trust. Meanwhile, Turkey cannot wish away all the PKK-sympathetic Kurds and others in northeast Syria, even if the party leadership’s grip on the area is broken. A more practical goal for both sides is elevating pragmatist local Syrian elements in the DAANES and SDF and brokering a sustainable peace with Ankara. Reporting on previous US-Turkish compromise attempts indicated that Turkey would accept an opening with the Syrian Kurds in tandem with the expulsion of foreign PKK-linked Kurds, though the path to this might be dubious.

To whatever degree the purging of PKK personnel is operationalized, the effort would presumably create gaps in local administrative, governance, and security capabilities, which would need to be filled. Can the United States contribute to filling such gaps? US policymakers are leaning toward ending the US presence in northeast Syria, and discussions have already occurred on potential exit strategies. However, if an agreement can be reached with Turkey that ejects the PKK from the DAANES, this may incline Washington to invest in its involvement in the northeast to ease the transition from kadros administration to the local bodies already incorporated under the DAANES. Especially critical would be ensuring the competence of security forces tasked with maintaining the fight against ISIS, necessitating closer collaboration between the United States and Turkey.

The odds are slim that the two countries will reach the preconditions and compromises necessary for a delinking deal, let alone smoothly execute it in the face of expected PKK opposition. Still, the strategic logic presents wins for the United States, Turkey, and northeast Syria: Washington eases conflict with Turkey and maintains its Syrian partner, hedged on a commitment of diplomatic energy and finesse rather than new troops or money; Ankara drives a bitter foe from its physical and financial haven on the Syrian border and advances its thaw with Washington; and Syrians in the northeast can take the reins back from foreign militants ruling from the shadows. An agreement on the northeast could also jumpstart wider collaboration on Syria at a critical moment, benefiting millions of Syrians throughout the country still suffering from the fallout of their civil war. With soaring violence and humanitarian needs throughout the country, a burst of joint US-Turkish leadership has the potential to bring the international community back to the table and address the most grievous symptoms of the Syrian crisis.

JP Reppeto is an assistant with the Syria Strategy Project and a former Young Global Professional with the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center & Middle East Programs. Follow him on X: @jp_reppeto

The post Can northeast Syria delink from the PKK? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The cause? One mere faulty section of code in a software update.

The update came from CrowdStrike, a cybersecurity firm whose Falcon Sensor software many Windows users employ against cyber breaches. Instead of providing improvements, the update caused devices to shut down and enter an endless reboot cycle, driving a global outage. Reports suggest that insufficient testing at CrowdStrike was likely the cause.

However, this outage is not just a technology error. It also reveals a hidden world of digital public infrastructure (DPI) that deserves more attention from policymakers.

What is digital public infrastructure?

DPI, while an evolving concept, is broadly defined by the United Nations (UN) as a combination of “networked open technology standards built for public interest, [which] enables governance and [serves] a community of innovative and competitive market players working to drive innovation, especially across public programmes.” This definition refers to DPI as essential digital systems that support critical societal functions, like how physical infrastructure—including roads, bridges, and power grids—are essential for everyday activities.

Microsoft Windows, which runs CrowdStrike’s Falcon Sensor software, is a form of DPI. And other examples of DPI within the UN definition include digital health systems, payment systems, and e-governance portals.

As the world scrambles to fix their Windows systems, policymakers need to pay particular attention to the core DPI issues that underpin the outage.

The problem of invisibility

DPI, such as Microsoft Windows, is ubiquitous but also largely invisible, which is a significant challenge when it comes to managing risks associated with it. Unlike physical infrastructure, which is tangible and visible, DPI powers essential digital services without drawing public awareness. Consequently, the potential risks posed by DPI failures—whether stemming from software bugs or cybersecurity breaches—tend to be underappreciated and underestimated by the public.

The lack of a clear definition of DPI exacerbates the issue of its invisibility. Not all digital technologies are public infrastructure: Companies build technology to generate revenue, but many of them do not directly offer critical services for the public. For instance, Fitbit, a tech company that creates fitness and health tracking devices, is not a provider of DPI. Though it utilizes technology and data services to enhance user experience, it does not provide essential infrastructure such as internet services, cloud computing platforms, or large-scale data centers that support public and business digital needs. That said, Fitbit’s new owner, Google, known for its widely used browser, popular cloud computing services, and efforts to expand digital connectivity, can be considered a provider of DPI.

Other companies that do not start out as DPI may become integral to public infrastructure by dint of becoming indispensable. Facebook, for example, started out as a social network, but it and other social media platforms have become a crucial aspect of civil discourse surrounding many elections. Regulating social media platforms as a simple technology product could potentially ignore their role as public infrastructure, which often deserve extra scrutiny to mitigate potential detrimental effects on the public.

The recent Microsoft outage, from which airlines, hospitals, and other companies are still recovering, should now sharpen the focus on the company as a provider of DPI. However, the invisibility of DPI and the absence of appropriate policy guidelines for measuring and managing its risks result in two complications. First, most users who interact with DPI often do not recognize it as a form of DPI. Second, this invisibility leads to a misplaced trust in major technology companies, as users fail to recognize how high the collective stakes of a failure in this DPI might be. Market dominance and effective advertising have helped major technology companies publicize their systems as benchmarks of reliability and resiliency. As a result, the public often perceives these systems as infallible, assuming they are more secure than they are—until a failure occurs. At the same time, an overabundance of public trust and comfort with familiar systems can foster complacency within organizations, which can lead to inadequate internal scrutiny and security audits.

How to prevent future disruptions

The Great IT Outage of 2024 revealed just how essential DPI is to societies across the globe. In many ways, the outage serves as a symbolic outcry for solution-oriented policies and accountability to stave off future disruptions.

To address DPI invisibility and misplaced trust in technology companies, US policymakers should first define DPI clearly and holistically while accounting for its status as an evolving concept. It is equally crucial to distinguish which companies are currently providers of DPI, and to educate leaders, policymakers, and the public about what that means. Such an initiative should provide a clear definition of DPI, its technical characteristics, and its various forms, while highlighting how commonly used software such as Microsoft Windows is a form of DPI. A silver lining of the recent Microsoft/CrowdStrike outage is that it offers a practical, recent case study to present to the public as real-world context for understanding the risks when DPI fails.

Finally, Microsoft has outlined technical next steps to prevent another outage, including extensive testing frameworks and backup systems to prevent the same kind of outage from happening again. However, while industry-driven self-regulation is crucial, regulation that enforces and standardizes backup systems, not just with Microsoft, but also for other technology companies that may also become providers of DPI, is also necessary. Doing so will help prevent future outages, ensuring the reliability of infrastructure which, just like roads and bridges, props up the world.

Saba Weatherspoon is a young global professional with the Atlantic Council’s Geotech Center.

Zhenwei Gao is a young global professional with the Cyber Statecraft Initiative, part of the Atlantic Council Technology Programs.

The post The Great IT Outage of 2024 is a wake-up call about digital public infrastructure appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Despite barely having a navy of its own, Ukraine has managed to sink or severely damage approximately one-third of Putin’s fleet, forcing the bulk of his remaining warships to retreat from occupied Crimea. The war at sea has gone so badly for Russia that by spring 2024, Britain’s Ministry of Defense was already declaring the Black Sea Fleet “functionally inactive.”

The details of this year’s Russian Navy Day program provided some hints of the inglorious reality behind Moscow’s efforts to project naval strength. Tellingly, the traditional parade of Russian warships along the Neva River to the Kronstadt naval base, which usually serves as the centerpiece of the entire holiday, was canceled due to security concerns. In its place, a reduced flotilla took part in a significantly scaled down event that featured around half as many vessels as in previous years.

Despite being by far the smallest Russian Navy Day since the holiday was reinstated in 2017, this year’s event nevertheless represented an excellent opportunity for Putin to honor Russia’s fallen sailors and vow retribution for the country’s unprecedented losses in the Black Sea. In fact, he did nothing of the sort. Throughout his official address, Putin barely mentioned the casualties suffered or the sacrifices made by the Russian Navy during the invasion of Ukraine. Instead, the Kremlin dictator preferred to flush Russia’s Black Sea defeats down the memory hole. He was aided by the loyal Russian media, which carefully avoided any awkward references to the disaster that has befallen the country’s Black Sea Fleet.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

All this brings to mind an old Soviet joke that begins with Napoleon, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the Great looking down from heaven at a Red Army parade on Red Square. Caesar indicates the endless rows of Soviet troops and says, “with so many men, I could have held Germania.” Alexander points to the tanks and missiles and declares, “with such weapons of war, I could have conquered all India.” Napoleon, meanwhile, completely ignores the parade and is instead engrossed in a copy of Pravda. “If I had such a newspaper,” he proclaims, “nobody would have heard of Waterloo.”

Many Soviet jokes have not aged well, but this particular punchline remains as relevant as ever in modern Russia, where Putin has succeeded in creating a propaganda machine every bit as potent as its Soviet predecessor. Today’s Kremlin-controlled multimedia ecosystem is far more sophisticated than its Communist forerunner, but it serves the same basic function of bending reality to suit the whims of Russia’s ruling elite.

For the past decade, Putin has used this unrivaled information weapon to fuel the biggest European invasion since World War II. Kremlin propagandists have managed to convince millions of ordinary Russians that democratic Ukraine is actually a “Nazi state” whose very existence poses an intolerable threat to Russia. Ukrainians have been demonized and dehumanized to such an extent that genocidal anti-Ukrainian rhetoric is now a routine feature on prime time Russian TV.

The success of these efforts is all too apparent, with a wide range of opinion polls, research, and anecdotal evidence pointing to consistently high levels of Russian public support for the invasion. Meanwhile, there is no meaningful anti-war movement in the country, despite widespread knowledge of the horrors taking place in neighboring Ukraine. This is not surprising. After all, as Voltaire once warned, those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Putin’s ability to distort Russian reality is genuinely terrifying, but the sheer scale of his propaganda operation could also inadvertently offer hope for the future. Many commentators have argued that failure in Ukraine would lead to the fall of the Putin regime and quite possibly the breakup of Russia itself, but these concerns may be exaggerated. While a third Russian collapse in a little over a century cannot be ruled out, the experience of the past two-and-a-half years gives good cause to believe that Moscow’s disinformation industry is more than capable of rebranding any future retreat from Ukraine in a favorable light, or of burying it completely. In other words, if the Russian media can manufacture a major war, it can also fabricate a suitably plausible peace.

Anyone who still doubts the Kremlin’s capacity to whitewash military defeat in Ukraine hasn’t been paying attention. We have recently witnessed Putin hosting the biggest naval event of the year while studiously ignoring the historic humbling of his southern fleet. It was the same story in 2022, when he ceremoniously announced that Kherson had joined Russia “forever,” only to order his beaten troops to abandon the city just weeks later. Likewise, when Russia lost the Battle of Kyiv during the initial phase of the invasion, the Kremlin refused to acknowledge defeat and absurdly insisted that the retreat from northern Ukraine was a mere “goodwill gesture.” If Putin is eventually forced to end his invasion, it seems safe to assume he will downplay this humiliation in similar fashion.

Since February 2022, Western leaders have found numerous reasons to limit their support for Ukraine. Some are restricted by modest defense budgets and competing domestic priorities. Most are afraid of possible escalation and have allowed themselves to be intimidated by Putin’s talk of Russian red lines. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says many of his country’s Western partners are also reluctant to arm Ukraine because they fear the unpredictable geopolitical consequences of a Russian defeat. This Western alarm over a possible Russian collapse is exaggerated and fails to account for the power of Putin’s propaganda.

If Russia suffers a decisive defeat in Ukraine, past experience indicates that the Kremlin will almost certainly seek to move the goalposts, change the narrative, or devise some other way of rewriting history and claiming victory. Any embarrassing evidence of failure would simply be flushed down the memory hole, along with all the sunken Russian warships of the Black Sea Fleet.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Aug 1, 2024

Ukraine’s new F-16 jets won’t defeat Russia but will enhance air defenses

By Mykola Bielieskov

Ukraine’s fledgling fleet of F-16 jets will not win the war but should strengthen the country’s air defenses and help protect the civilian population from Russian bombardment, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Jul 16, 2024

Russia’s retreat from Crimea makes a mockery of the West’s escalation fears

By Peter Dickinson

The Russian Navy’s quiet retreat from Crimea highlights the emptiness of Putin’s red lines and the self-defeating folly of Western escalation management, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Jul 30, 2024

Paris Olympics: Ukrainian dedicates medal to athletes killed by Russia

By Mark Temnycky

Ukrainian fencing star Olga Kharlan has won the country’s first medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics and dedicated her medal to the Ukrainian athletes “who couldn’t be here because they were killed by Russia,” writes Mark Temnycky .

Conflict France

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Russia’s Black Sea defeats get flushed down Vladimir Putin’s memory hole appeared first on Atlantic Council.

At least two hundred people have been killed and thousands more injured in protests that included law enforcement firing on protesters, as Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her government face the most serious popular challenge of the past decade. Many Bangladeshis have been arrested, and cases against thousands of people have been filed.

Two weeks of heightened violence has left visible damage to property in cities across the country. Burned buildings stand as testimonies to anger and mayhem, but what remains unknown is the exact number of deaths, injuries, and missing. The extent of the lethal force used by members of law enforcement agencies is unprecedented in the history of the country, which has all too often experienced bouts of political violence since its inception in 1971.

Despite the claim of a gradual return to normalcy, an overwhelming number of police and soldiers are patrolling the streets of major cities, and a shoot-on-sight order is still in place for curfew violators. The government is on edge, economic activity has stalled, and many citizens are in a state of shock and uncertain about what will come next. For Bangladesh watchers, the question is whether Hasina has weathered the political storm or if the current situation is a larger tempest in the making.

How did it begin?

This episode of protest began in early July as peaceful student demonstrations demanding reform of the quota system in public service. This quota system, which reserved 56 percent of government jobs to various categories, was widely considered by students to be discriminatory and was allegedly used by the government as a means of patronage dispensation. The system was scrapped in 2018 after students launched a movement against it, but it was reinstated by Bangladesh’s High Court in June 2024. The government appealed, and the Supreme Court suspended the verdict, scheduling a hearing for August 6. However, students demanded that the system be reformed by enacting a law. The government insisted that there was nothing it could do while the issue is being litigated. The students felt that this was a stealthy way of reinstating the system.

The situation took an ominous turn after activists aligned with the ruling party swooped in on the demonstrators as they protested Hasina’s comments at a press conference on July 14. In that press conference, Hasina likened the demonstrators with collaborators of the Pakistani army during the war of independence in 1971. As the quota system reserves a percentage of government jobs for the descendants of war of independence veterans, Hasina portrayed opposition to the policy as demeaning to veterans. In the following days, the students organized street protests and called for a general strike, which was confronted with force by police and ruling party activists, leading to the deaths of some students. On July 16, the government closed all educational institutions for an indefinite period.

The situation further deteriorated on July 18, as thousands of protesters joined the students on the street; at least twenty-five people died throughout the country and various public buildings were set ablaze in the capital and elsewhere. The government stopped services. Then the government backtracked and offered to negotiate, but by then the protests had transcended the quota issue.

On July 19, demonstrations engulfed the entire country. The number of deaths, the extent of the spread of protests, and the ferocity of police response made it one of the worst days in the history of the country. Curfew was imposed, the military was called in, a shoot-on-sight order was issued, and internet and broadband services were completely shut down. Yet the violence continued for days, and the death toll continued to mount. 

In the meantime, the government met a delegation of the agitating students, and the Supreme Court voided the High Court verdict, issuing guidance to drastically reduce the quota to only 7 percent. However, the government resorted to heavy-handed measures, including allegedly abducting six student leaders of the movement and detaining them without charges. While detained, the student leaders issued a video message on July 28 calling off the movement, but other leaders continued the organize protests.

A perfect storm?

The peaceful student protest transformed into an antigovernment upsurge because of simmering discontent among younger Bangladeshis, as well as in a large segment of the wider society. Economic and political disenfranchisement drove the youth. The economic growth they have heard about for a long time seems to have left them behind. They see very little prospect of a decent job while they witness unbridled corruption and the extravagant lifestyle of a new wealthy class. According to official accounts, unemployment among youth is 15.74 percent and at least 41 percent of youth between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four are not in school, employed, or engaged in job training.

Bangladeshi youth were supposed to be the kingmakers in a free and fair electoral process, the role their predecessors played in the election of 2008. But that opportunity was taken away through fraudulent elections. The government’s disregard for their demands regarding quota reform was symptomatic of a system that cares little for them. Violence perpetrated by the student wing of the ruling party was the instigation that unleashed the anger within the student community.

As for the larger population, resentments originating from rampant corruption by the cronies of the ruling party, impunity enjoyed by party henchmen, utter disregard to the sufferings of the common people, and concentration of power at the hands of one person—Hasina—all came together.

While the regime has a support base, it is bereft of moral legitimacy due to rigged elections. Increasingly, the government also lacked performance legitimacy as the development narrative has been unraveling since summer 2022. Skyrocketing inflation and dwindling foreign reserves have put the government in a precarious situation. In the past decade, Hasina has increasingly relied on force, leading many international organizations, including the Varieties of Democracy Institute, to describe Bangladesh as an autocracy.

What is next for Hasina?

This week, the city streets in Dhaka were filled with cars and buses, and shops and offices are being opened once again. A semblance of normalcy may return in the short run. But the political ground has shifted, and the possibility of a return to the status quo is unlikely. As such, the country is standing at a crossroads.

The number of deaths and the extent of police actions have laid bare the fact that the ruling party and Hasina are entirely dependent on brute force. The upheaval appears to have shaken the regime’s sense of invincibility.

By creating a narrative that her government is facing “terrorists,” Hasina is trying to gain sympathy and tacit support from the international community, or at least their silence. The international community, however, should see through this charade and raise its voice against the gross violations of human rights by a regime that wants to stay in power without a popular mandate.

So, what’s next? Dubbed “Asia’s Iron Lady,” Hasina may double down on more persecution and arrests in an attempt to stem further unrest. This may lead to a closed autocracy in Bangladesh. Alternatively, as discontent continues to grow and demands for her resignation become louder, the country may erupt. 

Ali Riaz is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council South Asia Center and a distinguished professor at Illinois State University.

The post A violent crackdown has put Bangladesh at a crossroads appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, Russia has destroyed, damaged, or occupied approximately eighty percent of Ukraine’s electricity infrastructure. The situation has deteriorated sharply since March 2024 following a wave of Russian attacks on Ukrainian power plants that have devastated the country’s thermal capacity.

Ukrainian energy sector officials believe that during the coming winter season, peak demand could be above eighteen gigawatts, with average consumption likely to hover around fifteen gigawatts. However, remaining capacity is just over ten gigawatts. Unless significant new sources can be secured, Ukrainians will have to deal with extended blackouts amid subzero temperatures. This could lead to a humanitarian catastrophe and create new waves of refugees fleeing to the EU.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Looking ahead, there is no substitute for much needed air defenses to protect Ukraine’s remaining energy production capacity. However, additional steps from the Ukrainian authorities and Kyiv’s partners could help prepare the country for the coming winter season.

A July 2024 report funded by Germany’s Federal Ministry for Education and Research has identified a number of short-term measures that could be adopted swiftly to at least partially plug current shortfalls. Fast repairs of thermal and hydro plants together with the deployment of small-scale gas-fired turbines and solar panels could bring approximately 3.4GW of additional capacity online before temperatures start to drop. Donations of spare equipment are also absolutely vital, while Ukraine should intensify work with partners to establish stockpiles of components to rebuild generation capacity.

