War Zones







This Is Russia’s First Autonomous Strike Drone

The “Hunter” heavy strike drone has no equal in the United States.



Images of what appears to be a new unmanned strike drone have emerged from Russia.

The aircraft is believed to be the Sukhoi “Okhotnik” (“Hunter”) heavy strike drone, under development since 2011.

Okhotnik is designed to strike targets on the ground in support of manned aircraft, destroying air defenses and headquarters units.

The images first appeared on Russian social media depicting cockpit-free, single-engine flying wing aircraft.

The drone is clearly built for stealth but lacks certain stealth features: It appears studded with what are likely antennas for testing purposes, and the engine nozzle is unshrouded and exposed.

Ultimately Okhotnik will feature the use of composite materials and an anti-radar skin coating to further reduce its radar signature.

There appears to be some heat blur behind the engine, radiating upward, to indicate that the aircraft’s turbofan engine is active.


Alleged Okhotnik heavy strike drone.


The drone is officially known as Udarno-Razvedyvatelnyi Bespilotnyi Kompleks, or “Strike-Reconnaissance Unmanned Complex.” (“Complex” is the Russian equivalent of calling a weapon or piece of equipment a “system” in the West.)

Okhotnik was designed as a 20-ton combat aircraft—an impressive size considering the American F/A-18E/F Super Hornet weighs 16 tons empty and includes a cockpit and life-support systems for a pilot.

The Russian government signed a development deal with the Sukhoi Design Bureau in 2011, at which time the drone was described as a “sixth-generation aircraft” powered by two non-afterburning Klimov RD-33MK engines or a single Sukhoi Su-57 engine.

The presence of a single engine nozzle indicates Okhotnik went the latter route.

Okhotnik reportedly has a top speed of 621 miles an hour.

In July 2018, the Russian government’s TASS news bureau quoted a military aviation expert as saying, “Probably, the Okhotnik has been designed to accomplish missions similar to the assignments set for U.S. UAVs—destroying enemy air-defense systems, communications, command and control posts in situations when the use of aircraft is associated with considerable risks for crews.”


The Okhotnik prototype lacks shrouding for the engine exhaust that would reduce its rear-facing radar and infrared signatures.


Okhotnik will be a fully autonomous drone.

That is, it will be able to take off, accomplish its mission, and land without human interference.

Weapons use will require human approval, maintaining a “man in the loop” who can critically analyze a combat situation and if necessary abort an attack.

Okhotnik will pioneer the development of a combat artificial intelligence system that will eventually go into Russia’s sixth-generation fighter.

Okhotnik development was carried out at the Novosibirsk-based Chkalov Aviation Plant, and according to Russian state media has been carrying out ground runway tests since Thanksgiving 2018.

The photos made public are likely from such tests and do not in any way suggest the aircraft has actually flown yet.

In November TASS reported that the next step after runway testing was “will include so-called jumps—the aircraft will briefly take off and land almost immediately.

Once those trials are over, the drone will make its maiden flight.” TASS has further reported flights would begin in Spring 2019.

Russia’s military has not integrated unmanned combat aircraft into its inventory to the same extent that the U.S. has, and Russia’s drone industry is thought to be less sophisticated than those in the West.

Armed U.S. drones, on the other hand, are mostly relegated to the MQ-9 Reaper and smaller aircraft using pusher turboprop engines.

The first American turbofan-equipped drone designed for mainstream military use, the MQ-25 Stingray, will primarily function as an aerial refueling tanker with some intelligence collecting capabilities. In that sense, Okhotnik has no equal in the United States.

Everything we know about Okhotnik—other than the pictures—is from Russian state media and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Nevertheless, there does appear to be a real combat stealth drone undergoing testing in Siberia.

It’s worth remembering, however, that the Sukhoi Su-57 fifth-generation fighter first flew in 2010 and as of 2019 is still not operational.

An unmanned autonomous drone, not exactly a Russian specialty, could take just as long if not longer to develop.



………playing poker with other people’s money……….w

The Air Force’s Next Great Fighter Jet Could Cost $300 Million Apiece

The project called Penetrating Counter Air will replace the F-22 Raptor … if the Air Force can afford it, that is.



By now, we’ve gotten accustomed to sticker shock when it comes to the cost of brand-new bombers and fighter jets (hello, F-35).

But the plane that would replace both the F-22 Raptor and F-15 Eagle could reach a staggering cost of $300 million per plane.

That figure comes from a new study called “The Cost of Replacing Today’s Air Force Fleet,” which was published by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) andfirst reported by Defense News.

The report attempted to calculate the future cost of Penetrating Counter Air (PCA), which is the current name of the U.S. Air Force’s next superiority fighter jet.

PCA is meant to replace the current fleet of F-22s and F-15s, taking its place as the service’s dedicated air-to-air fighter when it enters service in 2030.

Unlike the Air Force’s F-35A, which is meant to carry out both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions, PCA will be focused solely on the skies, optimized to fight and win against current and future aerial threats including the Russian Sukhoi Su-57 and China’s J-20 fighter.

Airshow China 2018 - Day Six

A pair of Chengdu J-20 fighters.


The CBO estimated that the Air Force would require 414 new fighters in total.

The office estimates the per-unit cost of the PCA fighter at $300 million.

For comparison’s sake, the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter costs $94 million apiece at the time of publication.

Why so expensive?

For starters, the PCA will need capabilities far beyond the planes it replaces.

For example, the next-gen fighter will need an even more powerful radar than the F-22’s AN/APG-77 active electronically scanned array radar in order to detect enemy stealth fighters.

(When the F-22 was first fielded there were no enemy stealth fighters on the horizon).

PCA will also need greater stealth, particularly against low frequency radars.

One design characteristic that might make PCA more stealthy than her predecessors could be the lack of a vertical stabilizer, like the B-2 Spirit bomber (see Boeing’s concept art at top.)

The Royal International Air Tattoo

U.S. Air Force F-22 and F-35 fighters.


Another feature of the new fighter lies in the name: the fighter will be optimized to penetrate enemy airspace.

The return of big power warfare—and the need to infiltrate large, complex national air defense networks like those in Russia and China—will place a premium on long range.

PCA could escort the Air Force’s new B-21 Raider bombers on long-distance flights deep into enemy territory, swatting away enemy interceptors so the bomber crews can hit their targets and return home.

