Friday News Roundup — December 20, 2019
Boris Beats Brexit Bogeys; SCOTUS’ Perilous Limelight; Russia’s Grand Strategy; PLA Modernization; Plus News You May Have Missed
Season’s greetings from CSPC, where we are hard at work making preparations for the holidays. We paused our merriment, however, to follow the historic impeachment of President Donald Trump. Congress remained in session late into the night on Wednesday to consider the question and vote; in the end, two Democrats defected on both charges, one of whom is expected to switch parties in the near future. Tulsi Gabbard, dark horse presidential candidate and critic of the Democratic establishment, voted present in protest of partisanship and polarization.
The House also passed a massive $1.3 trillion omnibus bill this week, loaded with various new spending and policy riders. Conservatives such as Rep. Chip Roy decried the bill as a lobbyist boondoggle that contributes to the already staggering national debt, while moderates such as Rep. Kay Granger called it “good for America,” going on to say that she is “proud to support it.” The passage of the bill likely means that we will avert a government shutdown like that of last year, barring a surprise veto by President Trump.
In this week’s roundup, Chris discusses recent criticism of Justice Neil Gorsuch for an interview on Fox & Friends, Dan covers the remarkable victory of Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party in the recent UK general election, Joshua analyzes Russia’s strategic view of security endeavors around the globe, and Ethan takes a deep dive into the modernization of China’s People’s Liberation Army. As always, we wrap with news you may have missed.
We would like to wish all of our readers happy holidays, as this is our last edition of the News Roundup for the year. We will also refrain from publishing on January 3rd, but we look forward to returning to your inbox on January 10th!
London Calling
Dan Mahaffee
Last week, as we were finalizing the previous Friday roundup, the results from the 2019 UK General Election were starting to roll in, and it was becoming clear that Prime Minister Boris Johnson had prevailed with a sizeable majority. Now, having taken a week to digest the results, the 2019 election is a potential crossroads in British politics and another data point for a broader political realignment that we have seen take place across western democracies. How we apply that to analyzing U.S. politics — that’s another matter.
In some senses, it’s easy to see the 2019 election as Britain’s “fed up” election. British pollster Lord Ashcroft broke down the results. At the risk of oversimplification: Those voting for the Tories were fed up with Brexit deadlock in parliament. Those voting for Labour were fed up with Tory austerity. Lib Dem voters were fed up with Brexit — but wanting to remain. In Scotland, voters demonstrated how fed up they were with Westminster and an increasingly Tory England with a near clean sweep for the Scottish National Party.
Nationalist pressures within the United Kingdom appear likely to grow. The fate of Northern Ireland post-Brexit remains unclear, and the Prime Minster will no longer be beholden to the Protestant Democratic Unionist Party for a working majority. Meanwhile, with Labour reeling from its loss, the healthiest party across the bench from the Tories will be the Scottish Nationalists, who are already speaking of a second independence referendum.
These dynamics — along with a first-past-the-post single member constituency parliament — provide some of the unique dynamics behind British politics that make a direct comparison to U.S. politics impossible. As we said last week, if anyone was using the UK results to say that one candidate or another would prevail in 2020, take it with a “Brexit-sized grain of salt.”
That said, the collapse of Labour’s vaunted “red wall” across the traditionally industrial heartlands of the party was very similar to the 2016 swing of Obama to Trump voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. Similar trends have also been seen in the collapse of traditional support for center-left parties such as the French Socialist Party or the German SPD.
Interestingly, these trends are the reversal of the centrism that drove the Democratic Party or Labour to success in the 1990s, as new-generation center-left leaders like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair sought to moderate the reputation of their parties, as Reagan-Thatcher conservatism had reshaped economic policy — and the political continuum — in the 1980s. Favoring free markets, free trade, and an openness to immigration, these leaders reflected an increasingly globalized, technocratic, and cosmopolitan approach to center-left politics that shied away from the traditional support of trade unions and the working class.
Between the pressures from automation and corporate consolidation, as well as China’s entry into the WTO, the economic livelihoods of many of these working-class heartlands were hollowed out. As we have collectively seen, immigration, trade, and “the elite” became useful scapegoats for populists seeking to fill the void left by center-left parties that took working-class support for granted while focused on driving urban-suburban coalitions to the polls.