One of the most promising initiatives would involve increasing cross-border capacity with neighboring EU countries operating under the umbrella of the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E). Ukraine synchronized with the ENTSO-E grid in March 2022. Since then, Kyiv has increased cross-border capacity significantly, but there is still scope for a further expansion of interconnection capacity by approximately 0.3GW ahead of the coming winter season. This may be easier said than done, however.

Hungary and Slovakia are key exporters of electricity to Ukraine but are currently threatening to cut flows after Kyiv introduced a partial ban on the transit of Russian oil to refineries in the two EU countries. Budapest and Bratislava have long benefitted from cheap Russian energy imports and have faced accusations of acting in the Kremlin’s interests by blocking EU financial and military support to Ukraine. Both countries could now undermine efforts to boost energy exports to Ukraine.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

While there has not yet been any disruption to electricity flows from the EU into Ukraine, it is clearly in Kyiv’s interests to avoid disagreements where possible and to seek enhanced energy partnership with the country’s European neighbors. Closer cooperation with Slovakia and Romania in particular could pay major dividends. Indeed, recent research has found that transmission capacity could be more than doubled to five gigawatts. This could provide greater energy security, create jobs, and attract significant investments.

If completed, one existing power line project linking Slovakia and Ukraine could bring additional capacity of one gigawatt, enough to supply a million consumers. Work on this line began in 2013 and is seventy percent complete on the Ukrainian side, but nothing has yet been done on the Slovak side. Similarly, a proposed electricity power line linking Ukraine’s Pivdennoukrainska nuclear power plant to Romania would not only bring an additional one gigawatt of transfer capacity, but could also potentially end nearby Moldova’s dependence on electricity generated in the Kremlin-controlled Transnistria enclave.

Despite the numerous benefits offered by these projects, the Romanian and Slovakian governments remain unwilling to commit. This lack of political cooperation may contribute to a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine during the coming winter months that could spill over into neighboring countries. With the countdown to the cold season now already underway, there is no time to lose. Helping Ukraine to keep the lights on should be a priority for the whole of Europe.

Dr. Aura Sabadus is a senior energy journalist who writes about Eastern Europe, Turkey, and Ukraine for Independent Commodity Intelligence Services (ICIS), a London-based global energy and petrochemicals news and market data provider. Her views are her own.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jul 25, 2024

Putin is convinced he can outlast the West and win in Ukraine

By Mykola Bielieskov

The West’s collective fear of escalation and reluctance to commit to Ukrainian victory have convinced Putin that he can outlast his opponents and achieve an historic triumph in Ukraine, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert Jul 16, 2024

Russia’s retreat from Crimea makes a mockery of the West’s escalation fears

By Peter Dickinson

The Russian Navy’s quiet retreat from Crimea highlights the emptiness of Putin’s red lines and the self-defeating folly of Western escalation management, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Jul 30, 2024

Paris Olympics: Ukrainian dedicates medal to athletes killed by Russia

By Mark Temnycky

Ukrainian fencing star Olga Kharlan has won the country’s first medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics and dedicated her medal to the Ukrainian athletes “who couldn’t be here because they were killed by Russia,” writes Mark Temnycky .

Conflict France

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Europe can do more to help Ukraine counter Russia’s energy attacks appeared first on Atlantic Council.

US President Joe Biden confirmed his support for the supply of F-16s in August 2023, but subsequent progress was slow. Training for Ukrainian pilots and ground crews has taken up to nine months, with an already technically complex and demanding process reportedly further complicated by language barriers. There have also been significant obstacles to identifying and preparing Ukrainian airbases with suitable facilities and adequate defenses.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The F-16 models that Ukraine has now begun to receive are a clear step up from the Soviet-era jets inherited from the USSR, boasting superior radar capabilities and longer range. At the same time, Ukraine’s F-16s should not be viewed as a game-changing weapon in the war with Russia.

One obvious issue is quantity. Ukraine has so far only received a handful of F-16s, with a total of 24 jets expected to arrive by the end of 2024. To put this number into context, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has stated in recent weeks that in order to effectively counter Russian air power, his country would require a fleet of 128 F-16 jets. So far, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands have committed to supply Ukraine with eighty F-16s, but there is no clear time frame for deliveries or for the training of additional pilots.

Ukraine’s fledgling F-16 fleet will likely have access to a limited selection of weapons, with partner countries currently pledging to provide a number of short-range munitions. It remains unclear whether Kyiv can count on longer range strike capabilities, despite recent reports that the US has agreed to arm Ukrainian F-16s with American-made missiles and other advanced weapons. The effectiveness of Ukraine’s new jets will also be constrained by restrictions on the use of Western weapons against targets inside Russia.

The limited number of F-16s in Ukraine means that these new arrivals will initially be deployed primarily to strengthen the country’s air defenses. The jets will considerably enhance Ukraine’s ability to prevent Russian pilots entering Ukrainian air space, and can also target Russian cruise missiles in flight. This is particularly important as Russia has recently demonstrated its growing ability to bypass existing surface-to-air defense systems and strike civilian infrastructure targets across Ukraine.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Ukraine’s F-16s enter service in what is an extremely challenging operating environment, with Russia’s sophisticated battlefield air defenses likely to make any combat support roles extremely risky. Acknowledging these difficulties, Ukraine’s commander in chief Oleksandr Syrskiy recently stated that the country’s F-16s would operate at a distance of at least forty kilometers from the front.

Another key challenge will be protecting Ukrainian F-16s on the ground against Russian attempts to destroy them with ballistic missiles. The Kremlin has made no secret of the fact that the jets are priority targets that will be hunted with particular enthusiasm. The Ukrainian Air Force will have to adapt quickly in order to counter this threat, and must rely on a combination of Patriot air defenses, decoy F-16s, and frequent airfield changes.

While the long-awaited arrival of F-16s in Ukraine has sparked considerable excitement and provided Ukrainians with a welcome morale boost, these new jets are not a wonder weapon that can change the course of the war. Instead, Ukraine’s small fleet of F-16s will bolster the country’s air defenses, helping to protect Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure from Russian bombardment.

Over the coming year, Ukraine will face the task of gradually integrating and expanding its F-16 fleet. Based on past experience of Western weapons deliveries, Kyiv can expect to receive additional munitions, and may also eventually be given the green light to strike some categories of military targets inside Russia. This would open up a range of offensive options that could change the battlefield dynamics of the war in Ukraine’s favor. For now, though, the biggest change is likely to be in terms of enhanced security for Ukraine’s civilian population.

Mykola Bielieskov is a research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and a senior analyst at Ukrainian NGO “Come Back Alive.” The views expressed in this article are the author’s personal position and do not reflect the opinions or views of NISS or Come Back Alive.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jun 12, 2024

Ukraine is making the Russian occupation of Crimea untenable

By Olivia Yanchik

Ukraine’s growing air strike capabilities are decimating Russian air defenses in Crimea and making the occupation of the peninsula increasingly untenable, writes Olivia Yanchik.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Jul 25, 2024

Putin is convinced he can outlast the West and win in Ukraine

By Mykola Bielieskov

The West’s collective fear of escalation and reluctance to commit to Ukrainian victory have convinced Putin that he can outlast his opponents and achieve an historic triumph in Ukraine, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert Jul 23, 2024

Putin accused of jailing US journalists as ‘bargaining chips’ for prisoner swap

By Mercedes Sapuppo

Russian dictator Vladimir Putin has been accused of using American journalists as bargaining chips after jailing US reporters Evan Gershkovich and Alsu Kurmasheva on dubious charges ahead of a possible prisoner swap, writes Mercedes Sapuppo.

Conflict Freedom and Prosperity

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Ukraine’s new F-16 jets won’t defeat Russia but will enhance air defenses appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Click to jump to an expert analysis:

William F. Wechsler: With the parties eager to avoid a wider war, the primary danger remains miscalculation

Kirsten Fontenrose: The Gaza conflict is already spilling over into a regional war

Jonathan Panikoff: The strikes were a tactical success for Israel. But the strategic impact will depend on Iran’s response.

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib: Watch for a split within Hamas, and pressure on Iran and Hezbollah for a calibrated retaliation 

Beth Sanner: Israel boldly threads a needle

Thomas Warrick: Haniyeh’s death will not change Hamas’s goal of destroying Israel

Danny Citrinowicz: Even if the current escalation stops here, the next one is around the corner

Alex Plitsas: The difference between these strikes and Israel’s Iran strike in April

Holly Dagres: The attacks reveal—yet again—the Islamic Republic’s intelligence weaknesses

Nour Dabboussi: Dark clouds now hang over Beirut

With the parties eager to avoid a wider war, the primary danger remains miscalculation

It was a bad day to be an Iranian proxy. From Tehran’s perspective, the significance wasn’t only the importance of the targets—Hamas’s Haniyeh, Lebanese Hezbollah’s Shukur, and Kataib Hezbollah’s drone bases—but the locations, the near simultaneous timing, and what they demonstrate about the reach of Israel and the United States.

Israel was able to find, fix, and finish Shukur in Beirut, in a building close to Hezbollah’s Shura Council. It was able to do the same (presumably, as Jerusalem hasn’t confirmed this action) to Haniyeh in Tehran, at his state-provided residence while he was visiting to attend the inauguration of Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian. And the US strikes in Iraq, the first since February, took place south of Baghdad against a key element of the Iranian-backed umbrella organization Islamic Resistance in Iraq, which has taken credit for attacks on US forces and on Israel.

Together, the United States and Israel have demonstrated, once again, their impressive intelligence and strike capacities in places that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) undoubtedly has put on the top of their list to defend. It is also notable that senior US officials are currently in Riyadh to discuss US defensive maritime and air operations against the Houthis, another key Tehran terrorist partner whose recent deadly drone attack in Tel Aviv triggered a direct Israeli counterattack in Hodeidah. I hope these talks are intended to gain Saudi cooperation for a wider US special operations campaign to target Houthi leadership. This all follows, of course, Israel’s successful killing in April of senior Quds Force leader Mohammad Reza Zahedi in what was purported to be the Iranian consulate in Damascus, an attack that prompted Iran to launch an unprecedented, large-scale, direct strike on Israel less than two weeks later. If it were not for the US-led, region-wide air defenses, that Iranian attack would have killed a large number of Israelis.

Of course, Iran and its proxies have promised to respond to these attacks once again. But as I have described previously, the current environment in the wake of Hamas’s terrorist attacks on October 7 is one that unfortunately advantages the Iranian regime. Indeed, Israel’s actions can be seen as attempts to degrade this advantage. From Tehran’s perspective, they would thus be foolhardy to intentionally provoke the kind of regional war that would reverse this progress, especially one that risks involving the United States. Therefore, just as it was predictable that Israel would respond to Hezbollah’s attack against civilians in Majdal Shams in a targeted fashion rather than launching a full-scale war in Lebanon, I suspect Tehran will also respond in a manner that it believes will avoid a regional war. The primary danger today therefore remains more a question of miscalculation than of intent. 

—William F. Wechsler is the senior director of Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council. His most recent US government position was deputy assistant secretary of defense for special operations and combating terrorism.

The Gaza conflict is already spilling over into a regional war

The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh should surprise no one other than Iran’s Air Defense Force. Israel was clear on October 8 that it would seek to eliminate Hamas leadership anywhere in the world. Israel has not targeted the group’s political leadership in Doha out of respect for Qatar’s role as mediator, at the behest of the United States. Traveling to Tehran to attend Pezeshkian’s inauguration was a known risk. 

One thing is certain: This assassination will not alter Hamas military leader Yahya Sinwar’s calculus. In fact, when news of the assassination first broke, I heard questions among Palestinians about whether this was an inside job orchestrated by Sinwar to eliminate a colleague who might sell him out. It would not be the first Sinwar assassination of his own political leaders. Sinwar likely reads this probable Israeli operation as confirmation that Israel cannot reach him, since he is higher on the target list than was Haniyeh. Sinwar will be as unenthusiastic now about making a hostage deal with Israel as he was before Haniyeh’s death. Haniyeh and his political ilk have not figured into Sinwar’s calculus at any point, and were rarely looped in on it.

Smart questions are being asked after this event. Will it force the new Iranian president to abandon his reformist tendencies and move to the right? This depends on how “reformist” you believe he is; Israel’s assessment is “not very.” Pezeshkian’s statements affirming allegiance with Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis immediately after his election seem to support this assessment, as do videos of him warmly embracing Haniyeh this week in Tehran. But we can expect ongoing debate about whether coming hardline decisions out of his office were inevitable or colored by the assassination. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for his part, has threatened revenge against Israel.

Another question being asked: Does this assassination in Tehran indicate that Israel can reach all of its adversaries inside Iran? Mulling this over will unnerve IRGC and Iranian political leadership and could influence decision making. It will make Palestinian Islamic Jihad leader Ziyad al-Nakhalah wonder why he is alive. It will make Abdulmalik al-Houthi in Yemen glad he did not attend. In the United States, calls from some corners for Doha to expel Hamas political leadership were countered with the argument that it would not be as easy to track and monitor them if they relocated to Iran. This remains comparatively true, but the assassination of Haniyeh makes the argument almost moot.

A third question under discussion: How will this event, on the heels of the assassination of Hezbollah senior military advisor Fuad Shukur, impact Hezbollah’s strategy? Shukur’s death was in retaliation for a strike on a dozen Syrian Druze children that Hezbollah was loath to claim. The group may have wished to consider the case closed, a tit for tat. The strike on Haniyeh will put pressure on Hezbollah from their peers inside Gaza and Tehran to bundle the two assassinations and retaliate for both. Hezbollah would be wise to analyze the two events separately, focus bilaterally, recall Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s statement of regret after the 2006 war with Israel, and consider their own interests. 

The fourth question resurfacing is whether the conflict in Gaza is now spilling over and threatening to engulf the region. Attacks on Israel from as far as Iran and Yemen as well as Syria and Iraq, the quick action of regional states such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan in preventing further loss of life in such attacks, and creeping escalation despite the tireless diplomatic energy of Egypt and Qatar all indicate that we are already at the point of regional spillover. It is the interests of the parties in the conflict themselves that have dictated the ebb and flow of escalation thus far.

—Kirsten Fontenrose is a nonresident fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative in the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. She was previously the senior director for the Gulf at the National Security Council.

The strikes were a tactical success for Israel. But the strategic impact will depend on Iran’s response.

In a matter of twenty-four hours, Israel killed not one but two of the most senior officials in the so-called Axis of Resistance. The deaths of both Hezbollah senior military leader and Jihad Council member, Fuad Shukur, and Hamas’s political leader, Ismael Haniyeh, led to Israel having its most impactful day of tactical successes in months. But tactical success does not always beget strategic victory, and Israel’s short- and long-term strategy remains unclear, likely to be driven in part by the answers to two key questions.

Will Iran independently respond or seek to attach itself to whatever retaliation Hamas and Hezbollah undertake? For Iran, which always prioritizes regime stability above everything else, it might see the timing and targets of the assassination as an opportunity to claim retaliation while foisting the actual kinetic response off on Hezbollah and Hamas. This would be the traditional pathway of response and is probably the most likely one. But two potentially interceding considerations may challenge Iran in taking this path.

First, Haniyeh’s assassination happened in Iran. In April, following Israel’s killing of senior IRGC officials in Damascus, Iran decided it had to respond directly, opening a new stage in the shadow war between Iran and Israel. In this case, it was not an Iranian official killed, but Iran may decide that it has to respond itself in order to not fall into a deterrence deficit against Israel.

Second, Haniyeh was in Tehran to attend the Pezeshkian’s inauguration. The new president was viewed as the “reformist” in the election and lacks the depth of ties to Iran’s security establishment and IRGC that some of the other candidates had. Ultimately, it will be the supreme leader who signs off on any response. But Pezeshkian may decide, one day into his term, that he needs to align with whatever response the IRGC prefers or risk diminished standing and immediate tensions with one of the most important power bases in the Iranian government.

What does this mean for the hostage negotiations? The killing of Haniyeh, one of the primary negotiators for Hamas, does not mean the chances of a hostage release and temporary ceasefire are over, but they will almost certainly be delayed—again. Haniyeh was negotiating from Doha, but decision making power has always rested with Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader in Gaza and the mastermind behind the October 7 terrorist attack. That reality does not change because of the assassination.

Sinwar has long calculated that for Hamas, continued civilian deaths is ultimately a net positive, and has been more reluctant to agree to a ceasefire than others. But the conditions on the ground in Gaza don’t shift because of Haniyeh’s assassination. Hamas fighters are reported to be exhausted and desperate for the reprieve a ceasefire might bring.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, meanwhile, has continuously changed the terms of a ceasefire but has always been clear since immediately after October 7 that Israel will hunt and kill the leaders of Hamas responsible for the attack. The prime minister may view a byproduct of Haniyeh’s death to be that it provides him sufficient political goodwill to make a deal that the ultranationalists in his coalition continue to oppose.

Iran’s, Hezbollah’s, and Hamas’s responses will drive the direction of the Middle East for the coming weeks and months: a reversion to current tensions or toward a potential broader regional war.

—Jonathan Panikoff is the director of the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative. He is a former deputy national intelligence officer for the Near East at the US National Intelligence Council.

Watch for a split within Hamas, and pressure on Iran and Hezbollah for a calibrated retaliation

There is no doubt that the assassination of Haniyeh, Hamas’s head of the Politburo and chief political figure, will impact the war in Gaza and the entire region in numerous ways. Here are six thoughts on this significant event: 

1. Israel could have killed Haniyeh months ago but didn’t want to compromise its relationship with Qatar, which remains the chief mediator with the Islamist group. Plus, the presence of the Al Udeid Air Base, the largest US military installation in the region, in Qatar prevents Israel from carrying out political assassinations in the Gulf Emirate. That’s why when Haniyeh entered Iran, which is known to be compromised by Israeli intelligence assets, and following the attack on the Golan Heights, an opportunity presented itself to take him out. After this assassination, Hamas is unlikely to move its headquarters out of Qatar, which affords the group unparalleled safety. 
2. The assassination was likely ordered to coincide with the strike against Hezbollah’s senior commander in Beirut’s suburbs hours earlier to send a strong signal that Israel could fight on two fronts simultaneously. However, Netanyahu’s government may have intended for the assassination to pressure Hamas’s senior leadership into accepting a hostage deal and ending the war in Gaza, given the limits to how much more can be done on the ground in the coastal enclave. This is especially so following the assassination of senior military commanders in the Gaza Strip, including Marwan Issa and probably Mohammed Deif—not to mention the assassination of Saleh al-Arouri in January in Lebanon. Yahya Sinwar remains the only major figure still out of Israel’s reach. 
3. This event will likely generate pressure on Hamas, even if the group doesn’t capitulate or change its stance immediately, to end the war and seek to preserve what remains of its political structures. The group is weakened militarily despite not being outright defeated. However, it is interested in self-preservation, and the group’s political wing may view this event as a monumental shift that necessitates ending the war quickly to ensure the continuity of Hamas’s political relevance, which requires the survival of its senior political figures. In the months following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel, and during negotiations, Haniyeh was a mere messenger and courier of communication that was sent to Sinwar in Gaza. This means that Haniyeh’s actual influence over Hamas’s military wing was quite limited. The assassination will likely widen the gap between the political and military wings of Hamas, both of whom have divergent interests that are increasingly disconnected. 
4. Haniyeh’s assassination may expedite political reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, integrating the group into the Palestine Liberation Organization and offering it a political off-ramp that could save it from its trouble. While the agreement last week in China is part of a long series of attempts to reconcile Hamas and Fatah, the assassination may finally force Hamas to feel unprecedented pressure that finally bridges the seemingly irreconcilable differences between it and its chief political rival. 
5. Iran will likely respond to the assassination in a manner similar to its missile and drone strikes against Israel in April. Haniyeh’s death mere hours after the inauguration of the new Iranian president on Iranian soil is a huge, humiliating blow to the Islamic Republic’s prowess and prestige. There’s no way that the IRGC will not respond directly or in a dramatic fashion. Iran is unlikely to launch an all-out confrontation with Israel over Haniyeh’s assassination. However, Tehran has no choice but to attempt to restore its deterrence capability, fearing that its people and regional proxies will start doubting the country’s power. For Pezeshkian, his tenure begins with a major embarrassment and security incident that forces him to take a hardline position toward Israel and the United States. He’ll quickly lose whatever “moderate” margins he was hoping to operate within, especially as he vowed to remove Western sanctions, which are crippling the nation’s economy. Pezeshkian will have to toe the line of hardliners seeking revenge and retaliation, greatly frustrating his efforts to usher in new geopolitical opportunities for his nation. 
6. Hezbollah is facing a difficult choice to either return to the pre-Majdal Shams strike established rules of engagement with Israel or escalate to retaliate for the strike on Beirut’s suburb and avenge the assassination of Haniyeh. The group does not want an escalation that triggers an all-out war but will nevertheless face immense pressure to respond to a significant slap in the face of its partner Hamas and chief sponsor Iran.

—Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib is a nonresident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. He is an American writer and analyst who grew up in Gaza City.

Israel boldly threads a needle

Israel has carefully calibrated blows against its main adversaries in the region in the past week, with an assist (although not intended as such) of the United States in its own strike against Iranian-backed proxies in Iraq. Israel is executing deterrence in its most bold and raw form, and may have done so without the full blessing, or even foreknowledge, of the United States. This could have long-term implications for the bilateral relationship. But for now, the question is whether Israel has calibrated correctly in deterring Iran and its proxies or if they have set off an escalatory cycle. The answer to that cannot be known until Iran’s supreme leader decides on Tehran’s next steps.

The target selections and methods speak volumes about Israel’s capabilities and the intended effects:

Beirut: The strike that killed Fuad Shukur not only demonstrates that Israel has the intelligence and capability to conduct a precision strike on Hezbollah’s senior leadership on its home turf, but it also removes its main operational commander, which could affect Hezbollah’s military command-and-control in the near term. Israel seems to have conducted this strike against the wishes of the United States. But because Shukur played a central role in the attack on the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, (which killed more than three hundred people including 241 US soldiers) it is impossible for the United States to object.

Tehran: The audacious strike on Haniyah in Tehran is part of Netanyahu’s goal of decapitating Hamas’s leadership. More importantly, it clearly establishes, following Iran’s retaliatory strike on Israel and Israel’s counterstrike inside Iran, the new normal of direct strikes between Israel and Iran. Iran’s failure to prevent this will rightfully terrify the regime, but also force it to respond in some way. That said, the statement from the Iranian United Nations mission that it will respond with special operations suggests that we will not see a missile attack on Israel as we did in April. The strike also exposes Netanyahu’s willingness to forge ahead with his main goal—deterring Iran—even at the expense of a hostage-ceasefire deal, Washington’s key objective as a first step toward its broader goals in the region. 

—Beth Sanner is a member of the Atlantic Council’s Iran Strategy Project advisory committee and a former US deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration.

Haniyeh’s death will not change Hamas’s goal of destroying Israel

Israel’s strike on Haniyeh is a strategic gamble. While many Israelis will take grim satisfaction at the death of a leader of the group that organized the October 7 attack that killed 1,200 Israelis and started a war that has killed almost 40,000 Gazans, previous attacks on Hamas’s top leadership like Ahmed Yassin in 2004 have not changed Hamas’s intent to destroy the state of Israel. The strike will almost certainly derail ceasefire-for-hostages talks for weeks, at best, so the short-term consequences could be considerable.

The medium-term consequences for how the war ends are likely smaller, however. Israel is determined that Hamas not have a role in postwar governance in Gaza, and Hamas has been angling for a role that preserves its ability to rebuild itself militarily into a Hezbollah-like military power without the burden of civil governance. Hamas’s military leaders are more important to the group’s strategy than its exiled political leadership like Haniyeh.

—Thomas S. Warrick is a senior fellow and director of the Future of DHS Project at the Atlantic Council. He served in the Department of State from 1997-2007 and as deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism policy at the US Department of Homeland Security from 2008 to 2019.

Even if the current escalation stops here, the next one is around the corner

The recent assassinations of Shukur (Hajj Mahsan) in Beirut and Haniyeh in Tehran might lead to a strong reaction from Iran and especially Hezbollah, which likely see these assassinations as crossing all red lines by Israel and in complete contradiction to the rules of the game between Israel and the Axis of Resistance. 

These reactions may drive the parties, despite their reluctance, into a regional war in light of the desire of Iran and Hezbollah to restore the deterrence equation vis-à-vis Israel and to prevent similar acts from It in the future.

Israel’s ability to thwart the expected attacks by the axis elements, along with Israel’s relatively measured response to these reactions, may lead to the containment of the current event. It is still important to remember that without a ceasefire in Gaza, even if the current escalation is prevented, the next escalation is around the corner. Very tense days lie ahead.

—Danny Citrinowicz is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs and a member of the Atlantic Council’s Iran Strategy Project working group. He previously served for twenty-five years in a variety of command positions units in Israel Defense Intelligence.

The difference between these strikes and Israel’s Iran strike in April

Yesterday, Israel launched lethal strikes against Haniyeh in Tehran, Iran, following his attendance of Iran’s presidential inauguration, and Shukur, architect of the 1983 bombings of the US Marine Corps barracks that killed 241 US servicemembers and French barracks that killed fifty-eight French servicemembers. The strikes served several purposes: decapitating Hamas and Hezbollah leadership as well as making it clear that Israel will find and eliminate its enemies anywhere in the world, including in nonpermissive environments such as Iran. The strikes likely eliminated a false sense of security for leaders in the Iran threat network of proxy forces and were also meant to reestablish deterrence against attacking Israel. The strikes also were a response to a recent Hezbollah attack that targeted a soccer field in northern Israel and killed twelve Israeli children and adolescents.

While still measured, Israel’s strikes were stronger than the retaliatory strike Israel launched against Iran in April, which had followed Iran’s failed attack on Israel involving several hundred one-way attack drones and missiles. At that time, Israel chose to respond in a way that communicated that Israel was capable of evading Iranian defenses and striking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel did so through a missile strike at a single site in Isfahan, home of Iran’s nuclear program, that didn’t cause significant damage but made it clear that Israel could do so if and when it wants. While the April strike was more symbolic and meant to convey a deterrence message, the strikes in the last two days decapitated senior leaders in the threat network attacking Israel.

 —Alex Plitsas is a nonresident senior fellow with the Middle East Programs’ N7 Initiative and former chief of sensitive activities for special operations and combating terrorism in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The attacks reveal—yet again—the Islamic Republic’s intelligence weaknesses

In Karaj, a city west of Tehran, two boxes of pastries were placed on a street corner with signs saying these were sweets to celebrate the news of Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination in Tehran. For anti-regime Iranians, inside Iran and in the diaspora, this news was much welcomed because of the Islamic Republic’s material and financial backing of Hamas. For years, Iranians have been honing in on the reality that the people’s money is being spent on proxies abroad, as noted in the popular chant, “No to Gaza, no to Lebanon, our lives for Iran.”

Haniyeh’s assassination, presumably by Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, was yet another major blow to the intelligence apparatuses of the Islamic Republic, which have repeatedly failed to prevent sabotage, assassinations, and cyber attacks on Iranian soil. In 2022, IRGC intelligence chief Hossein Taeb was sacked, in part because he failed to thwart those very events during his ten-year tenure. Some officials have pointed to the fact that the intelligence apparatuses have invested too much in domestic “threats,” in other words suppressing civil society and arresting and imprisoning dissidents.

While Haniyeh was technically the second member of a terrorist organization killed in Iran by Mossad—the first being Abu Muhammad al-Masri, al-Qaeda’s second-highest leader, in 2020—the fact that this happened while on a visit for Pezeshkian’s inauguration sends a big message about Israel’s ability to infiltrate Iran at a moment of its choosing, even if that moment is during heightened security for more than one hundred foreign delegations.

—Holly Dagres is editor of the Atlantic Council’s IranSource and MENASource blogs, and a nonresident senior fellow with the Middle East Programs. She also curates The Iranist newsletter.

Dark clouds now hang over Beirut

I left Lebanon less than a week ago—it was brimming with life as it always does during summertime, with an airport bustling with tourists and restaurants filled with long-awaited expats family reunions, bringing a light of hope during these somber times. Yet, since yesterday, and for the first time since the region’s conflict, serious anguish has started to fill the air of Beirut.

In the aftermath Israel’s assassination of Shukur in Hezbollah’s heartland, Haret Hreik, on Tuesday, Lebanon has maintained its official position of not wanting war with Israel by calling for the full implementation of UN Resolution 1701, which it reiterated in a letter of concern to the UN Security Council. Despite asking to give peace a chance, the country’s caretaker foreign minister also announced that “there’s going to be retaliation,” which he said he hoped would not be met by an Israeli response. With a quasi-functioning Lebanese government under Hezbollah’s influence over military, political, and security institutions, these contradictory statements do little more than reveal the government’s frailty. 

Ultimately, the intensity, timing, and nature of this declared retaliation remains at the discretion of Iran and under the execution of Hezbollah. Lebanese opinion about such a decision seems divided between those who support Hezbollah’s rhetoric and those who want to avoid any escalatory action that could take the country back to 2006, when Hezbollah and Israel fought a destructive thirty-four-day war.

Following Israel’s assassination of Haniyeh, Iran’s supreme leader gave an order to strike Israel directly, a statement which, in the eyes of many, gives the green light for its Lebanese proxy to execute a direct response. 

Hezbollah’s response will be critical for its leadership to maintain credibility in light of its repeated pledge to respond to any Israeli aggression on Lebanon. Still, such a response will need to be carefully calibrated. A direct response by Hezbollah that, for example, hits important Israeli military sites might lead to an all-out war, which the group has been trying to avoid, despite its repeated claims of being ready for such a scenario.  

Alternatively, Hezbollah could aim for a more diluted attack that might avenge the killing of Shukur while also containing further escalation. But such a response threatens to undermine the group’s deterrence strategy; after all, this isn’t the first time Hezbollah is being cornered to respond to an Israeli political assassination of a high-level target on Lebanese soil. Earlier in January, the group retaliated against the killing of Hamas leader Saleh al-Arouri in Beirut by firing rockets into Israel, and since then, Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, has vowed that “any assassination on Lebanese territory targeting a Lebanese, Palestinian, Iranian, or Syrian . . . [would] be met with a strong reaction.” Cognizant of this dilemma, Hezbollah is tactically limited.

The international community may very well get additional clarity on what Hezbollah’s response will entail during Nasrallah’s speech Thursday at Shukur’s funeral. In the meantime, amid growing fears of what looms ahead, Beirut International Airport has started to grapple with frantic travelers again; yet this time, facing delayed or canceled flights as they try to return back.

—Nour Dabboussi is the assistant director to the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs.

The post Experts react: Two top Hamas and Hezbollah leaders have been killed. What’s next for Israel, Iran, and the war in Gaza? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Two days, two earth-shaking strikes. This morning, an air strike killed Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, one day after a rocket strike killed Hezbollah commander Fouad Shukur in Beirut. Israel reportedly launched both strikes as it continues its response to Hamas’s terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, and an apparent Hezbollah attack that killed a dozen children in the Israel-controlled Golan Heights last week. Following Haniyeh’s death, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said that “it is our duty to take revenge.” Is a wider war next? And how will these events affect the ongoing war in Gaza? Our experts explain below.

• Jonathan Panikoff (@jpanikoff): Director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs and a former US deputy national intelligence officer for the Near East
• Beth Sanner: Member of the Atlantic Council’s Iran Strategy Project advisory committee and a former US deputy director of national intelligence for mission integration
• Ahmed F. Alkhatib (@afalkhatib): Nonresident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative and an American writer and analyst who grew up in Gaza City

Behind the attacks

• “In a matter of twenty-four hours, Israel killed not one but two of the most senior officials in the so-called ‘Axis of Resistance,’” Jonathan tells us. It is Israel’s “most impactful day of tactical successes in months.” But, he adds, “tactical success does not always beget strategic victory, and Israel’s short- and long-term strategy remains unclear.”
• Beth says the “audacious strike” on Haniyeh is part of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aim of “decapitating Hamas’s leadership.” But “more importantly, it clearly establishes, following Iran’s retaliatory strike on Israel and Israel’s counterstrike inside Iran, the new normal of direct strikes between Israel and Iran.”
• Qatar’s prime minister, who has been mediating negotiations between Israel and Hamas, denounced the “assassination” of the Qatar-based Haniyeh. Ahmed believes that “Israel could have killed Haniyeh months ago, but didn’t want to compromise the relationship with Qatar.” But when Haniyeh traveled to Iran, “which is known to be compromised by Israeli intelligence assets,” Ahmed notes, “opportunity presented itself to take him out.”

Subscribe to Fast Thinking email alerts

Sign up to receive rapid insight in your inbox from Atlantic Council experts on global events as they unfold.

• Email*
• Email
  This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Implications for Gaza

• Haniyeh was one of the primary negotiators for Hamas, Jonathan notes. His assassination “does not mean the chances of a hostage release and temporary ceasefire are over, but they will almost certainly be delayed—again.” More important, he adds, is that the ultimate decision on any hostage deal and ceasefire rests with Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader in Gaza and the mastermind behind the October 7 terrorist attack. “That reality does not change because of the assassination.”
• Ahmed expects the killing to exacerbate rifts between Hamas’s political and military wings. “The group’s political wing may view this event as a monumental shift that necessitates ending the war quickly to ensure the continuity of Hamas’s political relevance,” he tells us. But Haniyeh had “limited” influence over Sinwar—acting as “a mere messenger” during negotiations.

The view from Tehran

• “Iran’s failure to prevent this will rightfully terrify the regime, but also force it to respond in some way,” Beth says. The statement from Iran’s mission to the United Nations that Tehran will respond with “special operations,” she says, “suggests that we will not see a missile attack on Israel as we did in April.”
• For Haniyeh to be killed on Iranian soil just after attending the inauguration of Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is “a huge, humiliating blow to the Islamic Republic’s prowess and prestige,” Ahmed tells us. Expect a “dramatic” response from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), but not “an all-out confrontation with Israel,” Ahmed adds, as Tehran will “attempt to restore its deterrence capability, fearing that its people and regional proxies will start doubting the country’s power.”
• Pezeshkian “was viewed as the ‘reformist’ in the election and lacks the depth of ties to Iran’s security establishment and IRGC that some of the other candidates had,” Jonathan notes. While the supreme leader will decide any response, he adds, Pezeshkian may decide that “he needs to align with whatever response the IRGC prefers or risk diminished standing and immediate tensions with one of the most important power bases in the Iranian government.”

What to look for next

• Israel’s strike, which Beth notes may have come “without the full blessing, or even foreknowledge, of the United States,” could have “long-term implications” for the two countries’ relationship. “But for now, the question is whether Israel has calibrated correctly in deterring Iran and its proxies or if it has set off an escalatory cycle.”
• The fastest escalation, Ahmed says, is likely to come between Hezbollah and Israel. “While escalation on multiple fronts is inevitable,” he adds, “all players will be carefully assessing their options and avoiding risky moves that greatly destabilize their power, gains, and positions.”
• Jonathan reminds us that Iran “always prioritizes regime stability above everything else.” In this case, that means Tehran “might see the timing and targets of the assassination as an opportunity to claim retaliation while foisting the actual kinetic response off on Hezbollah and Hamas,” Jonathan says. “Iran’s, Hezbollah’s, and Hamas’s responses will drive the direction of the Middle East for the coming weeks and months.”

The post Will the killings of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders lead to a wider war? appeared first on Atlantic Council.

NATO has established its place among the most successful political and military alliances in history—despite facing very challenging circumstances since its founding—by dint of solidarity, unity of purpose, and resolve.

Today, allies are presented with challenges such as increasing global systemic rivalry and a complex, interconnected, and unstable security landscape, which threaten Euro-Atlantic security. Russia, as the most significant and direct threat for NATO, has been undermining Euro-Atlantic security since its invasion of Georgia in 2008, and its aggression has since expanded in the form of its invasion of Ukraine. In addition, terrorism—in all forms and manifestations—persists. The topic has been on NATO’s agenda since the adoption of the Alliance’s 1991 Strategic Concept and it (specifically, the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States) was the reason the Alliance decided to invoke Article 5 for the first and only time in history. Since 2001, nonstate actors have continued to lodge a series of terror attacks on a number of allies such as the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Belgium as well as Turkey, which still grapples with terror attacks from the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), as well as the latter’s Syrian leg.

NATO allies must maintain their resolve and remain vigilant and ready to face challenges from any direction. Defense is not cheap, and it requires constant attention, care, and investment.

Since joining the Alliance seventy-two years ago, Turkey has contributed to NATO’s security in various theaters of instability and conflicts. Turkey was a bulwark against the Soviet threat in the Cold War period, and it continued to spend significantly on defense, sacrificing the opportunity to spend more elsewhere. For example, Turkey dedicated a level of forces and capabilities NATO in that period that was significant for the Alliance’s security and reduced pressure on allies in Central and Eastern Europe.

Turkey, because it continued to spend on defense, did not benefit from the post-Cold War “peace dividend” to the extent that European NATO allies enjoyed during the early 1990s when the unifying vision to establish a belt of security, stability, and prosperity that included Russia (extending from Vancouver to Vladivostok) was first launched by the United States. During this period, Turkey spent around or above 4 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, while most other allies saw their commitments wane over time.

In the immediate post-Cold War era, Turkey faced challenges from nearby regional conflicts in the Gulf, the Balkans, and the South Caucasus. Yet this conflictual period did not stop Turkey from contributing to NATO efforts designed to protect peace and stability throughout the Euro-Atlantic area and beyond. Turkey actively took part in NATO operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo, and it also made significant contributions to the International Security Assistance Forces in Afghanistan, which was followed by the Resolute Support Mission.

Today, Turkey has similarly consistently supported NATO efforts to enhance peace, stability, and prosperity in the Euro-Atlantic area, even despite divergent perceptions in allied capitals about Turkey’s approach to recent global challenges such as Russia’s war in Ukraine and the war in Gaza.

For example, Turkey did join its NATO allies in approving the most recent NATO Strategic Concept, adopted at Madrid in 2022, that identified Russia and terrorism (along with other regional and global challenges) as threats for the Alliance. Turkey is also set to play a pivotal role in the implementation of regional plans launched at the Vilnius summit last year which are dedicated to the defense of Southern Europe against the pervasive challenges in its immediate vicinity.

Turkey’s role in Washington summit outcomes

With the Russian threat looming over European security, it is high time to strengthen the European pillar of NATO. Allies at the NATO summit acknowledged the need to close the gaps between Europe’s defense needs and its capabilities. This includes, as highlighted at the Washington summit, expanding European allies’ defense manufacturing capacity in a coherent, complementary, and interoperable manner. To achieve interoperability will also require Turkey and NATO to find a lasting solution to the spat over the current Turkish administration’s decision in 2017 to procure the S-400 Russian missile system. While expanding capacity, the allies must take into account both the Alliance’s defense priorities and Ukraine’s needs as it continues to face up against Russian aggression.