Longer flights over hostile airspace will also drive the need a larger internal weapons bay to accommodate more air-to-air missiles than the F-22 Raptor.

All of this means that PCA will be a bigger jet than the F-15 or F-22.

Stealth aircraft can’t carry external stores such as weapons and fuel, as hanging things off the wings and fuselage ruins a warplane’s radar-evading profile and makes them easier to detect. Weapons and fuel must be stored within the airframe, increasing internal volume.

Rehearsal of 2018 Victory Day air show

Russia’s new Sukhoi Su-57 fifth-generation fighter.


Plus, stealth isn’t cheap. The CBO warns that: “Other stealthy aircraft, such as the B-2 bomber and the F-22 and F-35A fighters, have experienced cost increases that resulted in lower production rates and decreased total purchases. Containing costs for the PCA aircraft may be similarly difficult.”

This astronomical price tag could become a serious problem for the Pentagon. The Congressional Budget Office warns that the PCA jet could become so expensive, “the Air Force could decide that the PCA aircraft’s cutting-edge design is unaffordable and instead opt to purchase more F-35As.” Alternately, the Air Force could choose to modernize the F-22 airframe with newer F-35 electronics, as Lockheed Martin has proposed doing for Japan.


…..things getting expensive around here…..w


The Air Force’s secret stealth bomber program has passed a major early milestone.


“Our most recent review was last week, and the B-21 Raider is on schedule and performance,” Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson said at a defense forum in California over the weekend.

Air Force officials confirmed to Popular Mechanics that she was referring to the Critical Design Review (CDR), considered a major milestone in the program. Here’s what that means—and what it means for the future of the next great bomber.

Avoiding Warplane Hell


Northrop Grumman’s B-2 Spirit.

The central question of the Pentagon’s CDR process is determining whether a program is mature enough to dive into the deep end of full-scale fabrication and testing.

There are details about factory hardware, production processes, and software specifications to look at.

The review also matches the program requirements with a budget and a schedule.

One can infer from this news that the CDR confirmed the Air Force’s stated $550 million per Raider price tag.

The B-21 will carry conventional and nuclear weapons on penetration missions that can duck advanced air defenses.

It will be capable of operation by an onboard crew or piloted remotely.

The Raider is projected to enter service in the 2020s with an initial fleet of 100 aircraft.

The B-21 is a major program, but the Pentagon is handling it differently than others, hoping to avoid the development hell that plagues other warplanes.

The B-21 program is managed through the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office, which has a much leaner office and less overhead than any other major program.

A Congressional Research Service report issued in October said the defense appropriate bill allocated $2.31 billion in the fiscal year 2019 budget for B-21 development.

Representatives from Northrop Grumman declined to answer any questions about the bomber program.

Not a Raptor Repeat



So what does passing the CDR mean for the Raider?

Well, it’s certainly good news.

A delay at this point could indicate struggles within the Pentagon to finalize requirements.

But there are plenty of harder milestones ahead, ones that proved to be stumbling blocks for other warplanes such as the F-22 Raptor.

The Air Force began the F-22 development program in 1991, finished the preliminary design review in April 1993, and completed its critical design review in February 1995.

But in 1996 brought real trouble.

A Joint Estimate Team concluded that the F-22 development program would require additional time and a $1.45 billion increase in cost, warning of a larger increase of $13 billion if other risks were not averted.

So a clean bill of health in a CDR does not ensure long-term success.

But there is reason to hope the B-21 program will fare better.

After all, the F-22 took about 20 years to reach initial operations, while the Raider is slated to do the same in just ten.

The CDR report noted that the B-21’s “proposed funding and deployment schedule implied that considerable development had been accomplished prior to contract award.

The Air Force later confirmed this, with senior program officials stating that both competing designs were at an unusually high level of detail and development for a system in which the prime contractor had not

been selected.”

A New Home in Oklahoma


Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson receives an overview of the KC-46A program and its maintenance campus under construction at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma.

It’s not just Wilson’s comments about the classified program that indicate progress.

In late November, the Air Force announced that Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, will coordinate maintenance and sustainment of the B-21 Raider. Edwards AFB, California, will lead testing and evaluation.

There are more than a thousand Northrop employees working on the project at a top-secret restricted site outside Palmdale, California.

AnL.A. Times report shows that money is being poured into the project with employees working in “rows of temporary trailers, a dozen tan-colored tents, and a vast assembly hangar…

Construction crews are getting ready to add 1 million square feet to the plant, a 50 percent increase over what is already a huge facility that is protected by razor wire-topped fences, electronic sensors and

military air space surveillance…”

Although there are many milestones to go, with the CDR done and the production adhering to that ten-year plan, the Raider has a shot at being the rarest of defense aviation programs—one that comes in on time and on budget.







…………….now what?

As It Begins Its Second Century, Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?

A hundred years after the birth of the carrier, the platform has grown huge and expensive. Is it still worth the cost?



The HMS Hermes arrived too late to change the course of the First World War.

But it arrived just in time to change the course of world history.

One hundred years ago, the W. G. Armstrong-Whitworth shipbuilding company laid down the hull of the world’s first aircraft carrier at Walker, U.K. World War I, which saw the introduction of fighters, bombers, and bomb-dropping airships, was in its final months.

The modest Hermes was just 600 feet long and carried just 15 Swordfish torpedo bombers.

But the revolutionary idea behind it shaped the next great war and the next century of the world’s navies.

A century later, hundreds of carriers patrol the world’s oceans.

These mega-vessels are still considered the pinnacle of sea power, but they are also, in a way, giant floating targets.

New anti-carrier weapons threaten their existence—as do the spiraling costs to build them in the first place.

Has the age of aircraft carriers ended? Or has it just begun?

The Carrier Ascends

HMS Hermes, the world’s first purpose-built carrier, 1924.

There’s a reason the first carrier came out of the U.K.

While the Royal Navy was convinced this blazing new technology had a big future, the United States Navy resisted the idea of carriers as a decisive weapon at sea.

To the American navy, planes based at sea were scouts, the eyes and ears of fleets equipped with battleships and cruisers.

Those big ships had dominated the seas with their big guns, which measured up to 18 inches in diameter in the case of Japan’s Yamato class, with ranges of up to 20 nautical miles.