In Britain, we saw that the answer to this was not to promise a hard swing to the left, like the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn premiership. But what is the answer?
When it comes to the long-term transformation of our economies, the only candidate speaking about the growth of automation and the reshaping of our workforce is Andrew Yang. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders seem to represent the closest analogues to Jeremy Corbyn, but their political bases are equally excited as Corbyn’s by a back-to-the-future mashup of 1970s social democracy with industry nationalization and conglomerate breakup, somehow combined with modern productivity, technology, and a service-oriented economy.
These political realignments are reflecting technological and economic realignments that started long before 2016. In many ways, populists have correctly diagnosed the ills, and their prescriptions of scapegoating, xenophobia, and a flirtation with the far-right have resonated amongst segments of the electorate that feel they have been long been sneered at by “the coastal establishment.” You can call out the hypocrisy of an Etonian Prime Minister or a New York real estate developer pandering to once reliable Labour/Democrat voters, but these voters care less about that than they do seeing the person “standing up for them” succeeding.
So, as we head into 2020, what we may face is a “fed up” election of our own. We seem evenly split between those tired of President Trump and those tired of “a swamp” standing in his way. After all, 2018 showed us that in an increasingly polarized America, elections have become less about swinging voters and more about driving certain constituencies to turn out.
The Robe of Anonymity
Chris Condon
This week, political pundits were whipped into a frenzy when Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch was interviewed on Fox & Friends, a daily morning talk show on Fox News. Gorsuch appeared on the program to promote his new book, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It.” The justice’s first major public work while on the bench is a collection of essays and speeches on the role of the judiciary, judicial philosophy, and other musings on the law and life in general. The interview itself, conducted by anchor Ainsley Earhardt, was fairly unremarkable in its content: Justice Gorsuch discussed the separation of powers (as he is wont to do), the role of the judiciary, and his time as a judge, all things included in his book. He did not discuss any political matters, did not mention either political party, and only mentioned President Trump when discussing his own nomination to the Supreme Court.
So why was this interview so objectionable to those in the beltway? Brian Stelter, CNN’s Chief Media Correspondent, summarized the general ire succinctly:
Essentially, the main concern expressed by many of those like Stelter is that it is inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to appear in national media, especially on a show that is often political in nature. Special attention was also paid by some to Gorsuch “validating the ‘War on Christmas’ conspiracy theory” by saying exactly two words of salutation at the beginning of the interview: Merry Christmas. If simply saying the words “Merry Christmas” makes one a conspiracy theorist or right-wing puppet, you can call me Alex Jones from now on.
That said, the far more compelling conversation has to do with the aforementioned role of a Supreme Court justice in the public eye. Justice Gorsuch summarizes his view of the matter within the very interview in question. Therein, he tells a story of his time clerking for Justice Byron White, a personal hero of his and a fellow Coloradan. One day while walking down a hallway lined with portraits of former justices, Justice White turned to then-clerk Gorsuch and asked “how many of these cats can you really name?” Pausing for a moment to consider whether to be honest or try to impress his boss, Justice Gorsuch replied candidly “probably about half, boss.” White then turned to him and said “me too, and that’s the way it should be: we’re all forgotten soon enough.” In the interview, Gorsuch went on to admiringly discuss this attitude, that the justices are meant to part of something much deeper and more meaningful than any one person.