Turkey can play a crucial role in helping expand the Alliance’s defense capacity through its contributions to collective deterrence and defense. Capabilities being produced by the growing Turkish defense industry cannot be sidelined in the Alliance’s endeavor to enhance deterrence and defense and maintain a technological edge against both state and nonstate adversaries. This will require result-oriented consultations within NATO and especially between European allies and Turkey, conducted with renewed vigor and mutual resolve. To this end, it is high time for the European Union (EU) to revisit its policies that engage only EU members in enhancing Europe’s defense capacity. Today’s challenges require collaboration with non-EU countries, such as Turkey, to the fullest extent.

With terrorism plaguing Turkey’s neighborhood, and with the issue remaining high on Turkey’s agenda, Ankara likely welcomed allies’ commitment (as outlined in the Washington Summit Declaration) to “counter, deter, defend, and respond to threats and challenges posed by terrorists and terrorist organizations based on a combination of prevention, protection, and denial measures with determination, resolve, and in solidarity.” If allies align their perceptions of the threat to Turkey posed by the PKK and its affiliates by including, for instance, deterrence and defensive measures against the threat in the regional defense plan for Southern Europe, this would help ease the friction on this major issue and help erase the Turkish society’s negative perceptions of NATO allies.

The Washington Summit Declaration also included a reference to the 1936 Montreux Convention. While some Turkish observers have oddly argued the reference is ill-intentioned, it is actually a major outcome for Turkey, as the allies reaffirmed their commitments to “regional efforts aimed at upholding security, safety, stability, and freedom of navigation in the Black Sea region.” The communiqué also welcomed the joint endeavor of three littoral allies (Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania) to launch the Black Sea Mine Countermeasures Task Group.

Finally, with the global order at stake—due to Russia’s aggression, China’s growing global influence, and threats to security including terrorism—it has become vitally important to maintain and increase cooperation with southern neighborhood countries. The Alliance recognized this importance at the Washington summit, when it committed to taking a new approach toward its “southern neighborhood.” As part of that approach, the NATO secretary general appointed a new special representative for the southern neighborhood to coordinate NATO’s efforts in that neighborhood. Turkey could play a positive role in improving ties between the Alliance and the southern neighborhood by leveraging the linguistic, kinship, religious, and cultural ties it has with other countries. Turkey could also mobilize opportunities that it has in being part of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Organization of Turkic States, and in working with the Gulf Cooperation Council and African Union.

The Alliance has once again proven its relevance and value in protecting and defending the Euro-Atlantic area. As it continues to work to keep the Euro-Atlantic area safe, secure, and stable, Turkey has an important role to play.

Mehmet Fatih Ceylan is a retired career ambassador with forty years of experience in international security and defense affairs. Formerly, he served in the Turkish Foreign Ministry and served as Turkey’s ambassador to NATO from 2013 to 2018.

The views expressed in TURKEYSource are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The post The role Turkey can play in NATO’s post-Washington summit aims appeared first on Atlantic Council.

To enhance the Alliance’s nuclear deterrence and counter Russia’s nuclear threats, the United States should expand nuclear sharing arrangements within NATO to allies such as Poland, Finland, and Romania. The United States should also expand the presence of medium-range US ground-based dual-capable missile systems in Europe. Connected to these changes, NATO should stop adhering to the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which is limiting the Alliance’s freedom and which Moscow has repeatedly violated. Only by expanding its approach to nuclear sharing can the Alliance adequately improve its deterrence posture and counter Russia’s nuclear blackmail.

A brief history of NATO nuclear sharing

The spread of nuclear weapons was a major concern at the dawn of the Cold War. In 1963, US President John F. Kennedy worried about “a world in which fifteen or twenty or twenty-five nations may have these weapons” within a decade. NATO’s current nuclear sharing program emerged in the 1960s as Washington sought to manage the proliferation of nuclear weapons and two other pressing challenges: bilateral relationships across Europe and the defense of Western European NATO allies. Of particular concern to the United States, its NATO allies, and the Soviet Union, was West Germany’s desire for some sort of access to the nuclear deterrent at the heart of NATO’s defense strategy.

US efforts originally focused on a “hardware” solution to this dilemma known as the Multilateral Force, which would have created a fleet carrying Polaris A-3 missiles under NATO command. But once Washington realized Soviet opposition to this arrangement would also kill the much-desired Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Johnson administration switched to a “software” approach based on training and consultation with allies—what is now referred to as “nuclear sharing” within NATO. Under this arrangement US B-61 nuclear weapons are stored in secure locations in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. The weapons are under US custody and control to maintain compliance with the NPT.

In the event of a nuclear war, a nuclear mission by NATO allies can only occur with explicit approval from NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group, along with authorization by the US president and UK prime minister. France remains outside the nuclear consultation mechanism with its own sovereign nuclear force.

Nuclear sharing today

NATO’s current nuclear sharing policy, which has been detailed in various publications, is based on layers encapsulated in the 2012 Deterrence and Defence Posture Review, the post-2012 NATO summit declarations, and the 2022 NATO Strategic Concept. The doctrine deliberately avoids specificity when it comes to qualifying circumstances for nuclear weapon use.

Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbas has prompted NATO to reconsider the Alliance’s previous inattention to its nuclear deterrent. The 2016 Warsaw Summit signaled this change, but despite the Alliance speaking more publicly about the nuclear issue and signaling more clearly about its nuclear exercise (Steadfast Noon), the bulk of the balancing efforts have focused on conventional forces. The problem with this, as Simond de Galbert and Jeffrey Rathke note, is that conventional parity is “unrealistic and costly” and perhaps even “escalatory.”

Making matters worse for NATO were Russia’s violations of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) in 2019. Although disputed by the Kremlin, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s reportedly deployed missiles (9M729) with a range of 2,500 kilometers in Mozdok, North Ossetia, and near Moscow, which was a gross violation of the treaty, placing NATO’s eastern and northern allies under direct threat. In response, the United States withdrew from the INF treaty in 2019, a move that NATO allies supported.

Three years later, in 2022, the Alliance once again increased its signaling on the nuclear deterrent in its Strategic Concept, saying that it would “take all necessary steps to ensure the credibility, effectiveness, safety and security of the nuclear deterrent mission.” The following year, the Alliance announced further modernization of NATO’s nuclear capability at its Vilnius summit. This modernization of NATO nuclear capability is facilitated through the renewal of national forces in the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, as well as upgrades to European dual-capable aircraft. For current nuclear sharing allies, the old B-61 gravity bombs, which number around one hundred, will be replaced by the advanced B61-12. These are new weapons utilizing existing warheads and the replacement does not represent an increase in the overall number of US warheads.

Nuclear sharing tomorrow

To date, despite modernization and stronger signaling, NATO’s nuclear posture remains stagnant. To improve the Alliance’s deterrence posture, the United States and its allies should take two steps: expand current nuclear sharing arrangements eastward and deploy land-based US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe.

Expanding current nuclear sharing arrangements eastward will require fully breaking with the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, which Moscow has torn to shreds. Several allies refuse to abandon under the mistaken notion that it somehow provides a road back to peace. In practice, this has meant that the Alliance has focused on rotating conventional forces in Eastern Europe to stay within the spirit of the Founding Act.

But it is Russia, not NATO, that has destabilized Europe. Time and again, the Kremlin has blatantly ignored the Founding Act. There should be no illusions that there is a road back, and heeding the spirit of the act while Russia wages a brutal, illegal war against Ukraine and engages in political warfare against NATO allies including the United States is foolish.

Balancing Russia with conventional forces in places such as the Baltics is simply an attempt at reassurance rather than an actual effective deterrence and defense strategy. Equally ineffectual would be relying just on F-35 combat aircraft in bases already storing US nuclear weapons in Europe.

The only adequate solution is to respond to Russian moves in a tit-for-tat manner that George Bunn and Rodger Payne call an iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Only in responding to the Kremlin in a manner that inflicts a real price can Washington bring about eventual cooperation from the Kremlin. The United States can do this by continually raising the stakes to a point where Russia views cooperation, rather than competition, as the best solution. Given the economic strength of the United States, and nuclear allies France and Britain, it would be logical for them to impose increasing costs on Russia through expanded nuclear sharing.

Moreover, the Pentagon recently announced that it would send Tomahawk, SM-6, and developmental hypersonic missiles to Germany in 2026. This is a good start, but again it does not impose a high enough price on Russian actions and a broader deployment should be considered for two reasons. First, Russia has deployed reciprocal technologies, and the current US deterrent is inadequate. Second, as noted above, the deployment of US ground-based dual-capable missile systems to NATO allies could be used as a bargaining chip to influence Russian behavior—in effect, escalating to deescalate. While this last point may not be appreciated by all advocates of expanding NATO’s deterrent, if it results in a decrease in Russian tactical nuclear deployments, it may be worth the trade if it elicits cooperation.

The United States should take a page out of the new Russian deterrent playbook, which sees little distinction between peacetime and wartime, instead favoring persistent engagement with the enemy across a range of capabilities as part of overall deterrence. Putin has time and again played Washington and its European allies, believing that they are too scared of the long shadow cast by nuclear weapons to push back against his threats. Only by responding in kind may Washington find the Kremlin perhaps willing to listen.

Michael John Williams is a nonresident senior fellow with the Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and associate professor of international affairs and director of the International Relations Program at the Maxwell School for Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University.

NATO’s seventy-fifth anniversary is a milestone in a remarkable story of reinvention, adaptation, and unity. However, as the Alliance seeks to secure its future for the next seventy-five years, it faces the revanchism of old rivals, escalating strategic competition, and uncertainties over the future of the rules-based international order.

With partners and allies turning attention from celebrations to challenges, the Atlantic Council’s Transatlantic Security Initiative invited contributors to engage with the most pressing concerns ahead of the historic Washington summit and chart a path for the Alliance’s future. This series will feature seven essays focused on concrete issues that NATO must address at the Washington summit and five essays that examine longer-term challenges the Alliance must confront to ensure transatlantic security.

The post To deter Russia, NATO must adapt its nuclear sharing program appeared first on Atlantic Council.

In Season 2, Episode 4 of the Guns for Hire podcast, host Alia Brahimi is joined by former Blackwater—rebranded as Academi— contractor Morgan Lerette in a wide-ranging conversation. They discuss everything from Blackwater’s lax vetting procedures, the opacity surrounding the laws and regulations governing Private Military Companies (PMCs), the absence of a support system for former employees, and why Morgan considers his twenty-four-year-old-self as a “mercenary” in Iraq, despite the controversy this has ignited among his former colleagues. Morgan also explains the difference, from his perspective, between the efficiency and the efficacy of using private sector contractors, as well as how depending on PMCs means outsourcing the morality of law enforcement. 

Find the Guns For Hire podcast on the app of your choice

Guns for Hire podcast is a production of the Atlantic Council’s North Africa Initiative. Taking Libya as its starting point, it explores the causes and implications of the growing use of mercenaries in armed conflict.

The podcast features guests from many walks of life, from ethicists and historians to former mercenary fighters. It seeks to understand what the normalization of contract warfare tells us about the world we currently live in, the future of the international system, and what war could look like in the coming decades.

Podcast Apr 24, 2024

American Hit Squad in Yemen

By Alia Brahimi

Host and Nonresident Senior Fellow Alia Brahimi speaks with BBC investigative journalist Nawal Al-Maghafi about her film on American mercenaries in Yemen.

Conflict Defense Industry

Podcast Jan 10, 2024

Mercenaries and Gaza

By Alia Brahimi

Host and Nonresident Senior Fellow Alia Brahimi speaks with Iraq expert Renad Mansour about what motivates the non-state actors who are leading the bid to avenge Gazans.

Conflict Crisis Management

Podcast Jul 7, 2023

Mercenary bloodline: The war in Sudan

By Alia Brahimi

Host and Nonresident Senior Fellow Alia Brahimi speaks with Africa experts Cameron Hudson and Munzoul Assal about the mercenary pedigree of the Rapid Support Forces.

Africa Conflict

Through our Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, the Atlantic Council works with allies and partners in Europe and the wider Middle East to protect US interests, build peace and security, and unlock the human potential of the region.

Learn more

The post ‘I was a Blackwater mercenary in Iraq’ appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Kharlan’s Olympic victory has additional significance for Ukraine as she almost missed out on participating in Paris altogether due to her principled stand over the Russian invasion of her homeland. During the 2023 World Fencing Championship, Kharlan refused to shake hands with a Russian opponent in protest over the war, offering instead to tap blades. The Russian declined this offer and staged a protest of her own, leading to Kharlan’s disqualification and making it virtually impossible for her to take part in the 2024 Olympic Games.

The incident sparked a heated debate over the role of politics in sport and the continued participation of Russian athletes in international events at a time when Russia is conducting Europe’s largest military invasion since World War II. Following a considerable outcry, Kharlan was reinstated and received the personal backing of International Olympic Committee President Thomas Bach, himself a former fencer. Meanwhile, Kharlan’s gesture made her a hero to millions of Ukrainians.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The controversy over Kharlan’s refusal to shake hands with her Russian opponent has been mirrored elsewhere in the sporting arena, highlighting the complex moral issues facing Ukrainian athletes as they compete internationally while their country is fighting for national survival. Ukrainian tennis star Elina Svitolina in particular has attracted headlines for her decision to avoid handshakes with Russian and Belarusian players.

Some critics have accused Ukrainians of politicizing sport, and have argued against holding individual Russians accountable for crimes committed by the Kremlin. Meanwhile, supporters of Ukrainian protest efforts have noted the Kremlin’s frequent use of sport as a propaganda tool, and have also pointed to the often close links between some Russian athletes and the Putin regime.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

For Ukraine’s Olympic team, participation in this year’s Summer Games is an opportunity to provide their war weary compatriots back home with something to cheer, while also reminding the world of Russia’s ongoing invasion. Since the start of the full-scale invasion in February 2022, many of Ukraine’s Olympic athletes have had to train in exceptionally difficult conditions. Some have been forced to relocate from areas that have fallen under Russian occupation, while all have grown used to the daily trauma of the war and the regular disruption caused by Russian air raids.

Ahead of the Paris Olympics, Olga Kharlan was widely seen as one of Ukraine’s best medal hopes. Born in Mykolaiv, she has been fencing since the age of ten. Prior to the 2024 Olympics, she had already amassed four Olympic medals in a glittering career that has also seen her win six world titles. The thirty-three-year-old Ukrainian star demonstrated her mental strength during the third place playoff in Paris, overcoming South Korea’s Choi Sebin in a dramatic comeback win.

Thanks to her new bronze medal, Kharlan now shares top spot among Ukraine’s leading Olympians with a total of five medals. She claimed her first medal at the Beijing Olympics in 2008 before securing further honors in 2012 and 2016. However, the Ukrainian star says her success in the French capital stands out. “This medal is totally different,” commented Kharlan in Paris this week. “It’s special because it’s for my country. This is a message to all the world that Ukraine will never give up.”

Mark Temnycky is a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jul 25, 2024

Putin is convinced he can outlast the West and win in Ukraine

By Mykola Bielieskov

The West’s collective fear of escalation and reluctance to commit to Ukrainian victory have convinced Putin that he can outlast his opponents and achieve an historic triumph in Ukraine, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert Jul 22, 2024

Andriy Yermak: Ukraine and NATO are restoring Europe’s security architecture

By Andriy Yermak

Together with the country’s allies, Ukraine has set out on the path to restore the European security architecture, writes the head of Ukraine’s Office of the President Andriy Yermak.

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert Jun 12, 2024

Ukraine is making the Russian occupation of Crimea untenable

By Olivia Yanchik

Ukraine’s growing air strike capabilities are decimating Russian air defenses in Crimea and making the occupation of the peninsula increasingly untenable, writes Olivia Yanchik.

Conflict Defense Technologies

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post Paris Olympics: Ukrainian dedicates medal to athletes killed by Russia appeared first on Atlantic Council.

When reflecting over the last decade of the U.S. policy, especially in the Trump and Biden administrations, three consistent trends emerge (though to different degrees): insufficient support for the UN political process to restore legitimacy to Libya’s political; leadership, repeated appeals to eastern warlord and head of the Libyan National Army (LNA) Khalifa Haftar to participate in a political process; and most consequentially for the United States, a seeming lack of attention to Russia’s increased presence in Libya.

Libya will never be at the top of the agenda for the United States in the Middle East, let alone for the rest of Washington’s foreign policy agenda. However, through a higher degree of attention and engagement, the United States can make significant inroads toward stability in a country that has the potential to benefit its neighbors and the region through proper management of its oil wealth, investing billions of dollars still frozen from the Qaddafi era, and preventing Russian expansion in the wider area.

Insufficient Political Engagement

The Skhirat Agreement or the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) tried to end the 2014-2015 civil war between Haftar’s Dignity operation and the Dawn Coalition consisting mainly of militia groups around Misrata and Tripoli. Instead, the overall split of Libya remains mostly between Haftar (addressed below) and political survivor Aguila Salah in the east and the UN-recognized pseudo governments and armed groups in the West.  The LPA created two chambers: the legislature, the House of Representatives (responsible for making laws) based in Tobruk, and the High State Council (HCS) based in Tripoli. The HSC has a consultative role, but its legal role was never completely spelled out. The UN appointed Fayez Sarraj as prime minister.  Among other factors, Haftar’s refusal to accept that the military would be under civilian control, as stipulated in the LPA, effectively nullified one of its most important elements.

For the following years, the international community tried to forge a consensus by holding summits in Europe: including in France in first in 2017, 2018, then in Italy in 2018. These conferences elevated Haftar from a renegade general to an international statesman on par with Sarraj. Despite the presence of foreign heads of state, none of these summits resulted in an agreement to implement the LPA or to adopt a process for elections. After another civil war broke out in 2019, German Chancellor Angela Merkel hosted an international conference on Libya in Berlin in January 2020 intended to halt the violence. When a ceasefire finally occurred in October 2020, the UN created the Libya Political Dialogue Forum, whose members chose a President and prime minister, Mohamed Menfi and Abdel-hamid Dbaibah. The Dbaibah government was supposed to implement elections at the end of 2021. The elections were delayed for a number of reasons yet Dbaibah remains prime minister of the Government of National Unity three years after his initial appointment and Haftar still controls of the East.

In this context, the U.S. stood mostly on sidelines, attempting to establish some progress between Sarraj and Haftar through direct meetings and attending the European meetings at a ministerial level or below. What the U.S. can always do, however, is pressure foreign actors, or “spoilers,” who support competing sides on the Libyan political spectrum to reach consensus.  At different times, the U.S. could have pressed Egypt, the UAE, France and Turkey, Qatar, and Italy to weigh in with their own Libyan allies to accept political compromise. The problem with organizing a coordinated and effective diplomatic effort is that Libya is routinely far down on the “call sheet” for senior level engagements and there’s usually more pressing issues in the bilateral relationships with the above states than Libya. Without the necessary backing from the White House or Secretary of State a  special envoy can be easily ignored.

The one positive thing the United States did in was to develop a new set of sanctions in 2016 targeting individuals that “threaten the peace, security, or stability of Libya, including through the supply of arms or related materiel.” Agulia Salah was named as the first target as well as western militia leader Salah Badi. However, because Salah had no U.S. bank accounts to be frozen and had not ambitions to travel to Washington, the sanctions on him were symbolic and European partners allowed him to travel and participate in conferences. Applying the sanctions to Haftar would have been a different story.