A single Iowa-class battleship packed nine 16-inch guns, each hurling 2,700-lb shells.

Gunships located the enemy, closed on it, and bombarded it with overwhelming firepower.

Airpower advocate Gen. Billy Mitchell, one of the architects of the U.S. Air Force, turned the tide.

He demonstrated in a series of tests in 1921 (including the sinking of the captured German battleship Ostfriesland) that planes could locate and destroy enemy ships.

The Navy began to see the possibilities for planes as a separate striking arm, one that could see farther and attack at greater ranges.

The death knell for the battleship age came on the day that will live in infamy.

In the years leading up to World War II, the Imperial Japanese Navy had gone all-in on the carrier concept.

Six aircraft carriers led the strike force that hit the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor with a surprise attack on December 7, 1941.

In one day, carriers proved they could do what battleships could not: cripple a fleet hundreds of miles away.

The range difference doomed battleships, which went from being the hunters to the hunted.

Only one battleship, HMS Vanguard, was commissioned after the end of World War II.

The Carrier Evolves


The battleship USS Arizona in New York harbor, 1918. Twenty three years later she would be sunk by Japanese carrier aircraft launched from ships far beyond the reach of her guns.

Aircraft carriers have reigned supreme since 1945, and those in the United States’ fleet have not faced a mortal threat since V-J Day.

U.S. Navy carriers have provided crucial air support in the Korean War, Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, the Balkans, Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq, and the war against the Islamic State.

None of America’s adversaries have had the power to even remotely threaten her carriers.

What if the next enemy does?

Today, the United States faces two navies with the potential to threaten U.S. aircraft carriers.

Russia’s new Yasen-class guided missile submarines, with their ability to launch salvos of Klub anti-ship missiles, along with China’s growing fleet of aircraft carriers, destroyers, submarines, and anti-ship ballistic missiles, represent the greatest threats to American carriers since the end of the Cold War.

To win the future, the designers and builders of carriers must amplify their strengths and come up with clever ways to mitigate their weaknesses.


USS Constellation, launching devastating airstrikes with impunity off the coast of Vietnam, 1972.

Carriers can do what no other vessels can.

As U.S. Navy admirals are fond of saying, carriers are “4.5 acres of sovereign American territory,” capable of operating from virtually any saltwater location on Earth.

The U.S. Navy’s Nimitz and Ford-class carriers can accomplish counter-air (air-to-air), anti-ship, anti-submarine, land attack, reconnaissance, and disaster relief missions—and even potentially lead a nuclear strike.

Thanks to mid-air refueling, there are few places carrier-based planes can’t go.


The UK’s newest carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, enters New York harbor, October 2018.

An aircraft carrier is perhaps the most adaptable of any large military technology.
Its ability to accommodate any plane is what keeps it at the top of the food chain.
If flat-tops could only handle the Hellcat fighters of World War II, they’d be obsolete.
Instead they carry an evolving array of aircraft that today includes F/A-18E/F Super Hornets and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, planes far more capable than the prop-driven fighters of World War II.
Unlike most military systems, the aircraft carrier stays relevant by taking on new technologies with ease.

Yet carriers face an increasing number of threats stemming from one big problem: They are huge, hulking targets.

They concentrate firepower and capability, but they also concentrate people: each Nimitz-class carrier is home to more than 5,000 sailors and Marines meaning the sinking of a single one could see more Americans killed in action in a single event than were lost on 9/11.

These great vessels now face threats from aircraft, anti-ship missiles, submarines, nuclear weapons, and even anti-ship ballistic missiles.

Minimally armed, they must rely on their escorts to defend them.


The supremely capable–and expensive–USS Gerald R. Ford.

And there is the issue of the ever-escalating cost to produce them.

During World War II, the average Essex-class fleet carrier cost somewhere in the vicinity of $75 million, and Hellcat fighter planes cost $50,000 each.

Adjusted for inflation to today’s dollars, that’s $1 billion for the ship and $690,000 for the plane.

Today, a Ford-class carrier costs$13 billion, and the modern equivalent of the Hellcat, the F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, costs $121 million apiece.

This is an unaffordable trajectory, making fewer carriers and planes affordable—and their loss in combat irreplaceable.

The Carrier Continues?

America isn’t the only country still banking on carriers.

China has built two aircraft carriers and is building two more.

The United Kingdom is building two carriers, Italy has two carriers, France has one, and Russia is struggling hard to keep its lone carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov, in service.

Japan, once the owner of the most powerful carrier force in the world, has a fleet of three helicopter-capable carriers and is investigating operating F-35 fighters from the two largest.

As long as air power is viable, aircraft carriers will have a future, but they need a few key moves to remain relevant.

One is the adaptation of unmanned aerial vehicles for most air missions.

Drones are much cheaper than manned aircraft, and their loss in combat doesn’t result in a captured pilot.

The Navy could also invest in smaller, cheaper carriersto bring costs down.

Another way would be to make them hard to kill.

Rather than a colossal ship topped by a runway, picture a drone-operating submarine that surfaces only to launch and recover aircraft, which would be much harder to detect during wartime.

Spreading air power among smaller submarine carriers networked by secure datalinks could disperse firepower while still concentrating it for key missions.


A Rafale fighter on the flight deck of the French Navy carrier Charles de Gaulle.

If the Navy succeeds in countering these problems, carriers could sail on—above or below the waves—for another hundred years.

If not, then the nation may be in for a rude shock the next time it goes up against another naval power.


…………holy mud head mackerel ……………

…..serious FUBAR ahead…..

Marines pause during a dismounted patrol with Afghan National Civil Order Policemen during a training mission in Kajaki district, Helmand province, Afghanistan, April 28, 2013.

Marines pause during a dismounted patrol with Afghan National Civil Order Policemen during a training mission in Kajaki district, Helmand province, Afghanistan, April 28, 2013.

KABUL, Afghanistan — The collective wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have cost U.S. taxpayers more than $1.5 trillion since Sept. 11, 2001, according to a Defense Department report.

The current U.S. military operations, designated Operation Freedom’s Sentinel in Afghanistan, Operation Inherent Resolve in Syria and Iraq, and Operation Noble Eagle for homeland security missions in the U.S. and Canada, have accounted for $185.5 billion of that sum.