So what of his appearance on national television to promote his book? Does this not violate the principle of anonymity present in his story about Justice White? Surely if another justice were to appear on a talk show that is often political in nature, people such as Brian Stelter would be similarly outraged at the proposition. In 2015, Justice Stephen Breyer appeared on Stephen Colbert’s show to promote one of his books, and here is what the courageous defender of judicial impartiality tweeted:
Stelter and his colleagues in the media were also silent for other similar occasions, including these:
The critics of Justice Gorsuch are correct in one small part of their assessment, a part that Gorsuch agrees with in a demonstrable way: Supreme Court justices are not meant to be celebrities. In time, they are largely forgotten outside of law school classrooms and the occasional Supreme Court decision. So what of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Over the past few years, countless books, documentaries, and feature films have been produced about her with her own consent and participation. She has done multiple media interviews and appeared in a host of segments that boost her public profile. She has criticized Republicans publicly in her many speeches and lectures, and her face appears on apparel and merchandise like that of a professional athlete. While Justice Ginsburg is undoubtedly a trailblazer and has been an important presence on the High Court, why has this conduct not drawn half the ire of one short television interview by Neil Gorsuch? Those that criticize Justice Gorsuch for “acting politically” may want to look in the mirror.
The tragedy of this situation is that it trivializes the critical principle of judicial anonymity. In the modern media environment, it is difficult for any important figure to avoid being mentioned on news programs or talk shows. However, this does not mean the jurists should not make a sincere attempt to fly under the radar, dedicating themselves to the quiet service of justice and law. Criticizing Supreme Court justices for contradicting this tradition is appropriate, and may even arguably be warranted in Justice Gorsuch’s case. The issue arises when the lambasting is not present for all judges and justices, and when it is not applied fairly or proportionately to the transgression. A brief interview about a book on judicial principles seems minor compared to a full-length feature film about one’s life, does it not?
Even the black robes worn by judges across America are a testament to judicial anonymity, a symbol reminding us that it is not the person wearing the robe that is important. The role of traditional black robes was expounded upon by Justice Gorsuch in his confirmation hearings:
Donning a robe doesn’t make me any smarter. But the robe does mean something — and not just that I can hide coffee stains on my shirt. It serves as a reminder of what’s expected of us — what Burke called the ‘cold neutrality of an impartial judge.’ It serves, too, as a reminder of the relatively modest station we’re meant to occupy in a democratic society. In other places, judges wear scarlet. . . . Here, we’re told to buy our own plain black robes — and I can attest the standard choir outfit at the local uniform-supply store is a good deal. Ours is a judiciary of honest black polyester.
As demonstrated by the longstanding tradition of the plain black judicial robe, judicial anonymity is part in parcel with impartiality and faithful execution of the law. Thus, it is fair to speak out when justices seek celebrity or to promote their public profile. Justice Gorsuch, however, often uses his few appearances in the media to discuss this very principle, along with non-political matters that apply directly to his role as a Supreme Court justice. The implication that he is guilty of ostentatiousness improper in the scope of the Court or that he uses his position for personal gain is an exercise in pure imbecility.
The Russian General Staff’s Perspective on the World
Joshua Huminski
This week Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov addressed a group of military attaches in Moscow offering insights into the current thinking of defense establishment in Russia.
Gerasimov is sometimes credited as the intellectual force behind Russia’s “hybrid warfare” and use of information operations. In 2013 he published an article “The Value of Science Is in the Foresight” which outlines his take on the Arab Spring, recent conflicts, and the role of non-military methods in conflict. Often, but perhaps incorrectly labeled as the “Gerasimov Doctrine”, it offered insight into the thinking of Russia’s senior military leadership. It is therefore worth reviewing the high-level points Gerasimov covered in his address to the defense attaches.
It should be noted that the translations were done via Google Translate and any errors in translation or transliteration are the result of the application.
Strategic Environment
As a top line strategic assessment, General Gerasimov noted that “in our opinion, there are currently no indications that a large-scale war may start.” He cautioned that this global situation remains unstable due “to the desire of individual countries to force their principles on other sovereign states, including with the use of force.” He continued “Unprecedented political, economic and informational pressure is being exerted on countries that try to carry out independent policies, including on Russia,”
He added, “In such circumstances, it is impossible to exclude the possibility of crisis situations that can get out of control and develop into large-scale military conflict”. Gerasimov continued, “Of course, we must be prepared for any scenario for the development of the situation. Therefore, the defense potential of Russia will now and in the future be maintained at a level that can repel aggression against our state of any scale, from any medium.”
Unsurprisingly, Russia views American activities as the source of global instability: “The intervention of Washington and its allies in the internal affairs of the countries of the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia led to the formation of hotbeds of conflict and increased tension in these regions.”