Overestimation of Haftar’s Influence and Value

General Khalifa Haftar emerged not during but after the 2011 revolution. Positioning himself as an anti-Islamist, he appeared as an alternative force to the growing influence of Islamist militias, who were killing individuals, whether they were members of the brutal security establishment or nonideological judges. Eventually he defeated the extremists in Benghazi and turned his sights on Derna, which hosted a strong Ansar alSharia presence. With the support of anti-Muslim Brotherhood countries such as Egypt, the UAE, and, to a certain extent, France, his domination over the so-called Libyan National Army grew. But the Obama administration who distinguished between political Islamists, like Tunisia’s Rachid Ghannuchi, and militant Islam, bristled at statements calling all Islamists terrorists. The war ended in a standstill and UN Special Representative Bernadino Leon forged the LPA, leaving the international community pressing Haftar to accept a temporary government and placing the army under civilian control, effectively giving him a veto over any political compromise.

As Haftar became implacable, he had the temerity to attack Tripoli the day Secretary-General Guterres was visiting to help launch his Special Representative Ghassan Salame’s national dialogue. If there ever were a reason for sanctioning someone for threating the “peace and stability” of Libya, this was clearly it. But the United States chose not to, and Haftar benefited from the support of Syrian, African, and most importantly, Russian Wagner Group mercenaries who almost succeed in capturing Tripoli. There continues to be a debate about what former National Security Advisor John Bolton told Haftar during the run-up to the war and whether he gave Haftar a “green or yellow light” to attack if he could take Tripoli quickly. Regardless, the war dragged on, and the United States ignored the consequences.

Shortly after the October 2020 ceasefire, the UN created the Libya Political Dialogue Forum. Seventy-Five members of Libyan society discussed future political issues and selected a temporary prime minister who would govern until national elections at the end of 2021. Abdul-hamid Dbaibah won a surprising if not controversial victory over Aguila Salah. Haftar once again played spoiler by taking various positions on the legality of a military presidential candidacy – one of the key issue blocking elections.

As elections moved into an indefinite delay, the United States (along with its allies) tried to engage with Haftar in an effort to get him to cooperate on the possibility of holding national elections and to expel Russian forces from the east. As movement restrictions in Libya ease for American officials, U.S. representatives have met Haftar at least six times during the Biden administration. One such visit was delayed after Haftar (or Russia) shot down a reconnaissance drone preparing for the visit of the U.S. special envoy. Haftar has made no moves toward accepting elections and he has only grown closer to the Russians.

The Russian Are Coming

The Wagner Group’s mercenaries have been in Libya since at least 2018 according to public estimates. Since then, their presence has only grown. The U.S. Africa Command documented Russian fighter jets and cargo carriers traveling from Syria to Jufra Airbase in central Libya in July 2020 as well as to the al-Khadim airbase close to Benghazi. Haftar also uses Wagner to secure control of key oil facilities. This relationship expanded toward the end of the 2019-2020 civil war when Russian snipers, and the combination of Chinese-origin drones and mobile air defense units almost changed the tide of the war until Turkey intervened with superior drones and operators. At the same, the UN Panel of Experts estimated there were between 1200-2000 Wagner personnel in Libya by the summer of 2020.

Initially, Russia denied its presence in Libya just as it denied Wagner deployments in Syria and eastern Europe. After Yevgeny Prigozhin died almost a year ago, Haftar was co-opted by the emerging “Africa Corps” of the Russian ministry of defense and received almost monthly visits from Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yunus-Bek Yevkurov. In fact, just one day after hosting the commander of U.S. Africa Command, Haftar headed to Moscow for a meeting with Vladimir Putin.

Russian interests in Libya are clear: it seeks access to a port in Libya, airbases to monitor NATO across the Mediterranean, and transit to its emerging allies in the Sahel. It is on track to fulfill all these ambitions unless the United States and its NATO partners make a concerted effort to counter Russian ambitions.

To date that has not transpired as the United States is focused on more pressing issues. But it will be a huge detriment to U.S. interests if Russia is allowed to deepen its presence in Libya and Africa. Part of a strategy to counter Russia in Libya requires investing more in Libya’s frozen domestic scene. Only a more legitimate government can challenge Haftar and assert its own nationalist instincts that Libyans displayed during the initial phase of the post-2011 transition.

Ben Fishman is the Steven D. Levy Senior Fellow in the Linda and Tony Rubin Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute, where he focuses on North Africa. He served from 2009 to 2013 on the National Security Council where he held several posts, including director for North Africa and Jordan.

In partnership with

Related content

Report Oct 7, 2022

The MENA region’s uneasy path towards reforms

By Karim Mezran, Valeria Talbot, Alissa Pavia, Lorenzo Fruganti, Eleonora Ardemagni, Andrew Farrand, Alessia Melcangi and Hafsa Halawa

Decade-old geopolitical transformations have impacted the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) states’ efforts to implement socioeconomic reforms. More recently, the Ukraine war’s reverberations are also likely to affect the MENA countries’ paths towards such reforms.

Middle East North Africa

In-Depth Research & Reports Jul 12, 2022

Evolving MENA power balances: What is next for US engagement in the region?

By Karim Mezran, Valeria Talbot, Jonathan Panikoff, Sanam Vakil, Maha Yahya, Mark N. Katz, Gangzheng She, and Julien Barnes-Dacey

US President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s upcoming visit to the Middle East provides an opportunity to assess what role the United States will play in the Middle East and North Africa in the future. With the war in Ukraine further diverting US attention from the region, the big question is whether the region is entering a ‘post-US’ era.

Energy & Environment Middle East

Report Aug 29, 2022

North Africa’s transatlantic relations amid change and continuity

By Karim Mezran, Roberto Menotti, Alessia Melcangi, Emadeddin Badi and Alissa Pavia

The purpose of this report is to identify a potential role for Italy and its diplomacy to play in North Africa, in full agreement and collaboration with the United States and the other main European actors.

Italy Libya

The post After 2011, the United States stayed on the sidelines—to Libya’s detriment appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Russia’s withdrawal from the Middle East

Until the collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent end to the Cold War, Russia maintained a strong foothold in the Middle East, recognizing the region’s potential importance to global power dynamics. During the Cold War in particular, Russia maintained its presence by creating allies among those Arab nations that would help it achieve its goal of creating an anti-Western camp, most notably Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Libya, along with Algeria, Yemen, and Sudan. Its relations expanded from diplomatic ties to arms shipments to support for liberation movements such as the Palestinian Liberation Organization. The Soviet influence in the region was most obvious in its support for the Arab states during the Suez Canal Crisis (1956), the Six-Day War (1967), and the Yom Kippur War (1973), conflicts that saw a strong involvement by the United States on the side of Israel.

The 1990s, however, saw a major shift in Russia’s presence in the Middle East and North Africa with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The subsequent economic crisis forced Russia to dramatically scale back its involvement in the region, reducing both military engagement and economic support in order to focus on domestic issues. Additionally, Boris Yeltsin, the then president, saw a window to improve relations with the West. Scaling back Russia’s presence in what had been confrontational states represented one way to resolve tensions at a time when the country was reeling from internal economic turmoil. As a result, Russia played a marginal role in major confrontations such as the First Gulf War (1990–91), the US invasion of Afghanistan (2001), and the Iraq War (2003–11).

The 2011 NATO-led intervention in Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi represented the beginning of the end of Russia’s disengagement from the region. Due to the ongoing rapprochement with the West, Russia’s then president, Dmitry Medvedev, abstained from adopting the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. This allowed Western intervention in Libya to overthrow the longtime dictator, who had by then turned on his own people. To many experts, Medvedev’s decision not to veto the resolution signaled an important change in Russia’s support of its Arab allies and allowed for a regime change to happen. Among the most notable critics of this action was Vladimir Putin, the then prime minister, who described the West’s subsequent intervention as akin to “medieval calls for crusades.”

The intervention in Libya left an indelible mark on Russian elites, many of whom saw it as emblematic of Western attempts to meddle in foreign countries and impose Western-like values. This threat left Russia feeling disillusioned with the West, which it accused of hypocrisy because of its violations of international law by interfering in Libya. It also left Russia feeling isolated at a time when the United States had promised that a regime change in Libya would not occur, and when Russia-US relations were strong and based on the pursuit of mutual trust. It cemented Russia’s persistent belief in the principle of nonintervention as a means to maintain stability and the status quo in the rules-based order, a belief that it accused the West of not sharing, with the 2003 US-led intervention in Iraq and subsequent deposition of Saddam Hussein as an example.

Russian reengagement

Russia’s distrust of the West and recognition of the importance of the Middle East and North Africa region help explain its intervention in Syria in 2015 and in Libya in 2017. Following two decades of relative disengagement from the region, Russia saw a window of opportunity to reassert itself with the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and the request by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for help. Additionally, the United States’ lack of intervention, underscored by the failure of Barack Obama, the then president, to adhere to his “red line” commitment, cemented Russia’s belief that the United States would not interfere in its quest for increased influence in the area.

The end of two decades of Russian disengagement came with the recapturing of Aleppo from rebel forces in December 2016, thanks to Russian involvement, and Libyan General Khalifa Haftar’s request for help a month earlier. Libya, engulfed in a civil war, saw the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and France aiding Haftar, with Russia emerging as a prominent ally at a time when its presence in the region was becoming more entrenched.

Emboldened by its victories in Syria and the potential to exert influence in the region by supporting another Arab country, Russia began deploying mercenaries to Libya as early as 2018, marking a definitive turning point from the previous two decades of disengagement. From its marginalized position, Russia saw Libya not only as another window of opportunity to reemerge as a great power competing for influence in North Africa but also as a gateway to other regions, such as sub-Saharan Africa. With the deployment of troops under the Kremlin’s authority, the days of being second to Western regime change in neighboring regions were over, and the potential for the resurgence of Russian primacy once again became a real prospect.

Russia reemerged as a regional power in the Middle East when Haftar attempted a takeover of Tripoli in 2019, with Russian forces fighting alongside Haftar’s. Egypt and the UAE were also involved, while Qatar and Turkey supported the Government of National Accord forces of Libya’s then prime minister, Fayez al-Sarraj. Libya became a military quagmire for foreign power interferences, with Russia refusing to be the marginal player it had been during the First Gulf War and the US invasion of Iraq. While Haftar’s objective of gaining control of Libya was thwarted by Turkish troops, Russian involvement in the country remained consistent, with around 2,000 mercenary troops permanently stationed in eastern Libya, evidence of Russia’s unabated goal to establish a continued presence.

Ongoing influence

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine is keeping the Kremlin largely occupied with redefining its borders to the west. Yet, “Southern missions” have not been downgraded to lesser-scale priorities. On the contrary, some 800 – 1200 mercenaries from Wagner (now called Africa Corps) remain present in Libya, many controlling key oil production facilities and thus positioning the Kremlin to control output from Libya and affect world oil prices. Their continued presence illustrates the Kremlin’s conviction that North Africa and the Middle East is a region of vital importance, with enormous untapped resources that could help Russia’s economy in the long term. It also underscores that Russia is making a strategic bet during a time when the American presence is diminishing and the Chinese presence is growing, asserting itself alongside China as a main power by buying local support through influence and mercenary deployment.

This strategy of Russian reassertion is further exemplified by the ongoing activities of the Africa Corps in the wider Sahel region, where the mercenary group’s control has been well documented and is set to increase. In recent years, the area has been destabilized by numerous coups, creating power vacuums in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger. Russia and China have moved to fill these voids, seeking to expand their influence as French and American troops have withdrawn. While Western countries focus on short-term diplomatic solutions, Russia appears to be ahead in its strategy, providing military and financial support to nations it considers strategically important.

Indeed, it would be a mistake to frame Russia’s presence in Libya exclusively under its competition with the West. Its presence is driven primarily by national interests, many of which are linked to the continent of Africa. Libya serves as the crucial hub for Moscow’s mission in Africa due to its geographical location and political instability, which favors Russia’s actions. Strategically positioned at the crossroads of Africa and Europe, it provides Russia with a gateway to its operations in Sudan, Chad, Niger, and other Sahel and Central Africa countries, eventually projecting power and influence across these regions. Libya’s ongoing political chaos creates opportunities for Russia to establish footholds through alliances with both local factions and official authorities. This is exemplified by Russia’s support of General Haftar over the past few years and its more recent relations with the government of Tripoli. Not least, the country’s fragmented governance has guaranteed Russia much-needed access to air and naval military bases, especially across Cyrenaica, allowing it to coordinate its military expeditions. By maintaining a strong presence in Libya, Russia is able to pursue its broader geopolitical goals, including defying the West, expanding its military reach, and securing critical resources that are essential to sustain its economy and long-term strategic aspirations.

Chiara Lovotti is an Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI) research fellow and scientific coordinator of the Rome MED-Mediterranean Dialogues, the annual flagship event of ISPI and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She is a specialist in Middle Eastern and North African international relations, with a focus on Russia’s foreign policy in the area and associated political and security issues. 

Alissa Pavia is associate director of the Atlantic Council’s North Africa Program. She is responsible for providing research and analysis on North Africa while also expanding the program’s reach with like-minded centers, foundations, and government agencies.

In partnership with

Related content

Report Oct 7, 2022

The MENA region’s uneasy path towards reforms

By Karim Mezran, Valeria Talbot, Alissa Pavia, Lorenzo Fruganti, Eleonora Ardemagni, Andrew Farrand, Alessia Melcangi and Hafsa Halawa

Decade-old geopolitical transformations have impacted the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) states’ efforts to implement socioeconomic reforms. More recently, the Ukraine war’s reverberations are also likely to affect the MENA countries’ paths towards such reforms.

Middle East North Africa

In-Depth Research & Reports Jul 12, 2022

Evolving MENA power balances: What is next for US engagement in the region?

By Karim Mezran, Valeria Talbot, Jonathan Panikoff, Sanam Vakil, Maha Yahya, Mark N. Katz, Gangzheng She, and Julien Barnes-Dacey

US President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s upcoming visit to the Middle East provides an opportunity to assess what role the United States will play in the Middle East and North Africa in the future. With the war in Ukraine further diverting US attention from the region, the big question is whether the region is entering a ‘post-US’ era.

Energy & Environment Middle East

Report Aug 29, 2022

North Africa’s transatlantic relations amid change and continuity

By Karim Mezran, Roberto Menotti, Alessia Melcangi, Emadeddin Badi and Alissa Pavia

The purpose of this report is to identify a potential role for Italy and its diplomacy to play in North Africa, in full agreement and collaboration with the United States and the other main European actors.

Italy Libya

The post Libya is the crucial hub for Moscow’s activities in Africa appeared first on Atlantic Council.

On July 5, 2017, Haftar announced the complete “liberation” of Benghazi, although fighting in the downtown area of Sidi Khreibish only ended in January 2018. Between 2014 and 2018, Benghazi underwent the most significant transformation in its modern history, with displacement, dispossession, and the killing of thousands overturning generations-old social and economic dynamics. The consequences shaped not only the city’s current trajectory but also political and social developments in Libya more generally.

The four-year conflict resulted in the destruction of large areas of Benghazi; in 2021, its municipality said it had documented more than 6,000 properties that had been partially or wholly damaged during the fighting. Moreover, it divided families and neighbors, prompted the most extensive displacement in postcolonial Libya, and created new forms of identity rooted in grievance and partisan narratives of what had sparked the conflict. In a country where the legacy of Muammar Gaddafi–era property redistribution remained an obstacle to reconciliation, widespread seizures of property and land both during and after the fighting drove further antagonism in Benghazi.

Soon after its launch, Operation Dignity gained significant public support among the residents of Benghazi, who were becoming increasingly frustrated with deteriorating security. A series of assassinations had roiled the city. Former regime security personnel were targeted, along with civil society activists, judges, and journalists. The killings—mostly drive-by shootings and car bombings—generated both fear and widespread anger. Many commentators blamed groups, including Ansar al-Sharia, designated an al-Qaeda affiliate by the United States in January 2014 after it was linked to the 2012 diplomatic mission attack in which US ambassador Chris Stevens and several of his colleagues were killed.

Apart from its suspected role in the assassinations and bombings that shook Benghazi, Ansar al-Sharia had long unnerved many. The debate over how to address the problem of the group and its associates’ growing presence and influence in the city had divided residents before the launch of Dignity, and subsequently proved one of the main drivers of the ensuing conflict.

Operation Dignity began with attacks—including air strikes—on Ansar al-Sharia, as well as several armed groups that identified as “revolutionary” rather than Islamist. Faced with a common threat, a number of these militias united with Ansar al-Sharia under an umbrella group they named the Benghazi Revolutionaries Shura Council (BRSC). Some groups that did not join BRSC continued to fight alongside it. The prominence of Ansar al-Sharia within the BRSC alliance benefited Haftar and his allies, serving to buttress their claim that their opponents were terrorists. When an Islamic State group affiliate emerged in Benghazi in late 2014, it recruited scores of Ansar al-Sharia members, who joined returnees from Syria and foreign fighters. Beheadings and other brutal tactics associated with the Islamic State group in Syria and Iraq became a feature of the fighting in Benghazi, and helped consolidate popular support for Dignity.

These developments reinforced the views of those who had warned that a “force only” approach to Benghazi’s extremism challenge, together with Haftar’s scattershot targeting of a wide range of factions he considered a threat to his personal ambitions, risked not only radicalizing a far larger cohort but also pushing Benghazi into a long internecine war.

After the war, it was clear several new societal dynamics had emerged in the city. These dynamics were often shaped by perceptions of who had lost and who had gained from the conflict. Among those who had fought for or staunchly supported Dignity, there was a triumphalist mood. Several appeared to benefit materially, taking over abandoned properties or participating in Benghazi’s war economy. There was a reshuffling of key posts in the city, with existing personnel replaced with individuals from eastern tribes now considered “victors” due to their support of Haftar and his operation.

Benghazi residents who had not participated in the conflict but who adopted the Dignity narrative of how and why it had started were relieved to see Ansar al-Sharia and its associates gone. Many bonded through a collective memory of the conflict as solely a battle against terrorism, and in the process created new social milieus and civil society organizations.

Other social dynamics brought about by the war caused concern among the city’s population. The influence wielded by the Madkhali Salafists prompted much trepidation. As Haftar advanced through Benghazi during the war, the armed Madkhalis he had recruited took over mosques and religious institutions in the city. Later fully entrenched, the Madkhalis issued rulings against women traveling without a male guardian; called for all gatherings to be gender segregated; denounced any celebration of the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, traditionally a popular holiday in Libya; prohibited demonstrations as sinful; and intimidated civil society actors and cultural institutions. 

Another dynamic was the emergence of a stronger regional identity. This was particularly evident among a younger generation that had little adult experience of pre- Dignity Benghazi. The black flag of the short-lived Emirate of Cyrenaica (1949–51)—more recently associated with federalists seeking greater autonomy for eastern Libya and hard-line separatists—became an increasingly common sight in the city.

Benghazi also began to look different. While the reconstruction of neighborhoods damaged during the war was piecemeal, other parts experienced a building boom. In many cases, the increased construction was related to economic predation by Haftar’s inner circle—particularly his sons, a number of whom were given military ranks without any background or training—and their Libyan Arab Armed Forces units. In 2021, Osama al-Kizza, head of municipal planning in Benghazi, warned that a surge in unregulated construction was resulting in districts that lacked roads, water, sanitation systems, and other infrastructure.