Of the three current operations, Freedom Sentinel takes the lion’s share of costs at $134.3 billion, followed by Noble Eagle at $27.7 billion, and Inherent Resolve at $23.5 billion.

According to the report, the money goes toward training, equipment, maintenance as well as food, clothing, medical services and pay for troops.

Ahead of an announced trip to Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense James Mattis told reporters traveling with him that he was hopeful peace talks with the Taliban would signal an end to America’s longest war.

The fight in Afghanistan has been ongoing for the last 17 years.

Defense Secretary James Mattis arrives in Kabul, Afghanistan on September 7, 2018.

Defense Secretary James Mattis arrives in Kabul, Afghanistan on September 7, 2018.

“Right now, we have more indications that reconciliation is no longer just a shimmer out there, no longer just a mirage,” Mattis said.

“It now has some framework, there’s some open lines of communication,” Mattis added.

Over the summer, a top U.S. State Department official met Taliban officials in Qatar to try to lay the ground work for broader peace talks.

The visit is Mattis’ fourth time in the country since becoming Defense secretary, and it’s part of a larger trip including stops in San Diego and India.

Mattis’ visit to Afghanistan comes amid recent attacks.

A U.S. service member was killed and another wounded Monday in “an apparent insider attack” in eastern Afghanistan, according to a statement from the Resolute Support, the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan.

On Wednesday, 20 people were killed in twin bomb attacks in Kabul. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack.

Currently there are approximately 14,000 Americans in Afghanistan.

<p style=” margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;” >Cost of War Through March 3… by on Scribd





………….Costly in All Ways …………………….w


……………..It’s everywhere!………………..w


………..good thing money grows on trees…………w



The US Army Wants a New Armed Scout Helicopter

Future Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft will be the flying cavalry of the 21st century.



The U.S. Army seeks a new armed reconnaissance helicopter that will range across the battlefield, acting as the eyes and ears of commanders on the ground.

Planned for an introduction in the 2020s, the Future Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) would give the Army back a capability it lost when the service put its scout helicopters out to pasture.


In the mid 2010s, the U.S. Army retired its fleet OH-58D Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters.

The two person OH-58D acted as an aeroscout, locating and identifying enemy forces for its bigger siblings, the AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, to sweep in and destroy.

The OH-58Ds were removed from the Army inventory, through some of them still serve on in the Croatian Air Force.

UH-58D Kiowa Warrior

OH-58D Kiowa Warrior.


Now the Army wants a new scout aircraft.According to Breaking DefenseFARA most likely would serve in new squadron-sized units, meaning a group of 24 to 30 aircraft.

These new air cavalry squadrons would provide Army corps commanders with their own recon capability, ranging out and locating threats before they close with friendly troops on the ground.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed, and knowing the locations of enemy forces will help ground commanders make critical decisions about their own forces.

According to Breaking Defense, could spread to the various existing helicopter units across the U.S. Army.

But what will FARA look like?

Breaking Defensepreviously identified three things the Army wants: speed (180 to 205 knots), small size (to fly down city streets), and optionally manned (a crew of two, one, or none).

FARA would probably be lightly armed, with a pair of Hellfire anti-tank missiles and a machine gun or rockets on outboard pylons.

The Army seems to have backed off the requirement that a scout aircraft be stealthy, which was a major reason whycosts escalated enough to kill the RAH-66 Comanche scout helicopter in 2004.


One option for FARA is a smaller version of the V-280 Valor, depicted here.


There are a few candidates that fit the bill for FARA—sort of.

The Sikorsky S-97 Raider (see top image) was built as part of a previous effort to field a new Army scout helicopter, but is a little too big to safely fly down city streets.

Another possibility is a scout chopper based on the Bell V-280 Valor.

But tiltrotors are notoriously wide aircraft because of the side-by-side configuration of the rotors, making them too big to fly down foreign boulevards.

Alternately, the Army could look at adapting an existing light helicopter design.

In related news, the Army will fly the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter “well into the 2040s,” per Military.com.

Although the service will someday replace the AH-64, possibly with an armed version of the Raider or Valor, the commander of the Army’s Aviation Center of Excellence, Maj. Gen. William Gayler, recently said, “the timing of what replaces (the Apache) and the affordability what replaces it has yet to be seen.”

The Army is currently buying the latest version of the Apache, the AH-64E Apache Guardian.

…………weapons weapons and more weapons…………….w


With Ships and Missiles, China Is Ready to Challenge U.S. Navy in Pacific

China’s first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, at sea in April. First launched by the Soviet Union in 1988, it was sold for $20 million to a Chinese investor who said it would become a floating casino, though he was in reality acting on behalf of the People’s Liberation Army
DALIAN, China — In April, on the 69th anniversary of the founding of China’s Navy, the country’s first domestically built aircraft carrier stirred from its berth in the port city of Dalian on the Bohai Sea, tethered to tugboats for a test of its seaworthiness.

“China’s first homegrown aircraft carrier just moved a bit, and the United States, Japan and India squirmed,” a military news website crowed, referring to the three nations China views as its main rivals.

Not long ago, such boasts would have been dismissed as the bravado of a second-string military. No longer.

A modernization program focused on naval and missile forces has shifted the balance of power in the Pacific in ways the United States and its allies are only beginning to digest.


While China lags in projecting firepower on a global scale, it can now challenge American military supremacy in the places that matter most to it: the waters around Taiwan and in the disputed South China Sea.

That means a growing section of the Pacific Ocean — where the United States has operated unchallenged since the naval battles of World War II — is once again contested territory, with Chinese warships and aircraft regularly bumping up against those of the United States and its allies.

To prevail in these waters, according to officials and analysts who scrutinize Chinese military developments, China does not need a military that can defeat the United States outright but merely one that can make intervention in the region too costly for Washington to contemplate.

Many analysts say Beijing has already achieved that goal.

To do so, it has developed “anti-access” capabilities that use radar, satellites and missiles to neutralize the decisive edge that America’s powerful aircraft carrier strike groups have enjoyed.

It is also rapidly expanding its naval forces with the goal of deploying a “blue water” navy that would allow it to defend its growing interests beyond its coastal waters.

“China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of war with the United States,” the new commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Philip S. Davidson, acknowledged in written remarks submitted during his Senate confirmation process in March.