Gerasimov warned that NATO exercises point at the alliance’s “deliberate preparation for its troops’ involvement in a large-scale military conflict.” He added that NATO is promoting the narrative of the “Russian military threat” that saw any Russian efforts to ensure its security as “a threat to peace.”
With no sense of irony, Gerasimov noted that “Russia will continue to be guided by international law and express its commitment to resolve conflict peacefully.” He did not appear to comment on Russia’s military exercises or conduct abroad on serving as a destabilizing role. Just this week a Russian intelligence gathering ship, the Viktor Leonov (AGI-175), had been observed operating in an “unsafe manner” conducting “erratic maneuvers” off the coast of South Carolina and Florida.
Syria
According to Gerasimov, one of the most important tasks facing the Russian armed forces is supporting the Syrian government in the “in the fight against international terrorist organizations.” Gerasimov painted a fairly rosy picture of the situation along the Turkish border, in which Moscow replaced Washington as the prime mover. He noted that in the northeastern provinces “peaceful life” is being established adding that Russia is helping with the resettlement of refugees (495,000) and internally displaced peoples (IDPs) (1.3 million).
A perhaps underappreciated development resulting from Russia’s involvement in Syria is the on-the-ground combat experience gained by the Russian military. Here it is worth quoting Gerasimov at length:
The most important component of the Syrian experience is the methods of work of commanders and staffs for planning combat operations, organizing work at combat control posts and ensuring their safety, and for managing enemy fire engagements in rapidly changing conditions.
Many commanders became direct participants in the events in Syria and gained practical experience in solving combat missions. In addition, in the real conditions of armed conflict, a wide range of weapons, military and special equipment, including the most modern, has been tested.
Gerasimov appeared pleased with the performance of Russia’s forces and systems in Syria saying “Verification of the tactical and technical characteristics of Russian weapons and military equipment in real combat conditions confirmed their compliance with modern requirements.” He added that the lessons learned in Syria were adopted into Russia’s manuals and, presumably, its tactical and operational doctrine.
In addition to the “international terrorist organizations” the “illegitimate presence of foreign military contingents” is contributing to the instability in Syria. “US Army units continue to control oil fields in the north-east of the country, thereby encouraging the illegal extraction and sale of petroleum products. The Russian side believes that such actions, as well as the military assistance provided to Kurdish units, contribute to increasing the conflict potential between them and Turkish units.”
New Conflict Domains — Space & the Arctic
While “Trends in changing forms of armed struggle allow us to conclude that wars of the future can be fought in all areas,” Gerasimov singled out space in his remarks. He stated “With the aim of ensuring dominance in space, participants in the summit decided to recognize space as a separate sphere for warfare along with land, airspace, naval and cyber space.”
He continued, “as I already noted, the decisions at the NATO summit in London serve as confirmation of this, since they recognized space as an operational sphere. We should definitely be ready for any possible developments.”
According to Gerasimov, Russia can ensure the safety and freedom of navigation in the Northern Sea Route, and therefore there is no need for the ships of other nations to ply these waters. In the same breath he, however, added, “In the future, first of all, we plan to improve the air defense system in the Arctic zone, which will increase the ability to control airspace over the entire water area of the Northern Sea Route.”
Takeaways
While Gerasimov’s comments are not groundbreaking and are generally unsurprising, it offers insights into how the Russian defense establishment views the world. The U.S. and NATO are its principal concerns and the behavior of both risks undermining regional and global stability, to which Moscow is clearly a great contributor.
The most notable feature of his remarks was certainly the comment about Russian performance in Syria and the lessons learned. Moscow’s support of the Assad regime, assumption of the role vacated by the United States along the border with Turkey, and its air, land, and sea operations are clearly testing and proving Russian capabilities on-the-ground. This is also proving to be a more expeditionary operation, and not one in Moscow’s backyard as is the case with Crimea and Ukraine. Western assessments of Russia’s performance in Syria may be and almost certainly are more critical, it is undeniable that Moscow is conducting expeditionary operations to a degree not seen in recent history.
It is also interesting that the cyber domain and cyber operations were not explicitly mentioned, aside from Gerasimov noting it was an area of activity alongside space. Cyber operations are certainly a part of “information operations”, which was highlighted by Gerasimov in his 2013 paper. Its absence in the discussion is not something which should be read into; the fact is Russia clearly understands the utility of cyber/information operations and is using them to great effect.
Taken together with Russia’s strategy of psychological unease (written about in an earlier round-up piece), one should look at Moscow’s strategic performance with some concern. Russia may not be able to compete on a one-to-one level with the militaries of NATO, but it need not do so. Indeed, its performance in multi-domain operations (not solely viewed via military lens) is giving Moscow a disproportional benefit for its investment.
Undermining the NATO alliance and the democracies there within, creating an atmosphere of unease and uncertainty, while being able to conduct fairly complex expeditionary operations appear to be achieving more than appears at first glance.
While the “Gerasimov Doctrine” may be a misnomer, his leadership of the Russian forces in a time of transformation is clearly yielding results.
Modernizing the People’s Liberation Army
Ethan Brown
Earlier this week, the Chinese military concluded an exercise in the South China Sea aimed at preparing for “unexpected confrontations”. During this exercise, the participants concentrated on intercepting enemy signals and conducting early warning and reconnaissance, which demonstrates intent on the part of the PLA to prepare against the approach of a near-peer adversary in an offensive capacity. Standard domestic defense and patrolling sovereign waters typically do not require the capacity to proactively intercept signals and correlate with reconnaissance, as is detailed later in this analysis.
While military exercises by the Chinese in this region are not exactly news, this demands a closer investigation based on the reported objectives and its successful conclusion. Not only does the intent of this exercise highlight an implied change in strategy, it also serves as a significant milestone in the context of recent and rapid modernization in Chinese military capabilities.
Coincidental, but curious none the less, is the timing of the exercise during the same window as the US/China trade agreement. The completion of phase one of the trade deal signals a potential easing of tensions between China and the west, but may be perceived as capitulation by Beijing to reach a new trade agreement after extensive economic pressure by the United States. Herein lies the curious timing of the exercise mentioned in the opening, as it potentially signals China attempting to save face via showing military strength in the fallout of the trade deal.
Wargaming
The “unexpected” confrontations may not be so unexpected. This exercise was reported by PLA Daily (the state-run newsletter for the Peoples Liberation Army) as a progression from the 2018 edition of the training, being longer in duration and incorporating new avenues of focus, including early reconnaissance and enemy signals interception. Further, this progression was executed with an emphasis on confrontation and nighttime planning. An unnamed Chinese Officer affiliated with the Southern Theater Commands Aviation forces touted the exercise as “an intelligence sharing, transformative approach from passive to proactive”, per the South China Morning Post.
In terms of military exercises, intelligence sharing is a hallmark of an efficient and interconnected military network, and this event in Chinese military modernization marks an important progressive step towards that goal for the People’s Liberation Army. Historically, these war games are often carefully scripted affairs until the final execution phase, at which time the tactical decision making by the ‘players’ is assessed and critiqued. Thus, these exercises were less about command and control and more about refining specific skills and tactical performance.
By implementing deliberate and offensive reconnaissance in real time, this recent exercise focused on direct confrontation and dynamic intelligence sharing between maneuver elements as the impetus of the scenario. In this event, the reconnaissance was carried out by two separate warplane groups, the first tasked with sharing intelligence of a maritime threat, while the second acted on the intelligence to conduct the active reconnaissance. In short, those participating in the exercise were not given scripts to follow but challenged to react to real-time data just as if they were in a conflict.
In terms of offensive capability and how this applies to western consideration, consider how this information fusion between aviation groups might be utilized- summarized by the A2D2 (Anti-access/Area Denial) principle. This exercise appears designed to deny adversary access to the waters patrolled by the maritime components of the PLA, by developing the capability to identify enemy signals (communications/radar signatures), conduct reconnaissance and share that intelligence (recon aircraft relaying targeting data to interceptor aviation) across a network, building out the long-range target array for an offensive strike. This portends a major development in Chinese military flexibility and innovative decision making and constitutes an offensive mentality, rather than a defend in zone.
Institutional Reforms
Beginning in 2015, President Xi Jinping unveiled major reforms to the institutional structure of the PLA, establishing joint theater commands as a replacement for its seven regional commands, aligned against Beijing’s “strategic directions”. Additionally, a reorganization occurred at the highest levels of the PLA, where a Central Military Commission replaced the General Staff Department, placing mobilization, training and administration at lower levels of command in a more western construct, versus centralization. The major commissions maintained their diversified specialties, including cyber and rocket (nuclear) components, but overall reduced the institutional mechanisms into four distinct departments. These reforms served to clarify and streamline lines of authority, making the PLA overall a more flexible and lethal force. Further, while the PLA remains a conscription-based military, recent years have seen stark efforts to professionalize the ranks with a recruiting emphasis on more educated individuals.
In a departure from traditional principles of defense in zone and pure mass, China’s military modernization has adopted an amalgamation of the western doctrine of C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance), for the purpose of extending its offensive capabilities beyond its borders in the event of regional conflict and A2D2. Doctrinally, these modernization reforms target the presumption by Chinese think-tanks that PLA leaders below the Commission level of command would be incapable of executing effective decision-making in an information-dense operational environment. As such, ‘informationisation’ is the term used in the 2018 White Paper speech delivered by President Xi to the 19th Party Congress in 2017. This concept aims to increase decision making at lower levels of command by network sharing, fusion of intelligence, and decentralized execution between the new joint commands- a very western doctrine of warfighting and a stark departure from traditional Chinese/Soviet warfighting methodology.
By way of grand doctrine, the reforms sustain the ideology that Chinese leaders will employ area denial tactics within the ethereal nine-dash line in order to achieve strategic dominance of this contested geography. Short of provoking regional armed conflict in order to pursue its security objectives, this enhanced capability signals China is pursuing total control of the given area before an adversary can respond or achieve a fait accompli. The push to instill rapid mobility as opposed to sheer volume by numbers in traditional Chinese military methodology further demonstrates this departure from traditional doctrine.
Inventory Overhaul
On the technical side of this modernization, China continues to expand on its offensive capabilities, specifically designed to outperform western systems in terms of range and survivability, while emphasizing strategic tools supplemental to its power projection in the Pacific.
This week, the Type-001A (the Shandong) aircraft carrier was officially commissioned into service after two years of sea trials, making it the first carrier produced by China (as opposed to Beijing’s other carrier, the refurbished Soviet model named the Liaoning). The new carrier boasts a 50% increase in its fighter aircraft capacity, improved superstructure and a production to launch time of 26 months, or about half the time it takes the United States to produce a Ford-Class carrier. The ability to produce its own aircraft carrier inventory demonstrates a true transition from a brown to blue water navy.
China has also introduced hypersonic glide vehicle family in the form of the DF-17. The hypersonic weapons systems introduce significant problems for strategic air defense networks, as these glide vehicles transit low altitude at ridiculous speeds and high maneuverability prior to delivering payloads, making them nearly impossible to intercept with existing defense architecture.
China has worked to rapidly enhance its inter-continental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, dubbed the DF-41 and JL-2, respectively. Regarding the ballistic missile development, increased ranges, transition from liquid to solid fuel, and China’s fluid posture on arms-control signals an increasing threat to Pacific security, although China defends that its nuclear weapon development is based exclusively on deterrence and was the first nation to declare a “No First Use” policy.
On the conventional front, China has significantly upgraded its strategic bomber inventory, with recent photos suggesting the H-6N bomber (a Xian-manufactured derivative of the Russian Tu-16 Badger) is now capable of delivering a single DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile, or a comparable version of this atmospheric reentry style weapon. Consider this capability in the context of the exercise mentioned previously- with signals interception and intelligence sharing across multiple platforms targeting a maritime response by a peer state in Chinese dominated waters.
The ground forces component of the PLA, despite lagging behind its sister-commissions in overall funding, have realigned in heavy, medium, and light organizational constructs in a similar vein to the US Army Brigade Combat Team model. To support this endeavor, the mechanization of this force has been augmented with license-built versions of the Soviet-style T-54 main battle tank, dubbed the ZTZ-59 and Type-15 light tanks, along with an assortment of armored personnel carriers.
Expected Confrontation
Examine the available facts for strategic calculus: first, China appears to have paid close attention to recent conflict models (specifically GWOT and new themes of great power competition) and altered its approach in military command and control. Thus, an aggressive pursuit in creating a 21st century fighting force, capable of going toe-to-toe with western rivals has become the goal. Second, the narrative of this most recent exercise denote preparation against “unexpected confrontation”, however, emerging regional partnerships and realignment of security priorities are clearly the objective of these evolving exercises to increase the capabilities of the Chinese military, indicating confrontation is clearly an expectation. And third, a modernization of the PLA inventory signals a profound leap in their ability to influence the region and counter international efforts to dictate the terms of peace in the South China Sea.
In summary, these efforts demonstrate China’s overt intent to utilize its military arm to achieve its political aim of asserting uncontested dominance within the nine-dash line, a close fusion of defense activity and strategic behavior. This exercise was sought to test and demonstrate these emerging capabilities and rapid response of the PLA, and while not a final countdown, it is most assuredly an important capstone on the path to military eminence.
News You May Have Missed
Russian Government to Restrict Internet Access
True to form, the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin has declared that they will temporarily shut off access to the internet for many Russian citizens before Christmas. The initiative is being undertaken to test the new RuNet system, which would allow the government even greater control over activities conducted on the internet in the country. The program would also make it easier for the government to engage in cyber attacks against other nations. The government declared its right to institute the initiative last April, when it passed a law requiring all foreign internet traffic entering or exiting Russia to pass through government-monitored bottlenecks. It is likely that the Russian government will utilize the new system to stap out dissent to an even greater degree than is already present, and may ramp ut their attacks against adversaries in the near future.
Facial Recognition Software Revealed As Racially Biased
A major federal study this week revealed major racial bias within facial recognition software. According to the report, those of Asian and African descent were up to 100 times more likely to be misidentified by the systems than white people. Although systems from different developers were met with different success rates, American Indians were identified in the study as being most frequently misidentified by the software of all ethnicities. The report has sparked concerns regarding the technology’s expanding use among law enforcement, especially among advocates for personal privacy. Since many law enforcement agencies nationwide are increasingly making use of facial recognition to apprehend suspects, flaws in the system have major criminal justice implications.
Three Dead In Indian Citizenship Act Protests
A new Indian law provides for citizenship for illegal immigrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh, as long as they are not members of the Islamic faith. Protestors, concerned that the law undermines the Indian constitution by discriminating based on religion, have taken to the streets by the thousands to protest the legislation. Prime Minister Narenda Modi has dismissed their criticism as dishonest, and has stated his determination to see the law enacted. The city of Delhi and the states of Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka have instituted a ban on protesting in the wake of widespread backlash, and clashes with police left two dead in Mangalore and one in Lucknow.
Sides Dig In For French Pension Dispute
There is no resolution in sight as French transportation workers strike over a proposed plan to reform their pension system. The plan, supported by French President Emmanuel Macron, consolidates the multiple current pension systems into one points-based system. Macron has indicated that he is willing to budge on the plan, but striking employees remain unconvinced that the plan will sufficiently improve. Although travel has been disrupted and will likely remain so moving into the holiday season, 57% of those polled agree with the striking union workers against the proposed plan. The strike has been accompanied by protests across France for four days, and it is unclear how the dispute will be resolved.
Wakanda Listed As U.S. Trading Partner
Earlier this week, the United States Department of Agriculture listed Wakanda as a trading partner on their website. A spokesman for the USDA said that the fictional country — home of Black Panther in the Marvel Cinematic Universe — was accidentally added to the online tariff tracker during a training exercise. Among the goods listed as trade products between the two nations were ducks, donkeys and dairy cows, apparently excluding vibranium from the mix. While the discrepancy was discovered by New York software engineer Francis Tseng, it has since been removed from the site.
The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of CSPC.