A decade after Operation Dignity tipped Benghazi into four years of fighting, the people of the city—whether residents, internally displaced, or displaced overseas—continue to disagree about what caused the war and why it lasted so long. The trajectory of the conflict has been the subject of much revisionism, but there is consensus that Benghazi experienced an unprecedented transformation as a result. The social and economic dynamics that emerged from the 2014–18 war not only upended what had been a generations-old status quo. They also gave rise to new identities, both among the majority of Benghazi residents who were broadly favorable toward Dignity and among those who opposed the operation and were exiled. Partisan narratives of the war have created powerful communal bonds in its aftermath. The disappearance, detention, or killing since 2018 of prominent figures who were erstwhile allies or supporters of Haftar, among them a female parliamentarian, a female lawyer, and a former Dignity commander, has in some cases prompted disquiet and the questioning of both the current Haftar-dominated status quo and the operation that led to it. 

While many of the displaced have resettled in Benghazi, others who were displaced due to their opposition to Dignity or wider political views believe it remains unsafe for them to return. The city presents a particularly difficult challenge for greater reconciliation in Libya. In the absence of any comprehensive reconciliation efforts, it is unlikely that the decade-old divisions among extended families, neighbors, and communities that once called Benghazi home can be resolved.

Mary Fitzgerald is a writer, researcher, and consultant specializing in the Mediterranean region, with a focus on Libya. She has worked on Libya for more than a decade. She spent several months on the ground during Libya’s 2011 uprising, lived in Tripoli in 2014, and continues to make regular trips to the country.

In partnership with

Related content

Report Oct 7, 2022

The MENA region’s uneasy path towards reforms

By Karim Mezran, Valeria Talbot, Alissa Pavia, Lorenzo Fruganti, Eleonora Ardemagni, Andrew Farrand, Alessia Melcangi and Hafsa Halawa

Decade-old geopolitical transformations have impacted the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) states’ efforts to implement socioeconomic reforms. More recently, the Ukraine war’s reverberations are also likely to affect the MENA countries’ paths towards such reforms.

Middle East North Africa

In-Depth Research & Reports Jul 12, 2022

Evolving MENA power balances: What is next for US engagement in the region?

By Karim Mezran, Valeria Talbot, Jonathan Panikoff, Sanam Vakil, Maha Yahya, Mark N. Katz, Gangzheng She, and Julien Barnes-Dacey

US President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s upcoming visit to the Middle East provides an opportunity to assess what role the United States will play in the Middle East and North Africa in the future. With the war in Ukraine further diverting US attention from the region, the big question is whether the region is entering a ‘post-US’ era.

Energy & Environment Middle East

Report Aug 29, 2022

North Africa’s transatlantic relations amid change and continuity

By Karim Mezran, Roberto Menotti, Alessia Melcangi, Emadeddin Badi and Alissa Pavia

The purpose of this report is to identify a potential role for Italy and its diplomacy to play in North Africa, in full agreement and collaboration with the United States and the other main European actors.

Italy Libya

The post Benghazi is a major stumbling block for national reconciliation efforts appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The rise of Libya’s kleptocrats

By predicating political progress on agreement between the “five major actors” in Libya in order to reach elections, Bathily ensured a situation whereby those currently in power would have a monopoly over what comes next. In truth, however, only two of the five major actors he identified—Khalifa Haftar, commander of the Libyan Arab Armed Forces and Abdulhamid al-Dabaiba, the head of the Tripoli-based Government of National Unity (GNU)—have a meaningful influence on what happens on the ground. The other three—the heads of the Presidency Council and the High State Council and the speaker of the House of Representatives—draw their influence from their formal mandates, as well as political support from Turkey and Egypt, respectively.

Even if Bathily had created a more inclusive and representative process, there is a strong chance that vested interests would have ensured its failure. Indeed, it has become increasingly apparent that any political strategy will be doomed unless efforts are made to tackle the growth of kleptocracy that is sustaining the status quo.

For proof of this, it is necessary to look at the leaders and interests at the heart of the discussions. The Dabaiba family’s vast wealth has been generated through the management of Libyan state funds that remain subject to investigation, and the expansion of spending under Dabaiba’s GNU has been connected to widespread corruption. Meanwhile, Haftar’s dominion over eastern and southern Libya has translated into direct control over parallel institutions and their publicly funded budgets, which are subject to no oversight. When a fund for reconstruction was established in eastern Libya in recent months under the leadership of Khalifa’s son Belqacem (who appears to have no qualifications for the role), it was declared that there would be no financial oversight from the Libyan state’s anti-corruption agencies. The two sets of kleptocrats, the Haftars and the Dabaibas, also appear to have an under-the-table understanding on the management of the National Oil Corporation, through which state spending is skyrocketing, with little to show for it.

Libya’s list of kleptocrats is not limited to the Haftars and the Dabaibas. Armed group leaders and corrupt businessmen continue to build wealth and influence at the populace’s expense. Taken together, the vast majority of what acts as Libya’s formal state is controlled by kleptocratic forces. A recent report by The Sentry found that an array of illicit industries results in enormous wealth and power not only with the tacit but often active support of public institutions. The resources of the state are being plundered through widespread contract fraud and several forms of trafficking, including large-scale abuse of fuel subsidies for smuggling purposes.

This ubiquitous barrage of corruption is hurting the population. Prices continue to rise, leaving ordinary Libyans in a position where they need to spend more for less. Tragedies such as the September 2023 floods in Derna and surrounding areas, where over four thousand five hundred deaths have been recorded and thousands more are missing and presumed dead, show the extent to which the state has become hollowed out, as vested rather than public interests prevail.

International complicity and partnership with the kleptocrats

While Bathily’s criticisms in his recorded remarks to the UN Security Council focused on Libyan leaders, much of his comments to the press afterward also took aim at the regional and wider international picture. “Libya today is a battleground,” Bathily noted. “We needed all of the support of all the international and regional players to achieve meaningful results. Unfortunately, we have seen… parallel tracks taken by different foreign actors which undermine efforts of the UN. As long as this exists, there is no room for a solution in the future,” he bleakly concluded before later stating that “Libya is the prey to foreign economic interferences.” 

This conclusion is accurate. Of course, there will continue to be a focus on security dynamics, particularly as a result of Russia’s growing presence in Libya and international concerns over the Sahel’s “arc of instability.” However, the economic plunder of the state continues at pace. In the oil sector, the 2022 deal to appoint a new chairman of the National Oil Corporation was brokered by the United Arab Emirates, while a Turkish-led and UAE-based energy merchant has grown increasingly involved in Libya’s fuel imports and crude exports. At the time of writing, recriminations over the contracting of oil concessions in Libya to international companies are rising, with widespread allegations that some newly formed companies are in fact fronts for Libyan kleptocrats and their international partners. These dynamics raise serious concerns over who is profiting from Libya’s oil sector and highlight a significant reduction in transparency at a time when expenditures on fuel subsidies have reached unprecedented levels. Meanwhile, the Belqacem Haftar-led reconstruction fund is busy signing contracts, primarily with companies from Egypt, which openly eschew any form of oversight.

These dynamics illustrate that the accumulation of wealth by Libyan kleptocrats comes with the full knowledge and, indeed, support of regional interests, making it harder for the United Nations to adopt firm positions or marginalize Libyan leaders who enjoy continuing support from regional actors. 

How to tackle these dynamics

Successive UN special representatives have found this fusion of Libyan and regional interests impossible to untangle. Ghassan Salamé sought to bring the international players with interests in Libya together through the Berlin process—which held one meeting in 2020 and another in 2021—with the support of the German government, but any consensus built remained short-lived. Today, it appears that the UAE and Turkey have found accommodation with one another through the alignment of economic interests. And, while Egypt has continued to interfere in the political process to achieve its goal of displacing the GNU, it has also pursued its economic interests through its partnership with Haftar’s dominant alliance in Libya’s east.

While the status quo, which keeps deteriorating and might collapse any day, seems comfortable for Libyan kleptocrats and their international partners, the Libyan population increasingly suffers the consequences, runaway inflation by way of a depressed dinar being only one of them. The situation is also harmful to the interests of the United States and like-minded states. Mounting corruption in the oil sector imperils the status of Libya as a key oil producer, and Haftar’s engagement with Russia has led to a growing influx of weaponry and men through eastern Libya in recent weeks.

The question then becomes how this kleptocratic boom can be addressed. In reality, it will fall to the United States and like-minded governments such as in the United Kingdom and Germany to impose greater pressure in a concerted and targeted way on the kleptocracy to address the cause of Libya’s governance crisis rather than its symptoms. This will require support for Libyan institutions that are trying to push back against these dynamics in highly challenging and dangerous circumstances. It will also require the use of targeted network sanctions on the kleptocratic elite and calling out their enablers in external states through clear diplomatic messaging. The UAE, recently removed from the Financial Action Task Force’s “gray list” for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, should be a particular point of emphasis. An ongoing Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project-led investigation has identified that the Gulf state remains a prime location for those seeking to invest despite being subject to allegations of criminality and corruption. The United States and its like-minded allies should seek enhanced engagement between the private and public sectors through the use of business advisories and intelligence-sharing mechanisms to ensure Libyan kleptocrats can no longer launder and then stash their ill-gotten gains in financial centers and wealthy states across the globe.

A forceful focus on the kleptocracy is not a silver bullet by any means, but it is an attempt to attack the underlying cause behind most of the country’s problems in a way that has, to date, been lacking. The challenge of delivering on promises of democratic change for the Libyan people seems as far away now as ever. However, with a change of focus, international stakeholders can start to help Libyans begin to right the wrong of decades of kleptocracy and start to exact some accountability for the ongoing plunder of the country’s public resources. Only in such an environment will the next special representative have a more meaningful chance of success.

Oliver Windridge is the Director of Illicit Finance Policy at The Sentry.

In partnership with

Related content

Report Oct 7, 2022

The MENA region’s uneasy path towards reforms

By Karim Mezran, Valeria Talbot, Alissa Pavia, Lorenzo Fruganti, Eleonora Ardemagni, Andrew Farrand, Alessia Melcangi and Hafsa Halawa

Decade-old geopolitical transformations have impacted the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) states’ efforts to implement socioeconomic reforms. More recently, the Ukraine war’s reverberations are also likely to affect the MENA countries’ paths towards such reforms.

Middle East North Africa

In-Depth Research & Reports Jul 12, 2022

Evolving MENA power balances: What is next for US engagement in the region?

By Karim Mezran, Valeria Talbot, Jonathan Panikoff, Sanam Vakil, Maha Yahya, Mark N. Katz, Gangzheng She, and Julien Barnes-Dacey

US President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s upcoming visit to the Middle East provides an opportunity to assess what role the United States will play in the Middle East and North Africa in the future. With the war in Ukraine further diverting US attention from the region, the big question is whether the region is entering a ‘post-US’ era.

Energy & Environment Middle East

Report Aug 29, 2022

North Africa’s transatlantic relations amid change and continuity

By Karim Mezran, Roberto Menotti, Alessia Melcangi, Emadeddin Badi and Alissa Pavia

The purpose of this report is to identify a potential role for Italy and its diplomacy to play in North Africa, in full agreement and collaboration with the United States and the other main European actors.

Italy Libya

The post Internationalized kleptocracy is on the rise in Libya appeared first on Atlantic Council.

From the authorization of the 2011 military intervention to the creation of the Governments of National Accord and Unity, the UN has had successes but also relevant failures in Libya. The recent resignation of UN Special Representative Abdullah Bathily points to the need for the UN to move beyond interim agreements between elites and to take a bolder stance. The volatile state of global affairs makes progress in Libya uncertain. Still, it is clear that the iteration of past mistakes in the transition process will not lead to a different outcome.

From the 2011 revolution to the arms embargo

The current situation in Libya can be traced back to the 2011 NATO-led military intervention, sanctioned by UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 (2011), and that led to the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. Under the premise of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), the UN mandated the international community to establish a no-fly zone to protect civilians against war crimes carried out by Gaddafi’s army. However, as the situation deteriorated, the mission turned into a full-fledged regime-change operation, and Russia and China criticized what they saw as a breach of the scope of the resolution. Ever since, consensus within the Security Council on Libya has been elusive, and at the global level, the concept of R2P will likely remain on the shelf for a long time.

The UN’s role in Libya is described mainly in UNSCRs 1970 (2011), 1973 (2011), and 2009 (2011) and can be summarized as follows: the establishment of an arms embargo, an assets freeze, and a travel ban; the creation of a Sanctions Committee and a Panel of Experts (PoE) to monitor the situation on the ground; a referral to the International Criminal Court for crimes committed during and after the civil war; and, most importantly, the creation of a body to promote political dialogue and the reestablishment of state authority. UNSCR 2146 (2014) also calls for UN member states to inspect high-sea vessels to prevent the illicit export of crude oil from Libya, a decision adopted days after the oil tanker MV Morning Glory departed from Cyrenaica without the consent of the authorities in Tripoli.

When it comes to the arms embargo, its lack of an enforcement mechanism is responsible for the current situation in Libya, much more than the looting of arsenals following the collapse of Gaddafi’s regime. Divisions among Security Council members and at the European Union, competition between Turkey and the United Arab Emirates in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, and the growing US disinterest in the Middle East and North Africa region are all factors that explain why the continuous flow of weapons has not been halted. The nine reports of the UN PoE detail persistent violations that have not been followed by specific actions and point directly at, among others, the responsibility of Russia, a veto-wielding permanent member of the Security Council. Interestingly, the embargo was the first to include a specific clause banning “the provision of armed mercenary personnel.” Despite this stipulation, today, Libya has become one of the main bases of operations for the Wagner Group, a Russian mercenary group now operating under the banner of Africa Corps.

Guiding the peace process: The role of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya

Unlike with the embargo, the UN has taken a leading role in the transition process by creating a support mission, the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and appointing six consecutive special representatives to the secretary-general. In its current form [UNSCR 2542 (2020)], the tasks of UNSMIL are to further political dialogue and guide the transition process, help maintain the ongoing cease-fire, and support key Libyan institutions, including securing uncontrolled arms. The latter state-building element of the mission has been watered down through the years, with an initial mandate to “restore public security and promote the rule of law” that never met its expectations. In practice, UNSMIL offers a setting for Libyan elites to bargain for political and economic influence.

The drafting of the Libyan Political Agreement (LPA) in Skhirat, Morocco, and the subsequent creation of the Government of National Accord (GNA) in 2015 were UNSMIL’s first major achievements, which nevertheless had little success beyond signaling to the international community who was Libya’s legitimate authority. This failure can be attributed to the weak institutional legacy of Gaddafi’s hyper-personalist regime and, most importantly, to foreign meddling. UN special representatives have constantly complained about the role of third actors in funneling arms and money into the conflict. For instance, Ghassan Salamé, who served as UN special representative from 2017 to 2020, described Libya as “a textbook example of foreign interference.” However, some inherent flaws in the design of the LPA can also be blamed on the UN.

The main weakness of the UN-inspired political agreement is that it prioritized political reunification at the expense of legal, economic, and security sector reform. This made the GNA dependent on the goodwill of militias, while counterfeit banknotes continue to this day to flow into the Libyan market. Neither did UNSMIL push for the drafting of a definitive constitutional text, and in its absence, the LPA now appears to act as the top of the Libyan normative hierarchy. Another caveat of the UNSMIL strategy was to include all major political factions within the framework of the LPA, ossifying institutions with little popular legitimacy, including the House of Representatives (HoR), which was elected a decade ago with a voter turnout of 18 percent. In addition, the emphasis on local and regional representation (for instance, within the Presidential Council, whose three members represent Libya’s three historical regions) has turned into local parochialism and clientelist competition.

The fact that all actors on the ground have international support has forced UN special representatives to be pragmatically dovish. But at times, it appears they have become victims of their narrative, ignoring bellicose behaviors and focusing on “reconciling” rivals that already have tacit understandings of how to share Libya’s riches. This is most evident in the case of Khalifa Haftar and his self-styled Libyan Arab Armed Forces (LAAF), whose 2014 power grab was decisive in the collapse of Libya’s transition. UN personnel have periodically traveled to Haftar’s headquarters in Rajma, east of Benghazi, despite the irregular nature of the LAAF and its links with war crimes and human rights violations. In 2015, the HoR appointed Haftar as supreme commander of the Libyan army. Still, the LPA is clear that this process should have been done through a joint committee also comprising the executive and the upper chamber, the High Council of State. The fact that Haftar launched his 2019 offensive on Tripoli the same day UN Secretary-General António Guterres was on a visit to eastern Libya is evidence of his disdain for the organization.

By 2018, conferences in Paris and Palermo had shifted the international debate, emphasizing the need for organizing elections in Libya. This was a desire equally shared by the population, as confirmed in consultations organized by UNSMIL in the context of a new Libyan National Conference. Following the collapse of Haftar’s campaign on Tripoli, however, the UN mission organized a voting process with seventy-five electors instead of pushing ahead with the plebiscite. This Libyan Political Dialogue Forum (LPDF) was to choose a new Government of National Unity (GNU) to organize presidential and parliamentary elections by December 24, 2021. In this sense, while the forum was another significant UN-led turning point, it seemed to replicate previous mistakes, extending an endless interim period and bringing to the table those most interested in maintaining the status quo. Some even described the LPDF as a rendezvous between “dinosaurs” and “kleptocrats.”

In addition to the questions of representativity, including the underrepresentation of women, the UN was not able to effectively address the allegations that the chosen and current Prime Minister Abdulhamid al-Dabaiba had bribed his way to power. If this was not enough, the HoR soon withdrew its recognition of the GNU, returning Libya to the previous stalemate and rendering the whole process pointless. As time passed, it became evident that neither Dabaiba nor the HoR felt particularly pressed to hold the election by December 2021. Surprisingly, before his resignation in April 2024, Bathily, who served as UN special representative from 2022 to April 2024, was working on yet another transitional government, ignoring the aspirations of the population and the already-expired UN-proposed election timeline.

The UN must break the Libyan impasse

International norms and institutions are being challenged worldwide. However, this does not make the UN a mere bystander, and it is certainly not the case in Libya. Willingly or not, all Security Council members made Gaddafi’s downfall possible and failed to agree on embargo measures to stop the flow of weapons into Libya. Regarding the transition process, UNSMIL has inadvertently trapped Libya in a far-too-complex institutional web.

Bathily’s farewell declaration describes Libya as a “mafia state” dominated by political and military elites that follow their narrow interests. It points to the need for a new UNSMIL strategy, moving beyond the emphasis on reconciliation and pact-making and instead pushing for elections and accountability. The UN should not push for the creation of a third transitional executive, giving its seal of approval to yet another clique of elites. At the very least, this principled stand would raise awareness of the situation on the ground, and it could serve as revulsive in the otherwise endless political impasse.

Álvaro de Argüelles is a PhD candidate at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Spain. He holds a double major in international studies and law from Universidad Carlos III de Madrid and a master’s degree in Arab and Middle Eastern studies from UAM. Argüelles is a board member of the Foro de Investigación sobre el Mundo Árabe y Musulmán.

In partnership with

Related content

Report Oct 7, 2022

The MENA region’s uneasy path towards reforms

By Karim Mezran, Valeria Talbot, Alissa Pavia, Lorenzo Fruganti, Eleonora Ardemagni, Andrew Farrand, Alessia Melcangi and Hafsa Halawa

Decade-old geopolitical transformations have impacted the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) states’ efforts to implement socioeconomic reforms. More recently, the Ukraine war’s reverberations are also likely to affect the MENA countries’ paths towards such reforms.

Middle East North Africa

In-Depth Research & Reports Jul 12, 2022

Evolving MENA power balances: What is next for US engagement in the region?

By Karim Mezran, Valeria Talbot, Jonathan Panikoff, Sanam Vakil, Maha Yahya, Mark N. Katz, Gangzheng She, and Julien Barnes-Dacey

US President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s upcoming visit to the Middle East provides an opportunity to assess what role the United States will play in the Middle East and North Africa in the future. With the war in Ukraine further diverting US attention from the region, the big question is whether the region is entering a ‘post-US’ era.

Energy & Environment Middle East

Report Aug 29, 2022

North Africa’s transatlantic relations amid change and continuity

By Karim Mezran, Roberto Menotti, Alessia Melcangi, Emadeddin Badi and Alissa Pavia

The purpose of this report is to identify a potential role for Italy and its diplomacy to play in North Africa, in full agreement and collaboration with the United States and the other main European actors.

Italy Libya

The post The UN should take a bolder stance in Libya appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The Mattei Plan is not supposed to operate in a vacuum but is solidly affected and conditioned by the wider international community. However, evolving international dynamics among superpowers and regional powers do not bode for much optimism. Despite some positive events—such as French center-left parties’ relative containment of what was initially expected to be a glamorous victory for right-wing populism and extremism, as well as some successes in cohesion and policymaking by international organizations and institutions such as the Group of Seven (G7), Group of Twenty (G20), and NATO—the trend doesn’t look positive at all. In the background lie the war in Ukraine, the Gaza war, and a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The renewed rivalry for world dominance and the great-power competition between the United States, China, and Russia loom above everything.

North Africa is particularly vulnerable to these dynamics. The ideal part of the Mattei Plan is that it can positively defuse regional tensions. It has been a long-held belief of the European Union (EU), the United States, and the main international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that, to create a beneficial environment for economic development and political evolution, the five North Africa states of Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, and Mauritania should agree to form some sort of “union.”

The Union du Maghreb Arabe (UMA) was born out of this thinking in 1989. In reality, the regimes then in power created it to fight the Islamist-led popular revolts, which, starting in the mid-1980s, were occurring in each of the North African countries in increasing numbers. UMA was also created to facilitate the exchange of security personnel and intelligence cooperation by these regimes. Because of this, no other sectors—such as the social, political, and cultural sectors—were developed. And once each UMA country felt more secure, it de facto withdrew from the union.

For a brief moment following the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings—which were poised to bring to power, in a more or less democratic way, new elites more responsible for the wellbeing of their populations—international actors thought there was a will to renew a pledge to the UMA. However, the five North African regimes were generally unresponsive to their populations’ demands. There was an expectation that things would improve through democratic elections and that, once in power, the populations would be more prone to engage their neighbors in some kind of integration. But that didn’t happen. Instead, each country backslid into authoritarianism and, thus, in a more isolationist direction.

With this in mind, the prevailing trend, as determined by today’s evolution of the international system, may lead North Africa not toward integration but toward creating rival blocs. Morocco, which has elites strongly tied to Western nations and with Western values, has adapted a policy of cooperation and alliance with Western countries, especially the United States, and institutions such as NATO and the EU. Clear evidence of this pro-Western position is King Mohammed VI’s adhesion to the Abraham Accords pushed by then President Donald Trump as a way to create a new peaceful path to collaboration between Arab states and the state of Israel, in exchange for the US president’s recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara.

Morocco’s ruler has exerted enormous effort for Moroccan banks and commercial entities to penetrate the West African region’s economy. The success of this action has also gained much support for the ruler’s political ambitions.

Just to the East of Morocco and in contrast to its policies and economic activities, is the country of Algeria. The military-backed regime in power—which values nationalism, Arabism, and third-worldism—finds its legitimacy in the Algerian people’s war for independence from France in the late 1950s.

Algeria has been a staunch supporter of revolutionary and liberation movements in Africa and elsewhere. Thus, support for the Palestinian struggle against Israel quickly became a rallying cry in Algeria. Its relative closeness with the Soviet Union, and with Vladimir Putin’s Russia today, is the natural outcome of these positions. It is easy to see how Algeria could constitute an bloc adversarial toward Morocco. Add to this the wide influence that Algeria exerts on Tunisian President Kais Saied’s quest for absolute power and the natural gravitation of western Libya toward Algeria and Tunisia, and it’s easy to see the formation of bloc in opposition to that represented by Morocco.

Eastern Libya today is controlled by the rogue General Khalifa Haftar and his family, which is almost entirely dependent on Egyptian military support, and will probably detach the region from the western part of the country. Sadly, this would mean the end of a united Libya. This is a scenario that the West should do whatever it can to avoid. The United States seems too distracted by other issues and incapable of reacting to these trends. On the other hand, Italy and some of its European partners could use the idea behind the Mattei Plan to play a neutral role in the North Africa contest and help a rapprochement between Algeria and Morocco. This requires not making Algeria feel isolated from Western countries.

Prime Minister Meloni’s personal visit to Algeria in January 2023 was important for this reason, as was the one made afterward. Italian diplomacy was also active in keeping relations open and ongoing with Tunisian President Saied and in the warm relationship with the United Nations-recognized government in Tripoli. While this might sound ideal, Italy and its allies must take one step forward, which would foster a faster and deeper rapprochement between Egypt and Turkey. This could lead to an agreement in Libya in which the western part, strongly under the influence of Turkey, and the eastern part, which is entirely dependent on Egyptian support, may be convinced to find a way out of their crisis that entails the unity of the country rather than separation. A united Libya under the protection of NATO member Turkey and longtime US ally Egypt will not fall into the radical bloc. On the contrary, it might even be able to help lure Tunisia away from the pro-Russian potential bloc, while exerting an opposing influence on Algeria’s historical pro-Russian tendency by showing the benefits of standing with the West and collaborating with the Mattei Plan.

The Piano Mattei, a new vision of cooperation and collaboration on all fronts with the emerging societies of Africa, will be a great engine for this Italian and, ergo, Western policy of utilizing soft power to overcome issues that have previously created many problems for European countries.

Those who criticize the plan as empty of content, or cite its lack of purpose or precise allocation of resources, are missing the point. It is not only an economic plan but a political intuition to move away from today’s stagnant international cooperation policies and toward new dynamics that could produce extraordinary results if carefully implemented.

Karim Mezran is director of the North Africa Initiative and resident senior fellow with the Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council.

The post The Mattei Plan is an opportunity for North Africa appeared first on Atlantic Council.

With EU countries now facing greater fiscal constraints, the bloc needs to either further amend them or find a way to have more common European debt. Only then will EU member states be able to make the increases in defense spending that are necessary to bolster security on the continent and deter further aggression from Moscow.

The EU’s fiscal rules

The EU is a partial monetary union (not every state uses the euro) and is not a fiscal union. Twenty of its twenty-seven member states use the euro, but they maintain their own public accounts. The EU’s budget amounts to just 1 percent of the bloc’s entire gross domestic product (GDP). Brussels levies few taxes and spends little for the bloc, and that relatively small budget is the sum of the EU’s fiscal union. The real power of the EU resides in the supervision of the member states’ fiscal policies.

This is why some countries with high levels of debt or deficit—France, Italy, Poland (which spends 4.1 percent of its GDP on the military), and several others—might be under special supervision by the European Commission under the Excessive Debt Procedure (EDP). The EDP requires the country in question to provide a plan of fiscal consolidation that it will follow, as well as deadlines for its achievement. Countries that do not follow up on the recommendations may be fined. Of course, many EU countries are in debt, and most of them run a deficit even in good times; in bad times, they just run even bigger deficits. The European Commission will take into account additional military expenditures in the assessment, but only on military equipment, not on increasing the number of soldiers.

In 2023, the average debt-to-GDP ratio in the EU reached 82 percent, and it was even higher in the eurozone, at 89 percent (with France exceeding 110 percent and Italy going beyond 137 percent). The highest deficits were recorded in Italy (7.4 percent of GDP), Hungary (6.7 percent), and Romania (6.6 percent). Eleven EU member states had deficits higher than 3 percent of GDP. In comparison, the United States has a debt of around 123 percent of GDP and ran a deficit of 6.3 percent in 2023.

The original EU fiscal rules implemented thresholds for each country’s deficit and debt at 3 percent and 60 percent of GDP, respectively, and they required cutting national excess debt-to-GDP ratios by one-twentieth each year. These restrictive rules contributed to the eurozone’s prolonged recession from 2011 to 2013, and some rules have since been relaxed. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, for example, the bloc activated its general escape clause, which allows for deviations from the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact in times of crisis. Moving forward, however, the rules will likely turn restrictive again, though less so than the old ones. In April 2024, EU institutions agreed on a consensual change to the fiscal framework, making the path back to a debt of 60 percent GDP and a deficit below 3 percent of GDP a matter of negotiations between each member state’s government and the European Commission.

Treat military spending differently

Some EU countries, such as France and Poland, argue for military expenditures to be treated differently, as some member states have different needs in the current geopolitical climate. Not all EU member states are in NATO; for example, Austria is neutral. But under the current EU rules, the fiscal space for military expenditures is one-size-fits-all. After Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, defense expenditures incurred that year were within the escape clause, but this does not address the underfunding of the military within the EU.

In 2024, the average military expenditures of NATO and EU members is expected to reach 2.2 percent of GDP, with a group of countries far below the threshold of 2 percent. More importantly, these are big economies with relatively large armies, such as Italy (1.49 percent of GDP), Belgium (1.3 percent), and Spain (1.28 percent). All of these countries have high levels of debt and issues with deficits. Germany is set to reach 2.12 percent of GDP on defense spending this year, but it is held back by its constitutional debt brake, which does not allow for an annual deficit higher than 0.35 percent of GDP. This has created tensions within Germany’s coalition government, since spending more on weapons might mean having to spend less on climate change mitigation and social services.

Meanwhile, the United States spends 3.38 percent of its GDP on defense. To put that into perspective, the total expenditure of all European NATO members is $380 billion, almost three times lower than that of the United States (nearly $968 billion). At the same time, Russian military spending this year is estimated to reach $140 billion, or 7.1 percent of its GDP.

Common debt

European capitals need to treat the need for a stronger military in Europe as urgent and serious, but their accountants in the finance departments are not going to make it easy. Unless Brussels changes its fiscal rules to allow for greater defense spending, common EU debt might be the only solution.

The bloc can issue EU debt outside of national fiscal rules, which it did for the first time in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some analysts argue for common debt for a European air defense system, which is a good starting point. EU debt funding could include spending on the further development of European defense industrial capacities. EU leaders such as former Estonian Prime Minister and future EU High Representative Kaja Kallas, French President Emmanuel Macron, and European Commissioner for Internal Market Thierry Breton have supported some version of common debt for defense purposes.

Utilizing common debt should not aim solely to expand the power of the European Commission, as some critics in various capitals fear. Instead, it should transform this measure from a temporary crisis-management tool into a standard policy instrument, enabling Europe to develop a meaningful defense industrial strategy, which has been lacking since the EU’s inception. After the failed attempt to establish a European Defence Community in the 1950s, the European project has primarily focused on economic issues. Unfortunately, it’s time to revisit that discussion.

Europeans must now prepare for a challenging geopolitical environment by investing in European defense, whether through changes in fiscal rules or by taking on more European debt.

Whichever path forward the EU chooses, it must do so quickly. There’s no time to waste.

Piotr Arak is the chief economist at VeloBank Poland.

The post The EU needs to adapt its fiscal framework to the threat of war appeared first on Atlantic Council.

This is the first international investigative report presenting factual findings and legal conclusions on violations during the conflict. The COI found that Hamas and other Palestinian militants committed war crimes and violated international humanitarian and human rights law in their October 7, 2023, attack, and Israeli authorities and security forces committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and violated international humanitarian and human rights law, in their military campaign in the Gaza Strip. These findings and the robust evidence backing them may support future accountability proceedings.

About the COI

The UN Human Rights Council established the COI in May 2021, mandating it to investigate all alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law in Palestinian territories and Israel leading up to and since April 13, 2021—a date marking an increase in protests and violence in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza sparked by disruptions at the al-Aqsa Mosque and the anticipated eviction of Palestinian families from East Jerusalem.

The COI is led by three independent and impartial experts, supported by a team of investigators and analysts. The standard of proof is “reasonable grounds,” following most other UN human rights investigative bodies, including those on Myanmar, Syria, Ukraine, and Venezuela. Facts are reported “where, based on a body of verified information, an objective and ordinary prudent observer would have reasonable grounds to conclude that the facts took place as described,” and legal conclusions are reported where “facts meet all the elements of a violation or abuse.”

The COI based its June report on thousands of forensically verified open-source items, more than 350 items received from public calls for submissions, and witness and survivor interviews in Turkey and Egypt, where individuals had fled, as well as remotely. The COI sent one request for information to the state of Palestine (represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization), which provided “extensive comments.” Israel did not respond to the COI’s six requests for information and access to the territory. However, officials denounced the COI, alleging prejudice and antisemitism—echoing allegations from prior UN investigative mandates concerning Israel—and reportedly restricted witness communication.

October 7, 2023, attack

The COI found that members of Hamas’s military wing, other Palestinian armed groups, and Palestinian civilians committed war crimes and violated international humanitarian and human rights law in their October 7, 2023, attack.

The COI detailed the war crimes of murder and intentionally directing attacks on civilians, committed by shooting and killing eight hundred civilians at twenty-four kibbutzim and civilian locations on October 7, 2023. The report details the horrific methods by which militants killed—systematically moving from house to house, shooting at hiding and fleeing civilians, setting homes on fire, and killing civilians at a music festival, in public toilets, in public shelters, and at bus stops and along roads. Among the dead were forty children, including a nine-month-old shot and killed while hiding with her mother, and 130 people aged sixty-five and older. Through these acts, militants also committed the war crimes of torture and cruel or inhuman treatment and destroying or seizing the property of an adversary. The COI also described unlawful attacks at military outposts, including killings of soldiers who were hors de combat.

Palestinian militants’ indiscriminate rocket fire toward populated places in Israel—killing eighteen civilians on October 7, 2023, and in following weeks—also constitutes the war crimes of murder and intentionally directing attacks on civilians.

Palestinian fighters also committed the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity by desecrating corpses, including burning, mutilating, lacerating, decapitating, and undressing and subsequently exhibiting bodies.

The COI confirmed acts of sexual violence against women and men at the Nova music festival, Route 232, Nahal Oz military base, and kibbutzim Re’im, Nir Oz, and Kfar Aza on October 7, 2023. Evidence included restraints placed on women, positions of and signs of violence on victims’ bodies, and disseminated imagery of undressed bodies. The COI also found that gender-based violence was “perpetrated in similar ways in several locations and by multiple Palestinian perpetrators,” with patterns including abducting women with force or threats, coerced close physical proximity to abductors, treatment of women’s bodies as “victory trophies,” and gendered slurs. The COI could not verify reports of rape, sexualized torture, and genital mutilation due to lack of access to victims, witnesses, and crime sites, nor did it find evidence that militants were ordered to commit sexual violence.

Finally, the COI found that militants committed the war crime of taking hostages—often combined with outrages upon personal dignity and inhumane treatment, including sexual and gender-based violence, assault, harassment, and intimidation—by abducting 252 people from Israel (approximately twenty security forces and the remainder civilians, including thirty-six children) and brought them to Gaza. As of May 21, half of the hostages were released or rescued, with the remainder in captivity, whether alive or dead.

Military response in Gaza

The COI found that Israeli authorities and members of the security forces committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and violated international humanitarian and human rights law, in their military campaign in Gaza.

Israeli authorities and forces perpetrated the war crime of starvation as a method of warfare, evidenced by the imposition of a total siege for two weeks, from approximately October 9 to 20—with water shut off and no aid allowed in—followed by meager aid deliveries, with measures hampering entry of aid and restricting or blocking specific items. The COI concluded that authorities imposed the siege as retribution for militants’ October 7, 2023, attack and that aid restrictions were intended “to instrumentalize and weaponize the provision of necessities” and hold hostage the Gazan population “to achieve political and military objectives,” constituting collective punishment of Palestinians in Gaza. Israeli forces also attacked humanitarian convoys, further limiting aid availability and distribution.

Israeli authorities and forces also committed “[e]xtermination, as a crime against humanity”—”the killing one or more persons, including by inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population, … [as] part of a mass killing of members of a civilian population”—based on attacks on civilians and humanitarian aid restrictions.

Israeli authorities and forces also committed the war crimes of murder and intentionally directing attacks against civilians and civilian objects, as well as the crime against humanity of murder. Israeli officials’ statements evidence permissive changes in targeting practices—launching more strikes than in prior conflicts, targeting locations with “an inkling of intelligence,” and using more intense weaponry with wider impact areas—resulting in significantly higher casualties than in prior Israel-Hamas conflicts and a higher proportion of women and children killed. The report detailed instances in which Israeli forces targeted civilians who were clearly unarmed, including civilians sheltering at a church, a child holding a white flag, and three unarmed Israeli hostages. The COI also found Israel’s military campaign consistent with the Dahya doctrine, a military strategy to use “overwhelming and disproportionate force against civilian areas and infrastructure” to defeat the enemy.

The COI noted it continues to investigate reports that Hamas and other militants operate from civilian locations, but it could not verify evidence Israeli authorities publicly presented. The COI made no finding regarding Hamas’s use of human shields.

The COI found that Israeli evacuation orders constituted the war crime and crime against humanity of forcible transfer. From October 7, 2023, to December 30, 2023, more than eighty orders instructed civilians to leave their neighborhoods and go to areas that effectively constituted safe zones with legal protections. However, many evacuation orders were unclear and confusing, had insufficient or unstated time frames, and/or were difficult or impossible to comply with due to chaos along evacuation routes—including Israeli checkpoints where individuals were forced at gunpoint to strip and “walk for prolonged periods without clothes,” a lack of transport, inadequate support for vulnerable persons, and Israeli and Hamas attacks on and harassment of evacuees. Moreover, evacuation orders were issued alongside or in the context of authorities’ statements dehumanizing Palestinians, labeling all Gazans as Hamas, referring to the second Nakba, and calling for the removal of Gazan civilians and the establishment of Israeli settlements. Accordingly, the evacuation orders did not constitute an advance effective warning to civilians, but instead amounted to forcible transfer. Israeli forces also attacked safe zones and destroyed entire communities and residential areas that were evacuated, leaving nothing for families to return to.

The COI also documented Israeli forces’ commission of the war crimes of sexual violence, outrages upon personal dignity, and sexual and gender-based violence amounting to torture or inhuman and cruel treatment, as well as the crimes against humanity of gender persecution and torture and inhuman and cruel treatment. Israeli forces compelled public stripping and nudity “in many locations,” with victims “blindfolded, kneeling, and/or with their hands tied” while subject to interrogation, verbal or psychological abuse, and/or coerced physical acts. “[M]en and boys were targeted in particular ways,” including Israeli forces repeatedly filming and photographing them with images disseminated online and family and community members forced to watch. Women were also targeted with specific forms of psychological violence and sexual harassment, including online shaming and doxing, sexualized graffiti, and invasion of personal privacy, including by soldiers rifling through lingerie. These acts were aggravated by violating Gazans’ modest and private social practices and disseminating humiliating content online that would be almost impossible to remove. The COI concluded that the sexual and gender-based violence “was intended to humiliate and degrade the Palestinian population as a whole.” The pattern of forced public stripping and nudity indicated it was either ordered or condoned, and the prevalence and severity of sexual and gender-based crimes suggest they are part of Israeli operating procedures.

Impact of the report

The COI is not a court or a tribunal, and it cannot prosecute or ensure legal accountability. However, it can issue recommendations to promote accountability and support accountability mechanisms, including by sharing evidence with domestic, regional, and international courts. Thus, while the report itself will not result in trials, its documentation can advance investigations and contribute to future prosecutions of Palestinian and Israeli forces and authorities. These cases may proceed at the International Criminal Court (ICC)—where the prosecutor has applied for arrest warrants for Hamas and Israeli officials—or in domestic courts. The COI is also recommending these accountability steps—that ICC member states support and cooperate fully with the Office of the Prosecutor’s investigation and that states parties to the Geneva Conventions, Convention against Torture, and the Genocide Convention investigate core international crimes under domestic or universal jurisdiction.

While investigations and prosecutions may take years, legal accountability is essential to recovering and healing from a conflict that has resulted in “months of losses and despair, retribution and atrocities.” As the COI concluded: “The only way to stop the recurring cycles of violence…is to ensure strict adherence to international law.”

Elise Baker is a staff lawyer with the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Litigation Project. Previously, she worked at the United Nations International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism on Syria and led Physicians for Human Rights’ Syria Mapping Project, which documented attacks on Syria’s health care system.

The post Unpacking the UN findings of war crimes by Hamas and Israel since October 7 appeared first on Atlantic Council.

Public Event Thu, July 25, 2024 • 8:30 am ET

Shaping the global economy: From food security to digital transformation

Shaping the global economy conference will develop a blueprint for the G20 to address the range of challenges facing its member states from global economic governance and digital transformation to food security and hunger. 

Brazil China Digital Policy Energy Markets & Governance

“We’ve lost all the progress that we’ve made in the past fifteen years” on lowering global hunger levels, World Food Programme (WFP) Executive Director Cindy McCain warned on Thursday.

McCain spoke at an Atlantic Council event hosted on the sidelines of the Group of Twenty (G20) meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors in Rio de Janeiro. She pointed out that one in eleven people globally faced hunger last year.

On Wednesday, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva announced that Brazil—which holds the G20 presidency—will later this year launch the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty to bring countries together in sharing knowledge and resources.

“We have the capability as a planet to feed everybody on the planet—we grow enough food,” McCain said, “but we don’t” due to funding and other coordination issues.

With those challenges, the Global Alliance is “a great opportunity for all of us . . . to get together, exchange ideas, brainstorm” and to “develop science and technology” tools to help, McCain said.

Below are more highlights from the conversation, moderated by Valentina Sader, deputy director at the Atlantic Council’s Adrienne Arsht Latin America Center.

Food security

• Food security is a “national security issue,” and “it should be labeled as one,” McCain argued, pointing out how access to food has shaped broader security crises in Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.
• Yet, food security “gets kicked down” the list of priorities every time “something else happens in the world,” McCain warned.
• She said that the WFP and United Nations agencies, because they provide critical aid, are “on the front lines” of crises and the “first in and last out.”
• The WFP previously got most of its grain from Ukraine. But it has had to diversify its sources in the wake of the agricultural disruptions caused by Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. WFP is also working with other countries to help them mitigate the effects of the conflict on global food supplies.
• In the global hunger crisis, “women and children are taking the brunt,” McCain said. “You’ve never seen more of an example of it than in Gaza.”
• She added that equity and gender inclusion are important to factor into food security efforts because “a woman will feed her family,” and while doing so, “she will make sure everybody else eats” before she does.
• Moreover, with women making up around half of smallholder farmers, McCain argued that it is important to make sure that these women have the tools, expertise, seeds, and access to water that they need to farm effectively. “If a woman farms and can feed her family, she will wind up feeding the community,” McCain said.

Farm to negotiating table

• McCain noted that G20 countries include not only the world’s leading economies but also some of the planet’s largest agricultural producers. That, she said, empowers these countries to work together to address the full spectrum of food-security challenges, from poverty to improvements in agriculture.
• She added that the G20 is an optimal forum for raising the urgency around hunger because of how it brings together both governments and civil society organizations from countries that represent 85 percent of the world’s gross domestic product and over 60 percent of its population. “So the voice is huge,” she said, adding that “governments simply cannot do it all. We need everybody in on this.”
• She urged global stakeholders to “continue to elevate the conversation” about the urgency of food security—and advised countries “most affected” by food insecurity to keep conveying the plight they face. “The problem is [that] around the world, people don’t understand what’s going on” or believe that hunger and malnutrition are only problems in Africa rather than globally, she said. “It’s all about. . . making sure that people understand.”

Katherine Walla is the associate director of editorial at the Atlantic Council. 

Watch the full event

The post ‘We’re back to square one’ in fighting the hunger crisis, warns Cindy McCain appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The post Pelayo quoted in TRT World on Houthis’ attacks against Israel ships appeared first on Atlantic Council.

The turbulence of the current political climate cannot be overstated. Netanyahu’s schedule has been plagued by constant turmoil. Biden’s recent bout with COVID-19, the campaign obligations of Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, and confusion about who would preside over—or even attend—the joint session of Congress convened in the prime minister’s honor have all complicated logistics. This, at a time when the upcoming US elections in November are already absorbing the vast share of America’s attention. None of this commotion detracts from the importance of high-level engagement at this critical juncture.  

In his face-to-face encounter with Biden, Netanyahu had a pivotal opportunity—which one hopes that he didn’t squander—to synchronize Israeli and American objectives for the remaining six months of the Biden presidency. He would have done wisely to move beyond pithy slogans and platitudes and, instead, provide detailed outlines of his plans for the future of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, the festering conflicts with Lebanon and Iran, and the drive to further Israel’s integration into the Middle East. Coordination with the United States is a force multiplier for Israel. Discord weakens its hand.

Netanyahu is advocating what his aides have dubbed a “new way” of confronting Iran—the same country that featured prominently in his previous, and no less controversial, appearance on Capitol Hill in 2015. Summoning memories of Pearl Harbor and Winston Churchill to draw parallels between World War II and the present moment, he appealed to Congress on July 24 for the United States to take a more aggressive approach toward combatting the Islamic Republic by bolstering support for Israel’s war on Hamas and helping to craft a new Abraham Alliance to “counter the growing Iranian threat.” That plea comes on the heels of Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s July 19 warning that Iran is “probably one or two weeks away” from producing enough fissile material to manufacture a nuclear weapon.

The general themes of the prime minister’s case will undoubtedly resonate with the president. But significant gaps endure. The pace of ongoing negotiations to facilitate freedom for the captives in Hamas custody and an end to the fighting in Gaza has fallen short of Biden’s expectations. The US has also been known to encourage Israel toward restraint when responding to the provocations of Iran and its regional proxies.

When Netanyahu and Biden met privately in the Oval Office, both leaders came armed assuredly with extensive wish lists. The prime minister will have beseeched the president to continue having Israel’s back for as long as it takes the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to defeat its enemies resoundingly. (They likely disagreed on what that actually entails.) More specifically, Netanyahu will have repeated his request for unimpeded access to American weaponry and asked that the Biden administration remain steadfast as a bulwark to prevent the imposition of international sanctions against Israel. He will have sought US backing for his vision of a demilitarized and deradicalized Gaza—one where Israel will maintain security oversight while Palestinians who favor coexistence with their Israeli neighbors exercise civilian control—and for Israeli measures to defend against threats from Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. Above all else, he will have implored Biden to leverage the full weight of America’s power in order to halt Iran’s malign influence and thwart its nuclear ambitions.

The president will have pushed the prime minister to line up behind US-sponsored efforts to achieve a ceasefire in Gaza and win the release of all those being held hostage. He will also have pressed Netanyahu to contribute to de-escalating rising tensions across the region. In that context, Biden will have reiterated his call for Israel’s government to articulate a pathway that can lead to eventual Palestinian statehood as a prerequisite to the creation of a broader multinational framework—analogous to the “Abraham Alliance” which Netanyahu previewed before Congress—that can function as a means to counter Iranian belligerence decisively.

Echoes of Biden’s words to Netanyahu would have surfaced in the prime minister’s subsequent conversation with Harris, who has now stepped further into the limelight as the senior-most administration figure to deliver public comment on the discussions with the Israeli leader. That said, the White House readout of her meeting with Netanyahu included a pointed reference to “extremist settler violence and settlement expansion” as destabilizing elements in the West Bank. Where the vice president appears also to have deviated from Biden is in the intensity of her reaction to Gaza’s humanitarian predicament, about which she intoned on July 25 that “we cannot allow ourselves to become numb to the suffering and I will not be silent”—prompting a senior Israeli official to express concern that her remarks could “be interpreted by Hamas as daylight between the US and Israel, thereby making a deal harder to secure.”

The clock is ticking. Biden, no longer inhibited by the constraints of a re-election bid, is primed to make legacy moves and determined, by his admission, to “keep working to end the war in Gaza, bring home all the hostages, and bring peace and security to the Middle East and end this war.” Caveats notwithstanding, these are all objectives that Israelis can embrace wholeheartedly. Given the uncertainty of what may transpire after January 20, Netanyahu—whose political legacy hangs in the balance—should hasten to roll up his sleeves, attach Israel’s wagon to Biden’s train, and pray it reaches that destination.

Shalom Lipner is a nonresident senior fellow for Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council. From 1990 to 2016, he served seven consecutive premiers at the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem. Follow him on X: @ShalomLipner.

The post Netanyahu comes to Washington on a ‘wing’ and a prayer appeared first on Atlantic Council.

During the 1990s, some Russians claimed the dictatorial Lukashenka model was exactly what the troubled and oligarchic Russian Federation needed. Although always opposed to the Belarusian language and broadly aligned with Moscow, Lukashenka tenaciously maintained his independence when Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia, skillfully extracting benefits from both the Kremlin and the West.

This independence was severely undermined by the massive grassroots protests that erupted in Belarus in the wake of the country’s 2020 presidential vote. Large numbers of Belarusians believed reformist opposition candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya had won the election and took to the streets to protest. Lukashenka only survived thanks to Russian support. This left him far more reliant on the Kremlin and significantly reduced his room for maneuver.

In February 2022, Lukashenka allowed Putin to use Belarusian territory to launch his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. However, it soon became clear that things were not going according to Putin’s plan. Russia’s heavy losses during the initial weeks of the invasion restored some of Lukashenka’s independence, while disquiet in his own armed forces and some quarters of the security services convinced him that further direct involvement in Russia’s war would be folly. Since then, Lukashenka has provided training and equipment to Russian forces, but has resisted pressure to join the invasion.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Putin remains eager to exploit Belarus’s resources and strategic position to threaten Kyiv once more and to target Western supplies entering Ukraine from Poland. Belarus could also play an important role in the future, if Russia seeks to intensify hybrid hostilities against the Baltic states or to launch a direct attack. This looks unlikely as long as Lukashenka remains in power. The Belarusian dictator may therefore represent a status quo which fundamentally favors Ukraine and its allies more than Russia.

If Putin continues to fail in his immediate objective of occupying all of Ukraine’s Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, there is a real possibility that he will ultimately lose patience with Lukashenka and move to either replace him or otherwise compel Belarus to join the invasion. Moreover, it is almost certain that Putin will attempt to secure Belarusian human and material resources if Lukashenka dies before him.

Many Belarusians already know what would await them if Putin fully incorporated and militarized their country. They would experience an oligarchic raiding of businesses, covert or overt mobilization, and the extinguishing of the traditionally Western-looking aspect that is an important part of Belarusian national identity.

In contrast, if Belarusians manage to maintain their independence and empower a reformist leadership, they can begin moving towards European integration, with European Union membership an eventual possibility. In this context, it is vital that all Belarusians, including political elites along with members of the military and security forces, receive assurances that they have a viable alternative to the Kremlin vision for their country’s future.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Articulating a European future for Belarus does not need to entail talk of NATO membership. Instead, it should involve acknowledging the possibility of removing sanctions, enhancing access to EU travel, education, and capital, and eventually embracing Belarus’s modest population of 9.2 million people under democratic leadership and after deep structural reforms.

From a purely practical standpoint, European integration would not be an insurmountable task. Lukashenka’s repressive regime has actually resulted in relatively good infrastructure conditions for Belarusians, especially in rural areas, compared to most other former Soviet republics. Belarus boasts a highly educated and comparatively young demographic. Prior to the 2020 protests, the country had burgeoning IT and entrepreneurial sectors.

A Belarus free of Russian military entanglements and increasingly aligned with the Euro-Atlantic community instead of the developing Russia-China-Iran-North Korea axis of autocracies would contribute significantly to the security of Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states. A Belarusian geopolitical pivot toward the West could also encourage transformation inside Russia itself and compel more Russians to embrace a post-imperial identity.

Failure to articulate the possibility of a European future for Belarus leaves the Euro-Atlantic community at risk of being caught off guard without a plan when Belarus does, indeed, reach its fork in the road. This may come sooner than many are prepared for. By taking steps now to engage with Belarusian society, the EU can strengthen its own foreign policy credentials as a major geopolitical player, mitigate against the risk of a rapid Russian militarization of Belarus, and set the stage for a cooperative relationship with Belarusians in the years to come.

Richard Cashman is a nonresident fellow at the Centre for Defence Strategies.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jul 25, 2024

Putin is convinced he can outlast the West and win in Ukraine

By Mykola Bielieskov

The West’s collective fear of escalation and reluctance to commit to Ukrainian victory have convinced Putin that he can outlast his opponents and achieve an historic triumph in Ukraine, writes Mykola Bielieskov.

Conflict Defense Industry

UkraineAlert Jul 16, 2024

Russia’s retreat from Crimea makes a mockery of the West’s escalation fears

By Peter Dickinson

The Russian Navy’s quiet retreat from Crimea highlights the emptiness of Putin’s red lines and the self-defeating folly of Western escalation management, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Jul 18, 2024

Ukraine’s drone success offers a blueprint for cybersecurity strategy

By Anatoly Motkin

Ukraine’s rapidly expanding domestic drone industry offers a potentially appealing blueprint for the development of the country’s cybersecurity capabilities, writes Anatoly Motkin.

Conflict Cybersecurity

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more

The post The West should articulate the possibility of a European future for Belarus now appeared first on Atlantic Council.

On July 17th, Global China Hub Nonresident Fellow Leland Lazarus published an article on the potential national security concerns of the Chinese-build port in Chancay, Peru in China US Focus.

Fellow

Leland Lazarus

Nonresident Fellow

Global China Hub

Caribbean China

The post Leland Lazarus on the Chinese-built port in Chancay, Peru in China US Focus appeared first on Atlantic Council.

It was already clear some time before the NATO summit that there would be no serious discussion of a membership invitation for Ukraine. Instead, the emphasis would be on improving the existing partnership, with alliance leaders preserving as much room to maneuver as possible when dealing with the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Post-summit coverage focused on the official communique declaring Ukraine’s “irreversible path” to future NATO membership, but not everyone saw the wording of the joint statement as a breakthrough. Indeed, some skeptics interpreted this latest rephrasing of NATO’s open door for Ukraine as an indication that the alliance is still no closer to agreeing on a specific time frame regarding Ukrainian membership.

The summit was not a complete anticlimax, of course. A number of countries pledged additional air defense systems to Ukraine, meeting one of Kyiv’s most urgent requests to help protect the country from Russian bombardment. There were announcements regarding the imminent arrival of the first F-16 fighter jets in Ukraine, while additional mechanisms to coordinate weapons deliveries and enhance cooperation were unveiled.

NATO members also agreed in Washington to allocate forty billion euros for Ukrainian military aid next year. While this figure is certainly significant, it falls far below the level of funding needed to ensure Ukrainian victory. This is not a new issue. While the collective GDP of the West dwarfs Russia’s, Western leaders have yet to mobilize their financial resources to provide Ukraine with an overwhelming military advantage. As a consequence, it is the much smaller Russian economy that is currently producing more artillery shells than the entire Western world.

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

The modest progress made at the NATO summit reflects a lack of urgency that has hampered the Western response ever since the onset of Russia’s full-scale invasion. There is little chance this hesitancy will provoke a change of heart in Moscow. On the contrary, Russian policymakers are far more likely to regard the West’s current posture as proof that the war is going according to plan.

Unlike the West, the Kremlin has a clear and coherent vision for a future Russian victory in Ukraine. This involves gradually wearing down Ukrainian battlefield resistance with relentless high intensity combat along the front lines of the war, while extensively bombing civilian infrastructure and population centers across the country.

In parallel to these military measures, Russia will also continue to conduct diverse influence operations targeting Ukrainian and Western audiences, with the goal of undermining morale and sowing division. This will leave Ukraine increasingly isolated and exhausted, leading eventually to collapse and capitulation.

The Russian authorities believe Ukraine will struggle to maintain the attention of its Western allies, and are encouraged by growing signs that many in the West now view the invasion as a stalemate. Putin himself appears to be more confident that ever that the West will lose interest in the war, and expects Western leaders to reluctantly pressure Kyiv into a negotiated settlement on Russian terms.

Eurasia Center events

Online Event Thu, August 15, 2024 • 9:00 am ET

Ukraine’s advance in Kursk: What’s next and implications

Conflict Russia Security & Defense Ukraine

Since the invasion began nearly two and a half years ago, Western leaders have failed to demonstrate the kind of resolve that would force Putin to revise his expectations. Instead of flooding Kyiv with the very latest tanks, jets, drones, and missiles, Ukraine’s partners have consistently slow-walked military aid while imposing absurd restrictions on the use of Western weapons.

The West’s messaging has been equally inadequate. Rather than publicly committing themselves to Ukrainian victory, Western leaders have spoken of preventing Ukrainian defeat and of standing with Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” This is not the language of strength that Putin understands.

Confronted by continued signs of Western indecisiveness, the Russian dictator is now escalating his demands. His most recent peace proposal envisaged Ukraine ceding all lands already occupied by Russia along with significant additional territory not currently under Kremlin control. There can be little doubt that he remains as committed as ever to the complete surrender and subjugation of Ukraine.

Putin knows he could not hope to match the collective might of the democratic world, but this does not discourage him. Instead, he fully expects continued Western weakness to hand Russia an historic victory in Ukraine. Unless the West is finally prepared to translate its vast financial, military, and technical potential into war-winning support for Ukraine, he may be proved right.

Mykola Bielieskov is a research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and a senior analyst at Ukrainian NGO “Come Back Alive.” The views expressed in this article are the author’s personal position and do not reflect the opinions or views of NISS or Come Back Alive.

Further reading

UkraineAlert Jul 16, 2024

Russia’s retreat from Crimea makes a mockery of the West’s escalation fears

By Peter Dickinson

The Russian Navy’s quiet retreat from Crimea highlights the emptiness of Putin’s red lines and the self-defeating folly of Western escalation management, writes Peter Dickinson.

Conflict Defense Policy

UkraineAlert Jun 12, 2024

Ukraine is making the Russian occupation of Crimea untenable

By Olivia Yanchik

Ukraine’s growing air strike capabilities are decimating Russian air defenses in Crimea and making the occupation of the peninsula increasingly untenable, writes Olivia Yanchik.

Conflict Defense Technologies

UkraineAlert Jul 18, 2024

Ukraine’s drone success offers a blueprint for cybersecurity strategy

By Anatoly Motkin

Ukraine’s rapidly expanding domestic drone industry offers a potentially appealing blueprint for the development of the country’s cybersecurity capabilities, writes Anatoly Motkin.

Conflict Cybersecurity

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read more from UkraineAlert

UkraineAlert is a comprehensive online publication that provides regular news and analysis on developments in Ukraine’s politics, economy, civil society, and culture.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Learn more