He described China as a “peer competitor” gaining on the United States not by matching its forces weapon by weapon but by building critical “asymmetrical capabilities,” including with anti-ship missiles and in submarine warfare.

“There is no guarantee that the United States would win a future conflict with China,” he concluded.

Last year, the Chinese Navy became the world’s largest, with more warships and submarines than the United States, and it continues to build new ships at a stunning rate.

Though the American fleet remains superior qualitatively, it is spread much thinner.

“The task of building a powerful navy has never been as urgent as it is today,” President Xi Jinping declared in April as he presided over a naval procession off the southern Chinese island of Hainan that opened exercises involving 48 ships and submarines.

The Ministry of National Defense said they were the largest since the People’s Republic of China was founded in 1949.

Even as the United States wages a trade war against China, Chinese warships and aircraft have picked up the pace of operations in the waters off Japan, Taiwan, and the islands, shoals and reefs it has claimed in the South China Sea over the objections of Vietnam and the Philippines.

When two American warships — the Higgins, a destroyer, and the Antietam, a cruiser — sailed within a few miles of disputed islands in the Paracels in May, Chinese vessels rushed to challenge what Beijing later denounced as “a provocative act.”

China did the same to three Australian ships passing through the South China Sea in April.

Only three years ago, Mr. Xi stood beside President Barack Obama in the Rose Garden and promised not to militarize artificial islands it has built farther south in the Spratlys archipelago. Chinese officials have since acknowledged deploying missiles there, but argue that they are necessary because of American “incursions” in Chinese waters.


When Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited Beijing in June, Mr. Xi bluntly warned him that China would not yield “even one inch” of territory it claims as its own.

Ballistic missiles designed to strike ships on display at a military parade in Beijing in 2015.
CreditPool photo by Andy Wong

‘Anti-Access/Area Denial’

China’s naval expansion began in 2000 but accelerated sharply after Mr. Xi took command in 2013.

He has drastically shifted the military’s focus to naval as well as air and strategic rocket forces, while purging commanders accused of corruption and cutting the traditional land forces.

The People’s Liberation Army — the bedrock of Communist power since the revolution — has actually shrunk in order to free up resources for a more modern fighting force. Since 2015, the army has cut 300,000 enlisted soldiers and officers, paring the military to two million personnel over all, compared with 1.4 million in the United States.

While every branch of China’s armed forces lags behind the United States’ in firepower and experience, China has made significant gains in asymmetrical weaponry to blunt America’s advantages.

One focus has been in what American military planners call A2/AD, for “anti-access/area denial,” or what the Chinese call “counter-intervention.”

A centerpiece of this strategy is an arsenal of high-speed ballistic missiles designed to strike moving ships.

The latest versions, the DF-21D and, since 2016, the DF-26, are popularly known as “carrier killers,” since they can threaten the most powerful vessels in the American fleet long before they get close to China.

The DF-26, which made its debut in a military parade in Beijing in 2015 and was tested in the Bohai Sea last year, has a range that would allow it to menace ships and bases as far away as Guam, according to the latest Pentagon report on the Chinese military, released this month.

These missiles are almost impossible to detect and intercept, and are directed at moving targets by an increasingly sophisticated Chinese network of radar and satellites.

China announced in April that the DF-26 had entered service. State television showed rocket launchers carrying 22 of them, though the number deployed now is unknown.

A brigade equipped with them is reported to be based in Henan Province, in central China.


Such missiles pose a particular challenge to American commanders because neutralizing them might require an attack deep inside Chinese territory, which would be a major escalation.

The American Navy has never faced such a threat before, the Congressional Research Office warned in a report in May, adding that some analysts consider the missiles “game changing.”

The “carrier killers” have been supplemented by the deployment this year of missiles in the South China Sea.

The weaponry includes the new YJ-12B anti-ship cruise missile, which puts most of the waters between the Philippines and Vietnam in range.

While all-out war between China and the United States seems unthinkable, the Chinese military is preparing for “a limited military conflict from the sea,” according to a 2013 paper in a journal called The Science of Military Strategy.

Lyle Morris, an analyst with the RAND Corporation, said that China’s deployment of missiles in the disputed Paracel and Spratly Islands “will dramatically change how the U.S. military operates” across Asia and the Pacific.

The best American response, he added, would be “to find new and innovative methods” of deploying ships outside their range. Given the longer range of the ballistic missiles, however, that is not possible “in most contingencies” the American Navy would be likely to face in Asia.

Soldiers with the People’s Liberation Army Navy patrolling Woody Island in the disputed Paracel archipelago in 2016.



Blue-Water Ambitions

The aircraft carrier that put to sea in April for its first trials is China’s second, but the first built domestically.

It is the most prominent manifestation of a modernization project meant to propel the country into the upper tier of military powers.

Only the United States, with 11 nuclear-powered carriers, operates more than one.

A third Chinese carrier is under construction in a port near Shanghai.

Analysts believe China will eventually build five or six.

The Chinese military, traditionally focused on repelling a land invasion, increasingly aims to project power into the “blue waters” of the world to protect China’s expanding economic and diplomatic interests, from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

The carriers attract the most attention but China’s naval expansion has been far broader.

The Chinese Navy — officially the People’s Liberation Army Navy — has built more than 100 warships and submarines in the last decade alone, more than the entire naval fleets of all but a handful of nations.

Last year, China also introduced the first of a new class of a heavy cruisers — or “super destroyers” — that, according to the American Office of Naval Intelligence, “are comparable in many respects to most modern Western warships.”

Two more were launched from dry dock in Dalian in July, the state media reported.

Last year, China counted 317 warships and submarines in active service, compared with 283 in the United States Navy, which has been essentially unrivaled in the open seas since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Unlike the Soviet Union, which drained its coffers during the Cold War arms race, military spending in China is a manageable percentage of a growing economy.

Beijing’s defense budget now ranks second only to the United States: $228 billion to $610 billion, according to estimatesby the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.


The roots of China’s focus on sea power and “area denial” can be traced to what many Chinese viewed as humiliation in 1995 and 1996.

When Taiwan moved to hold its first democratic elections, China fired missiles near the island, prompting President Bill Clinton to dispatch two aircraft carriers to the region.

“We avoided the sea, took it as a moat and a joyful little pond to the Middle Kingdom,” a naval analyst, Chen Guoqiang, wrote recently in the official Navy newspaper.

“So not only did we lose all the advantages of the sea but also our territories became the prey of the imperialist powers.”

China’s naval buildup since then has been remarkable.

In 1995, China built only three new submarines to begin replacing an older fleet that totaled 83.

It now has nearly 60 new submarines and plans to expand to nearly 80, according to a report by the United States Congressional Research Service.

As it has in its civilian economy, China has bought or absorbed technologies from the rest of the world, in some cases illicitly.

Much of its military hardware is of Soviet origin or modeled on antiquated Soviet designs, but with each new wave of production, analysts say, China is deploying more advanced capabilities.

China’s first aircraft carrier was originally launched by the Soviet Union in 1988 and left to rust when the nation collapsed three years later.

Newly independent Ukraine sold it for $20 million to a Chinese investor who claimed it would become a floating casino, though he was really acting on behalf of Beijing, which refurbished the vessel and named it the Liaoning.

The second aircraft carrier — as yet unnamed — is largely based on the Liaoning’s designs, but is reported to have enhanced technology.

In February, the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation disclosed that it has plans to build nuclear-powered carriers, which have far greater endurance than ones that require refueling stops.

China’s military has encountered some growing pains.

It is hampered by corruption, which Mr. Xi has vowed to wipe out, and a lack of combat experience.

As a fighting force, it remains untested by combat.


In January, it was embarrassed when one of its most advanced submarines was detected as it neared disputed islands known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China.

The attack submarine should never have been spotted.

The second aircraft carrier also appears to have experienced hiccups.

Its first sea trials were announced in April and then inexplicably delayed.

Not long after the trials went ahead in May, the general manager of China Shipbuilding was placed under investigation for “serious violation of laws and discipline,” the official Xinhua news agency reported, without elaborating.

Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea. The deployment of missiles on three man-made reefs in the disputed Spratly Islands — Subi, Mischief and Fiery Cross — has prompted protests from the White House.

Defending Its Claims

China’s military advances have nonetheless emboldened the country’s leadership.

The state media declared the carrier Liaoning “combat ready” in the summer after it moved with six other warships through the Miyako Strait that splits Japan’s Ryukyu Islands and conducted its first flight operationsin the Pacific.

The Liaoning’s battle group now routinely circles Taiwan. So do Chinese fighter jets and bombers.

China’s new J-20 stealth fighter conducted its first training mission at sea in May, while its strategic bomber, the H-6, landed for the first time on Woody Island in the Paracels.

From the airfield there or from those in the Spratly Islands, the bombers could strike all of Southeast Asia.

The recent Pentagon report noted that H-6 flights in the Pacific were intended to demonstrate the ability to strike American bases in Japan and South Korea, and as far away as Guam.

“Competition is the American way of seeing it,” said Li Jie, an analyst with the Chinese Naval Research Institute in Beijing.

“China is simply protecting its rights and its interests in the Pacific.”

And China’s interests are expanding.

In 2017, it opened its first overseas military base in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa, saying that it will be used to support its participation in multinational antipiracy patrols off Somalia.

It now appears to be planning to acquire access to a network of ports and bases throughout the Indian Ocean.

Though ostensibly commercial, these projects have laid the groundwork for a necklace of refueling and resupply arrangements that will “facilitate Beijing’s long-range naval operations,” according to a new report by C4ADS, a research organization in Washington.

“They soon will be able, for example, to send a squadron of ships to somewhere, say in Africa, and have all the capabilities to make a landing in force to protect Chinese assets,” said Vassily Kashin, an expert with the Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow.

The need was driven home in 2015 when Chinese warships evacuated 629 Chinese and 279 foreigners from Yemen when the country’s civil war raged in Aden, a southern port city.

One of the frigates involved in the rescue, the Linyi, was featured in a patriotic blockbuster film, “Operation Red Sea.”

“The Chinese are going to be more present,” Mr. Kashin added, “and everyone has to get used to it.”

Fighter jets on the Liaoning in the East China Sea in April.CreditAgence France-Presse — Getty Images


An earlier version of this article misstated the number of submarines in China’s naval fleet in 1995. There were 83, not three, according to Pentagon figures cited in the latest Congressional Research Service, though it noted that the figure included obsolete models.

Olivia Mitchell Ryan and Claire Fu contributed research.

Follow Steven Lee Myers on Twitter: @stevenleemyers.

……………..no end in sight……………………..w

Boeing Will Build the Navy’s MQ-25 Stingray Carrier-Based Tanker Drone

The initial plan is to build four of the craft over six years.


The U.S. Navy has selected Boeing to build the service’s first operational carrier-based drone.

The MQ-25 Stingray will be a tanker with some ability to conduct intelligence-gathering missions that will extend the range of the rest of the carrier’s aircraft, allowing them to fly and fight at greater distances than before.

The decision follows years of infighting over what sort of aircraft the Navy’s first drone should be, with some arguing a long range bomber would be a better choice.


Boeing was awarded a $805 million Engineering, Manufacturing, and Development contract to,in the words of the Naval Air Systems Command, “design, development, fabrication, test, delivery, and support of four MQ-25A unmanned air vehicles, including integration into the carrier air wing for an initial operational capability by 2024.”

Ultimately the Navy will probably buy somewhere around 100 of the drones to outfit all eleven Nimitz and Ford-class supercarriers.


The Cold War supercarrier USS Forrestal could strike targets at 1,200 miles.


For decades, the the range of carrier-based aircraft gradually increased as aircraft development progressed.

As a 2015 CNAS reportpointed out, in 1944 an Essex-class aircraft carrier could send 90 aircraft carrying an average of 1,800 pounds of bombs to strike targets up to 748 miles away.

By 1956 a carrier could send 46 planes, each armed with 4,600 pounds of bombs, to strike targets 1,210 miles away—and up to 1,800 miles away if the KA-3 Skywarrior aerial refueling tanker was involved.

The end of the Cold War prompted a shift in the makeup of a carrier air wing.

A drop in the number of carriers from 14 in 1988 to 12 in the 1990s meant the remaining carriers would have to work harder.

The Navy gambled that, in future conflicts, range would have to take a backseat to aircraft reliability and sortie generation.

The range loss would be offset by the U.S. Navy’s total domination of the seas, allowing its carriers to operate closer to shore.

By 2006, a Nimitz-class carrier could send 62 aircraft each armed with 12,040 pounds of bombs just 495 miles. More bombs, less range.

Super Hornet fighters could extend that range by carrying a buddy tanking system, allowing them to refuel other Hornets and Super Hornets, but that job put unwanted pressure on the Super Hornet fleet and removed aircraft from the strike role.


DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles on parade, September 2015.


The growth of the Chinese military—which has oriented itself to specifically counter American military power—has made the old carrier air wing dangerously obsolete.

The DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, designed to attack American aircraft carriers at sea, has a 300 to 500 mile range advantage over the current carrier air wing.

In other words, if a carrier wants to bring its fleet of combat aircraft to bear against land-based DF-21D mobile launchers, it has to operate within the Chinese missile’s range envelope—a dangerous prospect for a ship with 5,000 souls onboard.

A carrier-based drone is one way to get a carrier air wing’s range back, but proponents bickered over exactly how to do it.

One group wanted an unmanned, long range strike aircraft similar to the 1980s-era A-6E Intruder.

Another group pointed out that an unmanned bomber was just an unmanned bomber, but enough unmanned tankers could extend the range of the entire carrier air wing, five squadrons of strike fighters and electronic attack aircraft.

A refueling tanker would also be cheaper and quicker to field, and eventually pave the way for a more complex strike aircraft.

Refueling backers won, and the MQ-25A Stingray was born.


Boeing’s MQ-25A Stingray prototype


The $805 million dollar contract not only includes design and construction of the four aircraft but also the means to operate and maintain them from carriers.

Figuring out how to maneuver them on the flight deck is a major obstacle—there is no pilot to take hand and signal cues from flight deck personnel.

The contract also specifies equipment necessary to control Stingrays from an aircraft carrier including radio antennas, terminals, networking hardware and so on.

The pace of the MQ-25A program, just four aircraft in six years, is relatively slow considering DF-21D missiles are operational now.

But it’s important to get the first carrier-based drone right the first time, both to instill confidence in the program and to pave the way for future carrier-based drones.

An actual long range strike drone wasn’t canceled, it was merely delayed. There’s no stopping the drone revolution on carrier flight decks at sea.


Israel’s Massacre of Palestinian Civilians Should Spark Horror—and Action

It is long past time to end the blockade of Gaza—and to reckon with the one-state reality in

which Palestinians and Israelis live.

The barrier enclosing the two million Palestinians “living” in the Gaza Strip is not a border between two countries, as the media have insistently called it.

It is a wall erected by Israel to make the suffering of those living inside the Gaza ghetto as invisible as possible to those living outside it.

Israel has told Gazans that anyone attempting to breach this wall and escape from Gaza will be shot. Anyone approaching it will be shot. And that is precisely what has happened over the weeks of protests by Palestinian refugees seeking to highlight their seventy-year exile from land they can see just beyond the wall.

Scores of Palestinians have been killed, including journalists and children. Thousands more have been injured by live fire, with many losing legs and arms to amputations. Alongside this, there has been a report of one Israeli soldier hurt by a stone.

There are many words for what this is. Palestinians speak of heroism, resistance, dedication, and martyrdom.

The Israeli government calls the shoot-to-kill and shoot-to-injure policies “self-defense.”

Individual soldiers call it “following orders.”

Israeli human rights groups, meanwhile, call the policy ordered by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman “grossly illegal.”

My grandmother would have called it a shanda (Yiddish for a “disgrace”). But whether it is heroism or self-defense; whether the orders to shoot are legal or illegal; the mounting Israeli gun violence the world has been forced to witness along the Gaza ghetto wall is, without a doubt, disgusting.

For any human being, no matter what their political views or ties to Israel or to Palestinian Arabs, the continuous mass shooting of Palestinian civilians is, or should be, emotionally and spiritually intolerable. 

That it is psychologically and politically possible for Palestinians to continue sacrificing themselves in this way testifies to the desperation of their circumstances; that it is psychologically and politically possible for Israelis to murder and maim so many men, women, and children trying to escape from the ghetto within which they have been concentrated, or just trying to attract the world’s attention to their suffering, is a tragic and humiliating stain on the Jewish state and the Zionist movement that created it.

It is also entirely self-defeating for a state struggling against efforts to “delegitimize” its existence.

To be sure, there is always Israeli hasbara, or propaganda, to help those seeking some way to suppress the revulsion and pain that any decent person must feel at the stories coming out of Gaza. This hasbara insists that the protests are nothing more than a cynical Hamas publicity stunt. It tells us that armed Hamas terrorists are hiding themselves among the demonstrators, using the miserable masses to conceal their efforts to kill Israelis.

Who could doubt this? When the British ruled Palestine, the underground Jewish army prided itself on hiding arms factories in grammar schools and synagogues.

And as we know, in any besieged ghetto there will be ghetto fighters, and they will be treated as heroes by those on the inside, and terrorists by those on the outside.

But if there are certainly men of violence among the masses of protestors, let us not forget that alongside the many Israeli soldiers who surely suffer some pangs of conscience, there are some, as we have seen on videotape, who high-five one another for using fancy sniper rifles to put big holes in human bodies hundreds of yards away. 

As for those in charge of the security policies of the current Israeli government, they know all too well what they are doing, what horror they are inflicting.

The security hawks that staff leading think tanks and Israeli government ministries regularly speak of the need to “mow the lawn” in Gaza, to keep the population there on a “strict diet,” and to “manage the conflict” by using purposefully inflicted suffering to sear into Palestinian hearts the belief that resistance is futile.

When Israel adopted its policy of enforcing a hermetic seal around Gaza in 2007, a political geographer at Haifa University named Arnon Soffer offered his full-throated endorsement, but added that it would eventually mean, not shooting armed men, but “putting a bullet in the head of anyone who tries to climb over the security barrier.”

“If we want to remain alive,” he said, by which he meant if Israel wants to remain a “Jewish” state, “we will have to kill and kill and kill.”

The struggle for a two-state solution is not moribund; it is dead.

This is true even if the pretense that negotiations could succeed remains a useful excuse—a way for Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the United States, and the peace-process industry to exploit or ignore the deepening oppression of the current one-state reality.

As documented by the Israeli military, there are now more Palestinians under the control of the Israeli state than there are Jews.

Indeed, for all intents and purposes the Palestinians of Gaza and of the West Bank are already within the Jewish state.

They are citizens of no other country, no other recognized state. As measured by how much impact the State of Israel has over the intimate details of their lives, and indeed over whether they will live at all, they are as much inhabitants of the State of Israel as black slaves were inhabitants of the United States or as Africans in the Bantustans were inhabitants of apartheid South Africa.

The five-decade occupation of the West Bank and the dozen-year blockade of Gaza, combined with regularly inflicted violent punishment, just mark differences in the way the Israeli state governs different populations in different regions.

The truth is, no matter how much Israelis try to deny or distance themselves from the suffering their government is inflicting on the people of Gaza, their fates are intimately intertwined.

Consider Ashkelon, an Israeli city on the Mediterranean coast thirteen miles from the Gaza Strip.

Before the expulsion of its population to Gaza after the 1948 war, it was the Palestinian town of Majdal. Israel (with the complicity of the Palestinian Authority) has reduced the amount of electricity allowed into Gaza so that it is available for not more than four hours.

For two million people that means real misery, but it also means that sewage treatment plants cannot operate properly, contributing to the fact that 97 percent of the drinking water in Gaza is contaminated.

Experts warn of cholera and other epidemics that are liable to be unleashed in Gaza and spread beyond the wall surrounding it.

Meanwhile, Ashkelon’s desalination plant, a facility that provides Israel with 20 percent of the its drinking water, has had to shut down on a number of occasions because of sewage from Gaza flowing into the area’s waters, while the city’s beaches have been closed because of fecal matter washing up on the shore.

In the long run the solution to the human catastrophe that is the Gaza Strip will be to fully integrate its population into the society whose state controls it.

Right now, and for the foreseeable future, that state is Israel.

But the immediate requirement is to end the brutal blockade that immiserates it and drains all hope from its inhabitants—a direction of policy advocated by many Israeli military and security experts.

Only by doing so can life there be normal enough to convince ordinary Palestinians in Gaza that it is worth more than what happens to them when they try to escape.


……………….where to now?………..w


After 17 years of war, Taliban field commanders signal openness to peace talks

Kabul (CNN) Faced with a resurgent ISIS threat and emboldened by recent gains on the battlefield, two senior Taliban field commanders suggested they are open to peace talks with the Afghan government after 17 years of war.


The highly unusual conciliatory words come as Pentagon officials and new US leadership in Afghanistan also focus on seeking peace with the Taliban, switching their military efforts to destroying ISIS’ Afghan franchise, the so-called Islamic State in Khorasan (ISIS-K).
ISIS-K is seen as the most dangerous potential threat to US and other Western security evolving in Afghanistan.
US defense department officials said that while the Taliban continued to be a source of instability, it was unlikely to pose any kind of international danger.
“It’s ISIS and al Qaeda we should be going after,” said one US officer, who did not want to be named.
There is a strong view in the US’ defense and intelligence departments that its forces should not pull out of Afghanistan until the threat from ISIS has been eliminated — and a fear that the entire Afghan operation, involving about 15,000 US troops and costing an estimated $45 billion this year, risked being shut down on a whim by the Trump administration.
“We’re one tweet away from Trump saying, ‘That’s it — it’s over,’ and that would be very dangerous for the US.
It could bring the world a terrorist superstate,” said one senior US officer, speaking on condition of anonymity.
This uncertainty has created anxiety over the US’ involvement in Afghanistan as it approaches 17 full years of war, as civilian deaths are at the highest level since the United
Nations started keeping records 10 years ago, and as the Taliban appears to be dominating the battlefield with a string of short-term successes, including almost overrunning Ghazni, roughly 130 kilometers south of the capital Kabul.
Some comfort for the US and its Afghan government ally can be derived from a growing split within the ranks of the Taliban.
An unusual agreement between the Taliban and coalition is that ISIS-K is the greatest, and shared, enemy.
In response to questions from CNN, Taliban commanders in Herat, northwestern Afghanistan, said they would fight to rid the country of all foreign influences but that fighting among Afghans was fruitless.
“Peace negotiations should be among Afghans and by Afghans. We should not wait for Pakistan, Iran, Russia or America to bring peace in Afghanistan. We have lost many young Afghans. We have orphans, we have widows — if people from government die they are Afghans. If Taliban die they are Afghans,” said Mullah Sher Agha, one of the commanders.
His comrade, Mullah Abdallah Khan, signaled a similar openness to the idea of talks, saying: “Fighting doesn’t have any result except destroying both sides.”
They both answer to Mullah Mohammed Rasool, who split with the Talibs of eastern Afghanistan because, his supporters said, they get support from foreign countries like Pakistan.
Taliban factions control a relatively small percentage of Afghanistan, according to US Special Inspector General for Reconstruction. About 56% of the country is under government control but a third is “contested.”
Those figures relate to the situation at the end of last year, and the scale of Taliban successes means that contested areas are likely to have expanded.
This may explain why Taliban leaders on the battlefield are feeling confident enough to raise peace talks.
Talks are seen as a strategic necessity by many US commanders who no longer stick to the argument that the Taliban can be defeated militarily.
“You don’t need to keep killing your fellow Afghans. You don’t need to keep killing your fellow Muslims. The time for peace is now,” said the outgoing US commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, General John “Mick” Nicholson, to the Taliban in a valedictory speech in Kabul on Sunday.
“The entire world is encouraging you to accept the offer of a ceasefire and enter into peace talks.
Most importantly, the Afghan people are asking you to settle your differences peacefully. Whose voice is more important?
The outsiders who are encouraging you to fight? Or the voice of your own people, who are encouraging you to peace?”
Back-channel efforts made by, among others, the US and Russia, to bring the Taliban and the Afghan government to the negotiating table have been going on for months.
These efforts will get a fillip from support among the battlefield commanders who now believe that ISIS-K is the top priority.
“Our enemy is first ISIS, then the government.”
He will draw some satisfaction, then, from the US confirmation that a senior ISIS-K leader, Abu Sayed Orakzai, and 10 of his followers were killed in an American airstrike 10 days ago.




Version 2









%d bloggers like this: