May 9, 2026

World

World Situation Report for 2024 – The Year In Review

World Situation Report for 2024 – The Year In Review

Michael Cessna December 20, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

 

As we close out the year of 2024, it has certainly been a monumental year. Movements have waxed and waned, politicians have been both humiliated and nearly assassinated, business leaders have actually been removed from the field, nations have fallen, wars continue, and security flaws have been exposed. This article will close out the year; the next article will be in the first week of January.

Pretty standard stuff, really…except that many of these events this year have been truly significant.

The United States

Starting with the proverbial elephant in the room, Donald J. Trump – the 45th President of the United States – was reelected to the Presidency by a very comfortable margin over his primary challenger, the thoroughly un-electable Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump’s re-election was secured following his survival of an assassination attempt on July 13th, in Butler, Pennsylvania, where the former President missed death on live television by literally millimeters; innocent bystanders were not so lucky. The image of a blood-spattered Trump being hustled away from the target zone by Secret Service agents while shouting “Fight, fight, fight!” has joined the Zapruder film in the minds of a new generation of Americans of what political violence actually looks like.

But it was not the attempt itself that secured Trump’s victory: it was the response from the Biden White House to the assassination attempt – especially in its agencies frankly unbelievable responses to the events, including washing down the crime scene within hours of the attempt, and cremating the shooters remains before any proper autopsy or toxicology screen could be done on the remains. The other issue was the gleeful responses from a wide swath of the political Left in the United States, alternately cheering the attempt and whining over the assassin missing his mark (although he didn’t).

A wounded President Trump at the Republican National Convention’s final night. Photo credit by Tim Kennedy. CCA/2.0

 

Reasonable and rational Americans were shocked and disgusted by the extreme Left’s responses, and began moving away from the Biden camp in earnest…which quickly led to shocking replacement of Biden on the Democrat Party ticket by Kamala Harris within days of the failed attempt. Harris was confirmed as the Democrat candidate without a voting process allowing other candidates to present themselves to party members as options…the end result was an election that flipped the leadership of the US again, by a comfortable margin.

The reason for concentrating on the US election so much, is that it represents a sea-change in US politics, not simply concerning domestic policies, but in international policies. This is both a blessing and a curse for the incoming administration, as the world is tired of the United State’s 50% chance of a 180° swing in its policies every four years.

On top of all of this, is the widespread outpouring of frankly disgusting sexual angst from the Left over the alleged assassin of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. Once again, we were “treated” to deranged lunatics fawning over a potential killer, and the mainstream media promotes this view, in a desperate attempt to ignore the real reasons why sympathy for a murdered healthcare CEO is nearly impossible to find.

And finally, no end-of-2024 recap for the United States would be complete without talking about the waves of drones that have been plaguing the East Coast since November, which we covered last week. Short answers:

  1. Aliens don’t use FAA-approved navigation light patterns, and
  2. If a nuclear weapon, nuclear waste, or chemical anything had been lost in New Jersey, drones would be in the sky 24/7, and every flavor of law enforcement and the military would be out in the streets, armed to the teeth, and being highly hostile to anyone who looked at them sideways, until they found the missing cargo. Instead, we have seen the US Government, Inc. display a level of incompetence at such a staggering level, it boggles the imagination, as – 23 years after 9/11 – “mystery drones” are operating with impunity inside US airspace, at low altitude, and no one in the government has any idea who is responsible for making a decision on what to do about it, and no one is willing to take responsibility for acting in good faith.

 

Gnaw on that, for a while.

 

Europe

Europe continues to descend into failed-state status, as continual squabbling and inefficiencies in the structure of the European Union are crushing the economy of Europe as a whole, while “Great” Britain is desperately trying to outdo its continental neighbors in becoming a drug-addled, comic-opera version of Charlie Chaplains “The Great Dictator“, and France’s Emmanuel Macron is desperate to prove that he is not a literal “Momma’s Boy” by alternately trying to either start World War 3 by sending French and NATO forces into direct combat against Russia, while trying to revive its flagging influence on a continent that is past-done with France trying to be the colonial overlord with a nice face.

Of course, this includes the war in Ukraine, where Russia’s Vladimir Putin is hanging on long enough for Trump to step in and kill support to the absolute donkeys leading the lions of the Ukrainian forces. The Ukraine has only held as long as it has, because the general character of the “spear-carriers” in the literal trenches is as good as it is – it all fails, though, when you get above the level of the battlefield that is in range of Russian artillery.

The Middle East

The big news in the Middle East as the year closes is obviously the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. After ruling the country since 1971, Bashar Assad was forced to flee into exile in Russia after “Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham” (HTS) a revived Al Nusra Front/Al Qaeda/Islamc State zombie rolled out of its Turkish bases and overran the country in under two weeks.

The reasons for the swift collapse are not hard to understand, if you understand the region. Assad’s remaining forces were exhausted draftees no longer interested in dying for his regime; his Iranian allies – including their Hezbollah proxies – were causing him more trouble than they were worth; Putin is too wrapped up in Ukraine to offer more than token support; and his country has been effectively partitioned since 2011.

Assad saw what was coming in November, and sent his family to Russia “on a vacation”. He, himself, stayed behind long enough to try and fight is out – you never know, in warfare – but when it was obvious that it was over, he escaped, demonstrating that he was at least smarter than Muammar Gaddafi.

As a result, the region is now in chaos, and is on the verge of becoming a “Libya, 2.0” on the borders of Turkey, Lebanon, Israel, Jordan and Iraq. Effectively, this has guaranteed at least another decade – or more – of warfare in the region. Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan may have though this was a good idea, but he is about to discover the truth of opening Pandora’s Box.

 

Africa

Africa remains a basket case, with wars, rumors of wars, and coups d’état all over the continent; there is another major war brewing, but that article is coming in January 2025. Although Russian influence was clearly on the rise in 2023 and 2024, the war in Ukraine has severely curtailed Russian operations on the continent, at least for the moment.

Yemen – which should technically be a part of the Middle East section, but is included here, because of its impacts on eastern Africa, saw the Houthis dealt a heavy blow to their confidence when neither Russia nor Iran were able to prevent Assad’s Syrian collapse, causing their co-religionist Hezbollah allies to atomize, in order to get out of the vice of Israel and a revived Islamic State…Whether or not this will cause them to back off their war against the world’s commercial shipping in the Red Sea remains to be seen.

Asia

Asia remains relatively quiet, compared to the rest of the world, with the only current major conflict of note being the “Tatmadaw” of Burma continuing to hang on by their fingernails, as the union of rebel movements sputters without effective outside support, while the military junta keeps trying to break bread with Communist China.

Of note, however, is that North Korea began trading human troops to Russia for ballistic missile technology, which is threatens a direct impact on the balance of power on the Korean Peninsula.

Meanwhile, VISA – the credit card giant – has decided to embrace DEI fully, by violating the Logan Act in trying to force Japan to conform to the company’s morals. While the Japanese government has not yet reacted, the utterly tone-deaf head of VISA is very likely about to find out why that is a terrible idea.

Conclusion

The only relatively quiet spot in the world remains South America, where – despite a host of issues – large-scale violence remains almost unknown, compared to the rest of the planet.

It has been a tiring year, but – cautiously – things might be looking up.

Let’s hope no wingnut screws it up.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

Why Yemen Is Destroying The West

Why Yemen Is Destroying The West

Michael Cessna November 15, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

 

Wars cannot end, until the enemy is defeated, and there is no stomach in the West for the necessary operations…

With the reelection of Donald J. Trump to the Presidency of the United States, even as Progressive, Left-wing pundits around the world launched into publicly televised hysterical meltdowns (that were subdued, compared to those of the many programmed victims of their psychological manipulations of the last few decades), heads of state around the world – the sane ones, at least – broadcast their congratulations to Trump.

In the Middle East, this was also true, for the most part. However, in both Iran and Yemen, reactions were mixed. Neither state is particularly happy about Trump’s victory, as both know that Trump is a diehard supporter of Israel, far more so than the ineffectual and vacillating Democrat administration of Joe Biden has been. This bodes ill for Trump’s immediate foreign policy options.

Since October 19, 2023, the Shi’a Muslim Houthi faction in Yemen has “done a yeoman’s work” in supporting the Hamas terrorist group that attacked and slaughtered defenseless civilians – including pregnant women – in their October 7th invasion of southern Israel that year.

While Yemen is physically separated from Israel and Gaza by a very considerable distance, one could be forgiven for assuming that the Houthis would only be able to offer kind words to Hamas. However, this is the 21st Century, and the Houthis are being supported by the Shi’a Muslim mullahs ruling Iran, to the north…and who have supplied the Houthis with not only Iran-designed derivatives of the ancient Soviet SCUD missiles, but with anti-ship missiles as well.

And it is that last group of weapons that is going to present Donald Trump with his most serious challenge, the first of a series of messes left for him to clean up, much as he found in 2017, when he had to pick up the pieces of Barack Obama’s eight-year long “bombing-fest”.

This time, though, Trump will have a far harder time. Trump’s first administration, as hard as Liberal news organs try to deny it, was marked as being the first Presidency in living memory to have not resulted in the United States becoming embroiled in any new military conflicts – every military action during the “Trump Years” of 2017-2021 were part of conflicts he inherited from Barack Obama.

The US and Western militaries in general, have been critically weakened as a result of the staggering incompetence of the last four years of mismanagement from Washington and NATO capitals. The aloof and disconnected-from-reality “ivory tower” political elites in the West have floundered as their intricate “house of cards” strategies for global dominance have collapsed, as those people they discounted as backwards, uneducated “camel jockeys”, simply declined to play by the script those elites had written for them.

Their first stumble was pushing Vladimir Putin’s Russia into invading Ukraine – the Western elites never imagined that Putin would actually invade – they assumed that he would either meekly acquiesce, or that he would launch a new Cold War, one that would boost the elites’ defense industry stock portfolios into orbit (literally)…The notion that Putin would actually commit to massive, “main force” combat on a scale not seen since 1990-1991 was never on their “bingo cards”.

Next came Africa, as local state armies – usually led by Western-trained officers (sparking delightfully daft conspiracy ravings from Left-wing talking heads) – in the “Coup Belt” of the Sahel Region decided that tossing out Western – primarily French – influence for good, via military action, was worth the risk. The elites were left slack-jawed to discover that what they had considered their racial and cultural inferiors had had enough of their paternalistic ravings, and told them to get out. So “uppity” has Africa gotten, that the Ugandan government publicly and messily refused to bend the knee to the United States over imposing visa restrictions on its officials over the country’s anti-LGBTQ policies – and had to watch as most African countries lined up behind the Central African state. Then, the Sahel nation of Niger – one of the most recent “Coup Belt” states – non-too politely told the US State and Defense departments to ‘pound sand’ over what they described as threats to the country if they did not immediately restore the corrupt government installed by French corporations – then told them that the DoD to remove the $100 million drone operations base at Agadez…To paraphrase a certain comic book-cum-movie character: “…Not a good plan, America…”

And then, there is Ukraine. It does not matter in the slightest, whether you support Ukraine, or Russia, or neither. That is literally irrelevant. All that matters, are three things:

  1. Despite obscene amounts of Western monetary and material support, Ukraine is losing the war. Deal with it.
  2. The nuclear saber rattling from both sides has brought the world closer to and intentional nuclear exchange than at any time in history.
  3. The United States and NATO defense establishments have demonstrated their categorical inability to supply even basic war materials – this is not Star Trek, and there are no replicators here

 

To this context, we must add the fact that North Korea – which was at least willing to listen to Trump, at some level – smelled weakness in Washington, and moved swiftly to capitalize on that weakness. (NB: The Freedomist covered this on its monthly subscription side, as well.)

…Which brings us back to Yemen.

Yemeni civil war map. Houthi areas are in green. February, 2024. Map credit: Ali Zifan. CCA/4.0 International.

 

Yemen is a truly ancient nation, with its recorded history stretching back at least 7,000 years, with much of that history revolving around the sea. Like most of the states and people’s in the region, Yemenis of all tribes and religious sects understand one of the core truisms of warfare: “A ship’s a fool to fight a fort.” (Attributed to Admiral Horatio Nelson.)

While some modern naval pundits have tried to dismiss this wisdom in the modern day – much as their recent ancestors though that “capabilities based planning” was a better idea than traditional strategic thinking – the current effort by Yemen’s Houthis has proven how true it really is, if one has the ability to think about warfare on multiple levels.

The Houthis have no defined “fort” to fight – the operate their missiles as a kind of “shell game”, shuttling them around the countryside, much as the original US strategy for the Minuteman Missile system of the 1980’s. That idea works, as sea-launched land-attack missiles have trouble finding those targets.

As a result, Houthi missiles fired into the Bab al Mandeb Strait have seriously damaged both world commerce, as well as local economies, with traffic through the Suez Canal dropping by c.65% overall, and with port calls to Red Sea ports falling by a staggering 85%. Naval missile attacks have done little to even slow the rates of attack in the region, much less stop them…because they can’t.

 

Added to this, has been the recent escalation in the Israel-Hamas war, first with the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah launching multiple attacks into northern Israel, with the Israeli’s hitting back just as hard, if not harder.

Iran responded to these events by attacking Israel, several times. Now, as of November 15, 2024, Israel has attacked another Iranian nuclear facility.

But…What does this have to do with Yemen?

In fact, very little, at least at first glance. The problem is that Yemen is a fantastic foil for Iran against the United States and its allies: it forces Israel and those Western powers hostile to Iran to split their forces between theaters, while limiting their ability to shift naval forces. At the same time, the Houthis – and thus, Iran – have been able to critically damage the commercial system that the West depends on, and all without Iran becoming directly involved.

This situation has no solution, other than a very messy, and very bloody “boots on the ground” invasion of the Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen…by Trump…With all that implies, given the last twenty-five years of war.

This is because neither the Houthis, nor the Iranians, are willing to actually negotiate any sort of peace agreement, unless Israel agrees to undue everything it has done in reply to Hamas and Hezbollah…Which is simply not going to happen.

Because of the failures of the Biden administration, small but hostile powers states have launched wars because they saw the weaknesses of the United States and the West, and sought to capitalize on that weakness…and they know that Trump will not be able to fix those problems before the 2026 mid-term elections in the US.

If one were a conspiracy theorist, one could almost think that this was a deliberate ploy to undermine a Trump victory.

But that’s just crazy-talk.

Right?

 

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

 

North Korea: Changing the Calculus through Incompetence

North Korea: Changing the Calculus through Incompetence

Michael Cessna November 1, 2024 0

 

 

 

North Korea’s Strategic Pivot: Abandoning Reunification for Military Partnership

Amid the hysteria of the 2024 US Presidential election – seen by many on the world as a pivotal event in the world’s direction for the next generation, at least – there is an increasing amount of talk concerning North Korea’s increasingly militant actions. Most alarming among these is its deployment of combat troops to Ukraine, to aid the Russian war effort there, as that conflict grins through its third year.

The failure of the 2019 Hanoi Summit between then-US President Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un marked more than just another setback in US-DPRK relations. It represented a crucial turning point in North Korea’s strategic outlook, leading to its current role as a military supplier to Russia and its apparent abandonment of the long-held dream of peaceful reunification with South Korea.

The reasons for these cascading failures go back as far as 2003, and are the result of a warped view of ‘realpolitik‘, driven by open and naked profit motives which are completely divorced from reality.

The Shadow of History

Since its formal organization in 1948, the totalitarian Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (or DPRK) has been responsible for not simply fomenting wars, but some of the worst, and longest-running, human rights abuses in modern history.

The Pyongyang government’s abysmal mismanagement of the nation has resulted in a brutal prison state, routinely wracked by famines, and whose industrial base remains firmly in the 1970’s, if that. In addition, North Korean intelligence has been routinely kidnapping Japanese citizens since the 1970’s, to train their foreign intelligence operatives (i.e., “spies”) how to act as citizens of western countries.

However, in two critical area’s, the almost obscenely resource-rich North Korea has spared no expense: its nuclear weapons and space launch programs.

While derided by many for their technological backwardness, poor national management, and cultural isolation, in these two critical areas, North Korean capabilities are nothing to be laughed at.

Bolton’s astoundingly bad judgement is what caused Trump’s failure in Hanoi, a decision-tree so bad, it could be seen as a deliberate act of sedition. North Korea’s nuclear strategy has been fundamentally shaped by the fate of other authoritarian leaders who gave up their WMD programs. The overthrow and subsequent deaths of Saddam Hussein in Iraq (2003) and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya (2011), among others, provided “Supreme Leader” Kim Jong Un with compelling evidence that nuclear weapons are the ultimate guarantee of regime survival.

The Hanoi Disaster

The 2019 Hanoi Summit failed largely because of fundamentally different expectations. The Trump administration, abysmally advised by the hysterical chickenhawk, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton, then-US President Donald Trump was led to believe that North Korea could be “persuaded” to follow a “Libya model” of denuclearization. This profound misreading of Kim’s priorities doomed the talks before they began.

Kim arrived in Hanoi seeking a gradual approach: partial denuclearization in exchange for significant sanctions relief. The American position – complete denuclearization before any meaningful sanctions relief – was a non-starter for a regime that had learned harsh lessons from history: Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s youthful leader, is well aware of the vicious, gruesome and bloodthirsty cackle of then- (2011) US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi: “We Came, We Saw, He Died”…after the Libyan dictator had completely caved to Western pressure to abandon his “weapons of mass destruction” programs nerly a decade before, only to have the United States and NATO openly destroy his regime. Muammar Gadaffi was one of the foulest excuses for a human being in modern history, but the West made an agreement with him, then happily broke it at the first opportunity.

Kim Jong Un may be a lot of things, but an idiot, he most certainly is not.

Strategic Reassessment

The Hanoi summit’s collapse triggered a comprehensive reassessment in Pyongyang of North Korea’s strategic position:

  1. Nuclear Strategy
    – Nuclear weapons development needed to be accelerated
    – Its missile testing program needed rapid expansion
    – It needed to publicly acknowledge its nuclear status
  2. Diplomatic Posture
    – Reduced emphasis on US negotiations
    – Strengthened ties with China and Russia
    – Dismissal of South Korean outreach
  3. Economic Planning
    – Increased focus on self-reliance
    – Development of sanctions-resistant trade
    – Military industry expansion

The Russian Connection

North Korea’s military-industrial complex, while technologically stalled in the 1970’s for the most part, maintains a massive production capacity for basic weapons systems. Its ability to manufacture artillery ammunition using Soviet-era specifications has made it an ideal supplier for Russia’s war effort, allowing Russian industry the ability to slow its own production to refine and retool, even as western arms industries remain stalled in their production of the same supplies. This partnership offers multiple benefits to Pyongyang:

  1. Economic Advantages
    – Hard currency earnings
    – Technology transfer opportunities
    – Sanctions circumvention
  2. Military Benefits
    – Combat experience for troops
    – Modern battlefield observations
    – Testing of equipment in actual combat
  3. Strategic Gains
    – Stronger ties with a permanent UN Security Council member
    – Reduced international isolation
    – Leverage against US pressure

Of these points, the second – giving its troops modern combat experience – is the most valuable to North korea in the short term. It it very difficult for a military that has not actually fought a war in decades to know what new tools and techniques it should try to implement; armed forces around the world are notoriously conservative (to the point of being hidebound) for a reason, although rarely to the level of North Korea.

Whatever the reality of the fighting in Ukraine, “blooding” North Korean troops there could give them a significant advantage over their South Korean adversaries in a future fight, as South Korean troops have not had any experience in the kind of war currently being fought in Ukraine, despite having a significant technological advantage over their northern opposition.

Abandoning Reunification

The shift away from even theoretical peaceful reunification represents a significant change in North Korean policy. Since the Korean War armistice in 1953, both Korea’s have maintained reunification as an official goal, though with vastly different visions of how it would occur.

This policy shift serves several purposes:

  • Solidifies Kim’s domestic position
  • Justifies increased militarization
  • Enables closer alignment with Russia and China
  • Reduces diplomatic constraints on aggressive actions

 

After a string of public failures to successfully get a satellite into orbit, Pyongyang finally managed to get a reconnaissance satellite, the “Malligyong-1” into orbit (rather like the original US and Soviet launch attempts).

The successful satellite launches demonstrate North Korea’s growing mastery of several critical ICBM technologies, particularly multi-stage rocket separation and long-range guidance systems. The primary technical hurdle remaining for effective ICBM capability is reentry vehicle technology – protecting a nuclear warhead during its hypersonic return through the atmosphere. Russian assistance in this area likely on Kim’s shopping list for providing weapons and troops to Russian leader Vladimir Putin, as Russia possesses some of the world’s most advanced reentry technologies.

 

Hwasong-17 intercontinental ballistic missile, 2024. Public Domain Photo from the Government of North Korea.

 

By early 2024, North Korea had already demonstrated progress in multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) development through tests of the Hwasong-17 ICBM, which appears designed to carry multiple warheads. Their March 2024 test of a new solid-fuel ICBM suggested further advances in this capability. MIRV technology would allow a single missile to carry multiple nuclear warheads, each capable of hitting different targets. This dramatically increases both first-strike capability and the ability to overwhelm missile defense systems.

The combination of proven satellite launch capabilities, potential Russian reentry assistance, and advancing MIRV technology could enable North Korea to deploy a credible nuclear triad system, fundamentally altering the strategic balance in Northeast Asia.

Regional Implications

This strategic realignment has profound implications for Northeast Asian security:

  1. South Korea
    – Increased military tension
    – Reduced diplomatic options
    – Stronger US alliance imperative
  2. Japan
    – Enhanced missile defense urgency
    – Strengthened US security ties
    – Increased military spending justification
  3. China
    – Complicated regional balance
    – Reduced influence over DPRK
    – New strategic calculations needed

The acquisition by North Korea of a credible strategic nuclear capability would represent a catastrophic shift of world power.

Looking Forward

North Korea’s evolution from a state theoretically seeking peaceful reunification to an active military supplier in global conflicts represents a significant shift in Northeast Asian security dynamics. This transformation, rooted in the failures (whether accidental or deliberate) of past diplomatic initiatives and Kim Jong Un’s determination to ensure the survival of his regime, suggests a more militarily active and less diplomatically constrained North Korea in the years ahead.

As this article goes to press, the United States is some four days away from the 2024 Presidential election. There is no way to know what will happen if Donald Trump wins on November 5th – but the outcome of a Harris victory is starkly and painfully clear, because any response they make to Kim’s new course will be either completely incoherent, or wildly overblown.

Choose wisely.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Britain’s “Lost Decade” Economic Disaster & Its Impact On Global Security

Britain’s “Lost Decade” Economic Disaster & Its Impact On Global Security

Michael Cessna October 25, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

The United Kingdom’s descent from its position as a leading global financial center into economic turmoil represents one of the most dramatic shifts in modern economic history. While the roots of this decline can be traced to the 2008 global financial crisis, the combined shocks of Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, and Britain’s steadfast support of Ukraine has accelerated what many analysts now term Britain’s “Lost Decade.”

The Foundation Cracks: 2008-2016

The 2008 financial crisis hit London particularly hard, given its out sized role in global banking and finance. While other nations gradually recovered, Britain’s recovery was notably sluggish. The Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government’s austerity measures, implemented under Prime Minister David Cameron, may have prevented a sovereign debt crisis (while some 70 potential defaults currently exist), but came at the cost of reduced public services and infrastructure investment.

During this period, Britain’s armed forces faced significant budget cuts. The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review disastrously led to significant reductions in personnel, the early retirement of the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal, and the scrapping of the Harrier jump-jet fleet. These decisions would later impact Britain’s ability to project power globally.

 

Brexit: The Self-Inflicted – With Help – Wound

The 2016 Brexit referendum marked a crucial turning point. The vote to leave the European Union triggered immediate economic consequences: the pound sterling plummeted, investment decisions were frozen, and London’s position as Europe’s financial capital began to erode. Major financial institutions started relocating operations to Dublin, Frankfurt, and Paris.

The protracted Brexit negotiations created years of uncertainty, depressing business investment and complicating trade relationships. The eventual Trade and Cooperation Agreement, while avoiding a “no-deal” scenario, still resulted in significant new barriers to trade with Britain’s largest market.

The reality was that Britain’s trade was significantly undermined by the European Union’s bitter and petty actions, as that body did not was to lose the major tax revenues that Britain was contributing, at a time when the EU was a whole was still reeling from the 2008 crisis. The “better option”, from the EU’s perspective, was to make it as hard for Britain as possible to “go it alone”.

What made these effects far worse, were a series of bungling failures by successive governments in London, from both sides of the political aisle. These poorly-considered actions have functionally flat-lined the British economy…and things are not improving.

 

Pandemic Paralysis

COVID-19 struck Britain particularly hard, both in human and economic terms. The UK experienced one of Europe’s highest death rates and deepest economic contractions. The government’s pandemic response, while unprecedented in scale, added substantially to national debt. The furlough scheme, while preventing mass unemployment, cost hundreds of billions of pounds.

The pandemic exposed and exacerbated existing economic weaknesses. Supply chain disruptions, combined with Brexit-related complications, led to shortages and inflation. The National Health Service, already strained by years of austerity, faced enormous pressure.

And, despite the government trying to “cook the books” by “revising” economic numbers, the British economy has still not recovered.

Ukraine Support and Energy Crisis

Britain’s robust support for Ukraine, while strategically important, has come at a significant economic cost. Military aid, combined with sanctions against Russia, contributed to spiraling energy costs and inflation. The situation has forced difficult choices between domestic spending and international commitments.

The energy crisis has highlighted Britain’s vulnerability to global supply shocks. Despite North Sea oil and gas resources, years of under-investment in energy infrastructure and storage capacity left the country exposed to price volatility.

Successive governments in London have learned the US government’s model of “borrow ’til you crash”, piling on mountains of debt to support Kiev’s flagging hopes of survival, as ‘victory’ is very much a malleable terms.

Impact on Global Security

Britain’s economic challenges have resulted in drastic and cascading effects on global security:

  1. Reduced Military Capability: Budget constraints have limited Britain’s ability to modernize its armed forces and maintain its traditional role in global security operations, something even the new Left-wing government of PM Keir Starmer could not ignore.
  2. NATO Implications: While Britain continues to meet NATO’s 2% GDP defense spending target, the declining value of the pound means this represents less actual military capability.
  3. Diplomatic Influence: Economic weakness has diminished Britain’s ‘soft power‘ and ability to influence global events through economic leverages.
  4. Intelligence Capabilities: Budget pressures have affected Britain’s renowned intelligence services, potentially impacting the “Five Eyes Alliance“.

Recruitment Crisis and Cultural Shift

The British military’s recruitment challenges reflect deeper societal changes. Traditional sources of military recruitment – working-class communities with strong patriotic traditions – have been eroded by demographic shifts, changing cultural attitudes and recently, the stunningly draconian response of the Starmer government to a sudden spate of riots initially linked – albeit wrongly – to racial violence. The Armed Forces’ 2022-23 recruitment targets were missed by approximately 40%, marking the worst recruitment crisis since the end of conscription in 1960, although recruiting numbers in the United Kingdom have been dropping steadily since at least 2010.

This recruitment crisis stems from multiple factors. Economic uncertainty has paradoxically reduced rather than increased military recruitment, as potential recruits seek more stable civilian careers. More significantly, surveys indicate a growing disconnect between younger Britons and traditional concepts of national service. The proportion of young people expressing “pride in being British” has declined significantly, particularly in urban areas, leading to even Left-leaning pundits to suggest that the British Left needs to “re-embrace patriotism”.

 

 

The military has attempted to address this through modernized recruitment campaigns, often focusing on personal development and technical skills rather than patriotic duty. However, these efforts have met with mixed success, as they compete against private sector opportunities and what military leaders describe as an “individualistic zeitgeist” among younger generations.

This staffing crisis has forced difficult choices about force structure and capabilities, significantly limiting Britain’s ability to maintain its global military commitments.

Economic Indicators

The scale of Britain’s economic challenges is reflected in key indicators:

  • Persistent low productivity growth
  • Declining real wages
  • Rising income inequality
  • Chronic trade deficits
  • High government debt-to-GDP ratio
  • Weakening pound sterling
  • Reduced foreign direct investment

Looking Forward

Britain’s path to economic recovery remains uncertain. The country retains significant advantages: a highly skilled workforce, world-class universities, and leadership in sectors like fintech and renewable energy. However, structural challenges persist:

  • Aging infrastructure
  • Regional economic disparities
  • Skills shortages in key sectors
  • Housing market instability
  • Trade relationship uncertainties
  • Energy security concerns

 

The implications of these issues for global security will depend largely on Britain’s ability to navigate these challenges while maintaining its international commitments and modernizing its military capabilities.

The real problem for British security, however, remains the same as in the United States Armed Forces: an increasing percentage of the primary recruiting demographic – the “under-30” age group – simply do not see the point in volunteering to serve their country in the military, if at all, as it seemingly offers no opportunities over the civilian world, and has demonstrated (as in the United States and Canada) a staggeringly callous attitude towards treating the long-term impacts of combat on the country’s veterans…And, also as in the United States, if this trend is not reversed, the alternatives are not things any government wants to consider.

 

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
From Narco Subs to Military Tech

From Narco Subs to Military Tech

Michael Cessna October 4, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

In the murky world of drug trafficking, narco submarines have long been a thorn in the side of law enforcement. These stealthy vessels, often homemade and barely submerged, have smuggled tons of illicit cargo past watchful eyes. Now, in an ironic twist, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are taking cues from these ingenious, if nefarious, designs to develop a new generation of military craft: low-profile submersibles for resupply and covert operations. The implications do not bode well.

 

Learning from the Underworld

Narco submarines, or “narco subs,” are semi-submersible vessels designed to evade detection while transporting large quantities of drugs. They are typically long, slender craft that cruise just below the water’s surface, with only a small conning tower visible above the waves. This design makes them incredibly difficult to spot visually or on radar. The other aspect is that narco subs do not “sound” like military vessels, or true submarines; this is due to them primarily using non-military marine diesel engines common to many civilian pleasure craft.

 

Two Narco subs (LPVs) interdicted by USCG personnel aboard USS Preble (5 June 2020) and USS Pinckney (15 May 2020). Sources: HI Sutton, US Navy, US Coast Guard, Small Wars Journal.

 

The military has taken note of these vessels’ effectiveness in evading detection. While the goals are vastly different, the need for stealth and the ability to operate in shallow coastal waters are shared requirements that make the design of narco sub an intriguing proposition for military applications.

 

The Military’s New Toy

The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps are now developing their own versions of these low-profile vessels. Unlike their illegal counterparts, these military craft are being designed with cutting-edge technology, robust construction, and specific military objectives in mind…Meaning, if the US Army’s Infantry Squad Vehicle (ISV) is any indication, will not work the way they think it will.

The primary focus is on using these submersibles for discrete resupply missions. In scenarios where traditional supply lines might be compromised or under threat, these stealthy craft could slip in undetected to deliver crucial supplies to troops in remote, isolated locations. This is patches a critical hole in the US Marine Corps’ “Force Design 2030“, by allowing covert resupply to widely dispersed monitoring and anti-ship and -air missile units on atolls, islands and continental regions with long coastlines or navigable river systems.

Obviously, there are implications of this for use in intelligence operations, to supply covert operatives in coastal areas. For the same reasons that drug cartels use semi-submersibles to smuggle illicit drugs into the United States by the ton-weight, these low-profile vessels are able to ferry in weapons and munitions without the need to dangerously expose aircraft crews to drop the supplies by parachute. Moreover, these craft can be remotely piloted, making for a truly “deniable” operation.

But resupply is just the beginning. The potential applications for these vessels in low-intensity conflicts are vast and varied.

 

Game-Changers in Low-Intensity Conflicts

Low-intensity conflicts, characterized by guerrilla warfare, counterinsurgency, and special operations, could all see a significant shift in tactics with the introduction of these submersibles. The low profile of these vessels makes them particularly suited for operations in contested waters, where larger, more visible craft might provoke unwanted attention or escalation. A brief look at these enhancements include:

  1. Covert Insertion: Special operations teams could be deployed silently and swiftly into hostile territory, with minimal risk of detection.
  2. Intelligence Gathering: Equipped with advanced sensors, these vessels could patrol coastlines, gathering crucial intelligence without alerting the enemy.
  3. Humanitarian Aid: In disaster zones where ports are damaged or inaccessible, these craft could deliver vital supplies to coastal communities.
  4. Counter-Narcotics Operations: Ironically, these military vessels, inspired by narco subs, could be used to combat drug trafficking, using the smugglers’ own tactics against them, via covertly inserting teams to raid drug-producing factories.
  5. Mine Warfare: Low-profile submersibles could be ideal for deploying or detecting underwater mines in shallow waters.

 

Marines with 3rd Reconnaissance Battalion, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, prepare diver propulsion devices for training, Okinawa, Japan, 2011. Source: DVIDS. Public Domain.

 

Obviously, any group that can build and deploy such craft – including terror groups, can use them to conduct these sorts of operations. The Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) team that attacked Mumbai in 2008 had to capture a fishing trawler, force its captain to sail to a point off Mumbai (a coastal port city), then infiltrated the team at night using Zodiac-style rubber boats. Several of the steps the LeT required could have been eliminated with semi-submersible craft.

 

Technical Challenges and Innovations

Developing these submersibles isn’t without its challenges. The military versions need to be far more sophisticated than their narco counterparts. Engineers are grappling with issues like:

  •  Propulsion systems that are both powerful and quiet
  •  Advanced navigation systems for precise underwater maneuvering
  •  Life support systems for extended underwater operations
  •  Modular designs to support various mission profiles
  •  Materials that can withstand the pressures of submersion while maintaining a low profile

 

These challenges are driving innovations in naval engineering, with potential spin-off benefits for civilian maritime technology.

 

The Future of Naval Warfare?

As these low-profile submersibles move from concept to reality, they have the potential to reshape naval strategy, particularly in littoral and coastal operations. They represent a shift towards more agile, adaptable naval forces capable of operating in the gray zones of modern conflict. But the true game-changer may lie in their potential as stealthy missile platforms.

 

The Game-Changing Potential of Missile-Armed Submersibles

Recent developments have shown that these vessels could be more than just transport and reconnaissance platforms. The U.S. Navy has been exploring the possibility of arming these low-profile submersibles with anti-ship missiles, specifically the Naval Strike Missile (NSM).

 

Naval Strike Missile (NSM). Hemus Exhibition , 2010, International Fair in Plovdiv, Bulgaria. Photo by Peterdx. Public Domain.

 

The NSM is a sea-skimming, high-subsonic speed missile with a range of over 100 nautical miles. It’s designed to evade enemy defenses and can strike both land and sea targets. Now, this potent weapon system could be mounted on a vessel that is nearly invisible to radar, confusing to sonar (if using non-military engines) and difficult to detect visually.

This combination creates a formidable and unpredictable threat. A group pf small, stealthy vessels lurking just offshore, capable of launching precision strikes against much larger ships or land targets, could fundamentally alter the balance of power in coastal areas.

 

Tactical Advantages

The tactical advantages of this setup are numerous:

  1. Surprise Factor: These submersibles could approach high-value targets undetected, launching missiles from unexpected locations.
  2. Cost-Effective Sea Denial: A relatively inexpensive platform could threaten or neutralize much larger, more expensive naval assets…not least, because of the potential for the platform’s use as a remotely piloted vessel.
  3. Distributed Lethality: By spreading offensive capabilities across numerous small platforms, naval forces become more resilient and harder to neutralize.
  4. Rapid Response: These vessels could quickly deploy to hot-spots, providing a swift and stealthy strike capability where needed.

 

Strategic Implications

The strategic implications of missile-armed low-profile submersibles are profound:

  1. Asymmetric Warfare: Smaller nations or non-state actors could potentially leverage this technology to challenge larger naval powers, which – despite their strength on paper – cannot have ships deployed everywhere, continuously.
  2. Area Denial: The mere threat of these vessels could deter enemy forces from operating in certain areas, effectively expanding a nation’s defensive perimeter.
  3. Escalation Management: Their small size and low profile could make them less provocative than deploying larger warships, allowing for a measured response in tense situations.
  4. Changed Calculus: Naval planners would need to reconsider strategies for littoral operations, knowing that potent threats could be hiding in plain sight.

 

Challenges and Considerations

However, arming these vessels with missiles isn’t without challenges:

  1. Stability: Ensuring accurate missile launches from a small, semi-submerged platform presents engineering challenges.
  2. Limited Payload: The size of these vessels restricts the number of missiles they can carry.
  3. Ethical Concerns: The covert nature of these platforms could raise questions about transparency in military operations.
  4. Proliferation Risks: As with any advanced military technology, there’s a risk of these capabilities spreading to potential adversaries.

 

A New Era of Naval Warfare?

The combination of low-profile submersibles and advanced anti-ship missiles like the NSM could herald a new era in naval warfare. It blends the stealth of submarines with the striking power of surface combatants in a compact, versatile package.

As these technologies mature and potentially enter service, they may well rewrite the rules of engagement in coastal waters. The ability to strike from hidden positions with precision and power could make these small vessels a cornerstone of future naval strategy.

However, like any military technology, their true impact will only be understood once they’re deployed in real-world scenarios. Will they prove to be the game-changers some predict, or will unforeseen limitations curb their effectiveness?

One thing is certain: as these stealthy, missile-armed craft prepare to slip beneath the waves and into military service, they may well be ushering in a new era of naval operations—one where the lines between submersible and surface vessel, between defensive and offensive capabilities, become increasingly blurred. The future of naval warfare may very well belong to those who master the art of hiding in plain sight while packing a powerful punch.

As these low-profile submersibles move from concept to reality, they have the potential to reshape naval strategy, particularly in littoral and coastal operations. They represent a shift towards more agile, adaptable naval forces capable of operating in the gray zones of modern conflict…However, like any military technology, their true impact will only be understood once they’re deployed in real-world scenarios. Will they prove to be the game-changers some predict, or will unforeseen limitations curb their effectiveness?

One thing is certain: the development of these vessels showcases the military’s ability to innovate and adapt, even drawing inspiration from unexpected sources. From the shadowy world of drug smuggling to the cutting edge of naval warfare, the journey of the low-profile submersible is a testament to the old adage that necessity — whether in crime or in war — is indeed the mother of invention.

At the same time, serious thought needs to given to ask the uncomfortable question: Are state military design bureau’s around the world so bereft of ideas, that they have to adapt the ad hoc tactics and tools of criminals and terrorists to “big war” theory? After all, the US Army’s ISV program exists for the sole reason to emulate the widespread use of “technicals” in combat around the world – and does so poorly. Will the US Navy and Marine Corps’ semi-submersible program make the same mistakes?

As these stealthy craft prepare to slip beneath the waves and into military service, they may well be ushering in a new era of naval operations—one where the ability to remain unseen is just as important as the power to strike.

 

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Wayne P Hughes Jr. USN (Ret.), Robert P. Girrier (2018), Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations, Third Edition
  2. Julian Thompson (1994), Lifeblood of War: Logistics in Armed Conflict
  3. Thomas Ricks (2012), The Generals
  4. James F. Dunnigan (2003), How To Make War, 4th Edition
  5. James F. Dunnigan (1991), Shooting Blanks

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Rise of Civilian Satellite Intelligence

The Rise of Civilian Satellite Intelligence

Michael Cessna September 27, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

Not too long ago, access to satellite imagery was firmly relegated to the realm of spy movies and top-secret government agencies. Times have certainly changed. Today, anyone with an internet connection can access detailed satellite images of almost anywhere on Earth. This democratization of satellite intelligence is reshaping how we understand global events, conduct business, and even wage war.

 

From Military Secrets to Public Domain

Before roughly 2000, good- to high-quality satellite imagery was the exclusive domain of superpowers. The United States and the Soviet Union spent billions during the Cold War to launch spy satellites, gaining a bird’s-eye view of each other’s military activities. This open access to the ultimate “high ground” forced every national government that wanted to try and keep their secrets out of public view to become highly creative in hiding facilities. As advanced sensors developed, so too did methods of concealment. Fast-forward to the 21st Century, and companies like Planet Labs and Maxar Technologies are providing high-resolution satellite imagery to paying customers – be they governments, corporations, or even individuals. Not only that, but many of these high-quality are now finding their way into free-access platforms, such as Google and Bing Maps, but even such unlikely sites as NatureFocused – offer very high-quality maps featuring regular, street-type maps, but also very recent satellite imagery and highly detailed terrain maps.

This shift has profound implications. Suddenly, small countries, NGOs, citizen journalists – even terrorists – now have access to intelligence that was once the privilege of only the most powerful nations. It’s like giving everyone a seat at the geopolitical poker table and letting them peek at each other’s cards.

 

Changing the Game in Global Politics

So, how exactly is this changing the political landscape? For starters, it’s making it a lot harder for governments to hide their activities. Take the recent conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. Civilian satellites routinely capture troop movements, missile launches, and the aftermath of strikes, often before official sources confirm them. This frequently happens in real-time, with independent verification changing (and often confusing) how we understand and respond to global crises.

But it’s not just about conflict zones. Environmental groups are using satellite imagery to track deforestation, oil spills, and illegal fishing. Human rights organizations can now monitor refugee movements and verify claims of atrocities. While it may seem like having a “global watchdog” that never sleeps, there are issues of misinterpretation – both accidental and deliberate – that can and do muddy the waters, giving false impressions through outdated images, failures of interpretation, or any number of other issues, technical or human.

 

The Double-Edged Sword of Warfare

In the realm of warfare, easy and (mostly) free access to recent, high-grade satellite intelligence is a “game-changer”. Military strategists now have to assume that their movements are being watched not just by enemy governments, but also potentially by anyone with an internet connection. This transparency can act as a deterrent to aggression, but it also means that the element of surprise in military operations is becoming a thing of the past.

In the hoary old days of 1983, the Reagan administration launched “Operation Urgent Fury“, to invade the Caribbean island nation of Grenada, which had collapsed into chaos as different factions of the ruling party wrestled for control. This placed the safety of some 400-odd American medical students in question, and the Reagan administration – which had come to power at least partly as a result of the previous administration’s failure in dealing with the Iranian Hostage crisis – was not about to risk a repeat performance on its doorstep.

While there was never any doubt that the United States military would win a conflict in Grenada, it was discovered – much to the consternation of all planners – that there were no detailed maps of Grenada inside the US cartographic system. US Army planners were forced to purchase tourist maps of Grenada just outside the gates of their bases, hand-draw grid reference lines and the estimated locations of targets on those rudimentary maps, then photocopy those maps and hand those out to troop leaders.

The issue was that there were very few “recon birds” – the colloquial term for reconnaissance satellites – in orbit at the time, and those satellites were not easy to “re-task”. Grenada was so “off-the-radar” in the United States, some intelligence officers wondered why they were being ordered to plan an invasion of the city of “Granada” in Spain.

Humor aside, this was clearly a serious problem…and one that would not be replicated today, in any army in the world worthy of the name. Today, anyone with an internet connection can utilize free tools (often coming as “stock” programs with many computers) that the battle planners of “Urgent Fury” – or, for that matter, “Desert Storm” – could have dreamed of.

Unfortunately, that also includes terrorists.

 

 

The 2008 attack on Mumbai, India, by the terror group “Lashkar-e-Taiba“, were planned and directed in real-time using stock personal computers, an internet connection and tools like Google, to verify targets, observe news reports on the fighting in real-time, and to generate maps that were used for plotting the progress of their operations on target.

Likewise, there are now commercially available tools, like “ATAK“, that approach military and national intelligence agency tool-sets in quality. These free, or at least low-cost, programs are well within the reach of private individuals, to say nothing of terror groups and small governments and their military forces.

These realities have proven the wisdom of the United States Marine Corps’ “Small Wars Manual“, published in 1940, which warned that what the West now calls “Third World” forces were improving their abilities and acquiring more modern weapons and equipment, and that the result would be that “First World” forces would have to be willing and able to adapt and evolve faster than those forces could.

 

 

The Road Ahead

As we look to the future, it’s clear that easy access to satellite intelligence will continue to play an increasingly important role in shaping our world. We’re likely to see even more detailed imagery, combined with AI and machine learning to provide real-time analysis of global events.

This technology has the potential to increase transparency, hold powerful actors accountable, and provide crucial information in times of crisis. But it also risks further eroding both personal and start privacy, and potentially destabilizing delicate geopolitical situations in unforeseen ways.

One thing is certain: the “view from above” is here to stay, and it’s changing how we see our world, literally. As this technology continues to evolve, it will be up to all of us – governments, businesses, and citizens alike – to figure out how to use it responsibly and effectively.

In a world where everyone can be a satellite superpower, the challenge will be learning how to use this newfound vision wisely.

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Cryptocurrency and Conflict Financing – Reshaping the Economics of Modern Warfare

Cryptocurrency and Conflict Financing – Reshaping the Economics of Modern Warfare

Michael Cessna September 6, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

In the shadowy world of conflict financing, a new player has emerged: cryptocurrency. As digital currencies like Bitcoin – once derided by many as useless money pits – increasingly gain mainstream acceptance, they are also becoming a tool for those operating outside the law, including insurgent groups, terrorist organizations, and sanctioned states. This technological shift is reshaping the economics of modern warfare and challenging traditional methods of tracking and interdicting illicit funds. Money makes serious violent conflicts and wars possible, and cryptocurrencies are increasingly the preferred go-to for all non-state actors in conflicts…and major nations are not far behind.

The Rise of Crypto in Conflict Zones

Cryptocurrency’s key features – decentralization, anonymity, and borderless transactions – make it an attractive option for groups operating in conflict zones. Unlike traditional banking systems, which can be easily monitored and controlled by governments, cryptocurrencies offer a degree of financial autonomy that’s unprecedented in the digital age. It also holds the potential to radically expand the democratization of warfare, a subject we touched on last week.

In recent years, there have been several high-profile cases of cryptocurrency being used in conflict zones. In 2019, Hamas – the militant group controlling Gaza, responsible for the October 7, 2023 assault into Israel – turned to Bitcoin to solicit donations, bypassing international restrictions on its financing. Similarly, in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, both sides have leveraged cryptocurrencies: volunteers supporting Ukrainian forces have raised over $200 million in crypto donations, while some Russian-backed separatist groups have also turned to digital currencies to evade sanctions.

Terrorism Financing Goes Digital

The shift from traditional financing methods to cryptocurrency is particularly evident in terrorism financing. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups have increasingly turned to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to fund their operations. These groups often use social media platforms to solicit donations, providing Bitcoin addresses where supporters can send funds anonymously.

The ease of creating online fundraising campaigns with cryptocurrency has led to a new phenomenon: the crowdfunding of terror. In 2019, a website linked to Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria raised Bitcoin donations for weapons and training. The campaign, which ran on the dark web, promised donors anonymity and the ability to support jihad from anywhere in the world.

This has extended into Asia, as well, as extensive NFT networks have been employed to both raise and transfer cryptocurrencies into fungible cash. Part of this fallout comes in the form of Afghanistan coming to the fore as a clearinghouse for crypto transfers to terror groups, as the lax controls of the ruling Taliban – who returned to power after the bungled and disastrous withdrawal of United States forces from the country in 2021 by the Biden-Harris administration – effectively closing off surveillance and enforcement efforts within the pariah state.

Challenges for Law Enforcement

This new landscape of crypto-enabled conflict financing poses significant challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Tracking and intercepting cryptocurrency transactions is a complex task, requiring specialized skills and technologies that many agencies are still developing. A major part of this is the reality of the “dark web“, and its associated “darknet markets“. Outside of cryptocurrency transfers, these markets allow all manner of criminal activity, including human trafficking and child pornography, as well as illicit drug trades, all of which terror groups have no issue leveraging such tools.

The catch for law enforcement and intelligence agencies in tracking terrorists and other criminals through the “dark web” lays in the fact that although the core operating principle of the ‘dark web’ – so-called “onion routing” – was developed and patented by the US Navy in 1998, the very nature of the system developed to secure US military and government communications networks means that forcing access remotely is virtually impossible. In fact, the arrest by the FBI of the founder and main operator of the notorious “Silk Road” darknet market in 2013 (which led to his life sentence in 2015) did not involve traditional methods of hacking, but involved an agent infiltrating the “Silk Road” site as an administrator, and using “social engineering” techniques to narrow down Ulbricht’s location, and using his personal security mistakes to finally locate him…”Hacking” really had nothing to do with the takedown of the “Silk Road“, because it cannot be taken down by conventional methods of “hack-attack“.

The pseudonymous nature of most blockchain transactions using the “non-fungible token” protocol that makes cryptocurrencies viable, provides a veneer of anonymity, though it’s not impenetrable. Agencies like the FBI have had some success in tracing Bitcoin transactions related to ransomware attacks and other cybercrimes. However, newer “privacy coins” like Monero offer even greater anonymity, making them increasingly popular among those seeking to avoid detection.

Legal and jurisdictional issues further complicate matters. As cryptocurrency transactions usually cross international borders, questions are raised concerning which agencies have authority to investigate and prosecute any “criminal activity” based on a computer physically located in their countries, not least because a specific instance of criminal activity in one country is not necessarily such in another country, as was demonstrated in 2012, when Hungarian scam artists attempted to run an insurance fraud scheme in the wake of the Costa Concordia disaster. The lack of consistent regulations across countries creates loopholes that bad actors can exploit.

The Humanitarian Dilemma

Interestingly, the same features that make cryptocurrencies attractive for illicit financing also make them valuable for delivering humanitarian aid to conflict zones. In areas where traditional banking systems have broken down, or where governments restrict the flow of funds, cryptocurrencies can provide a lifeline for aid organizations.

For example, during Venezuela’s economic crisis, some aid groups turned to cryptocurrency to deliver assistance, bypassing the country’s dysfunctional financial system and strict currency controls. Similarly, in Afghanistan, some NGOs have explored using cryptocurrencies to continue operations after the Taliban takeover restricted traditional financial channels.

However, this humanitarian use of cryptocurrencies presents its own risks. The same channels used to deliver aid could potentially be exploited by militant groups to divert funds. This creates a complex balancing act for aid organizations and regulators alike, not least as crypto-financing is increasingly being seen as a negative, since it is a “hidden” method of finance.

Looking to the Future

As cryptocurrencies continue to evolve, so too will their impact on conflict financing. The development of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and the increasing sophistication of decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms will likely create new opportunities and challenges in this space.

Regulators and international bodies are scrambling to keep up. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog, has issued guidelines for regulating virtual assets. However, the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen, especially given the rapid pace of technological change in the crypto world.

The impact of cryptocurrencies on global power dynamics is also worth considering. As digital currencies potentially weaken the effectiveness of economic sanctions, traditional forms of financial warfare may become less potent. This could lead to a shift in how nations project power and influence on the global stage.

Conclusion

The rise of cryptocurrency in conflict financing represents a significant shift in the landscape of modern warfare. While it offers new opportunities for bad actors to fund their activities, it also presents potential benefits in terms of delivering aid and fostering financial inclusion in unstable regions.

As we move forward, the challenge will be to develop adaptive policies and technologies that can mitigate the risks of crypto-enabled conflict financing while preserving the innovative potential of blockchain technology. This will require unprecedented cooperation between governments, financial institutions, and the tech sector.

The genie of cryptocurrency is out of the bottle, and its impact on conflict financing is here to stay. The responses to this challenge will shape the future of global security in the digital age.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Carrier Battle Group: America’s “Big Stick” Of Power Projection

The Carrier Battle Group: America’s “Big Stick” Of Power Projection

Michael Cessna August 16, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

Earlier this week, the United States accelerated the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) and its carrier battle group to the Middle East – an operation which was already in progress to relieve the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and its own battle group of escorting warships, who have been on station in the region for months – in response to signs that the increasingly unstable regime in Iran may attempt to significantly widen its proxy war against the state of Israel which began on October 7 of last year.

 

The Good Ol’ Days

The origin of the aircraft carrier battle group takes its origins from the world-spanning naval warfare of World War II, primarily from its operations in the Pacific Ocean. The devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 7th, 1941, demonstrated the power of carrier-based aviation and the vulnerability of battleships, marking a fundamental shift in naval strategy, as the Imperial Japanese Navy destroyed the United States Navy’s main battle force in the attack. The United States Navy – stripped of its battleship fleet by the sneak attack on its Hawaiian base, and whose Asiatic Fleet was functionally neutralized in the opening stages of the war by staggeringly unbelievable levels of incompetence and mismanagement – was forced to continue the fight with only three aircraft carriers, something it had never seriously considered as a possibility.

 

Photograph taken from a Japanese plane during the torpedo attack on ships moored on both sides of Ford Island shortly after the beginning of the Pearl Harbor attack. IJN photo, via the US Navy. Public Domain.

 

As the war raged on, the U.S. Navy quickly adapted, forming diverse, multi-ship task forces centered on its massive aircraft carriers. The battles of the Coral Sea and Midway in 1942 proved the effectiveness of this approach, with American carriers dealing a decisive blow to the Japanese fleet, while remaining largely protected by much smaller destroyers and destroyer-escorts, which both shot down attacking Japanese aircraft, and sometimes absorbed bombs and torpedoes meant for the carriers. As the war progressed, these carrier task forces became increasingly sophisticated, with hard-learned doctrine and techniques using destroyers primarily for anti-submarine warfare and cruisers studded with heavy automatic cannons for air defense, even at close range.

 

Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft guns on a Mk 12 quadruple mount firing on board USS Hornet (CV-12), circa February 1945, probably during gunnery practice. Photo credit: Lt. Cmdr. Charles Kerlee, USN. Public Domain.

 

 

Into the Cold

In the post-war era, the advent of jet aircraft and guided missiles led to further refinements to both aircraft carriers themselves, but also in their organization and tactics. The introduction of the angled flight deck and steam catapults (these are now being replaced with electromagnetic catapults on the new Gerald R. Ford-class carriers) in the 1950s enhanced carrier operations, while the development of guided missile destroyers and cruisers improved the group’s air defense capabilities, at least in theory. Modern navies, however, would get a severe reality check in 1982, as the very modern British Royal Navy was badly hammered by the second-tier air force of Argentina in the savage (especially allowing for its relatively small size) Battle of San Carlos, causing a sobering reassessment by all navies of their own capabilities and tactics. (On a historical side note, the Falklands War also saw the destruction of the ARA General Belgrano, the former USS Phoenix (CL-46), a Brooklyn-class cruiser from World War 2, which had survived the Pearl Harbor attack, to be sunk by a British attack submarine some forty years later.)

 

A Standard Missile-3 is launched from the Japanese Aegis Destroyer JS Kongo (DDG 173), 2007. US Navy photo. Public Domain.

 

The Cold War saw the carrier battle group evolve into one of – if not the primary – key instruments of power projection. The nuclear-powered USS Enterprise (CVN-65), commissioned in 1961, heralded a new era of endurance for carrier operations. However, this would be tempered with the realization that while the range of the carrier itself was now measured in decades, instead of miles, it was still restricted by the ranges of its gas-turbine engined escort vessels, and the constant need for resupply of everything from food to bombs, spare parts and fuel for its aircraft wing. The development of the Aegis combat system in the 1980s (and its associated ballistic missile defense component) would significantly enhance the group’s air defense capabilities, while continuous development of anti-submarine and anti-mine technologies further protected the carrier and its escorts. These capabilities did not come without cost, however: hard lessons were learned from the attacks on the USS Stark, the USS Samuel B. Roberts, and the bombing of the USS Cole. These lessons continue to be learned, but the takeaway is that naval warfare – like all warfare – is not a video game, despite breathlessly giddy news stories to the contrary.

In the realm of anti-submarine warfare, the US Navy pioneered the modern use of armed combat drones in warfare, when it deployed the QH-50 DASH (Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter), built by Gyrodyne, in 1959.

 

In the Persian Gulf, a port quarter view of the guided missile frigate USS STARK (FFG-31) listing to port after being hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles, 18 May 1987. Public Domain.

 

The Dawn of the Millennium and the GWOT

The post-Cold War period has seen carrier battle groups involved in numerous conflicts, from the 1990-91 Gulf War to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The groups have also played crucial roles in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. Today’s carrier battle groups, while retaining their core structure developed over some fifty years, continue to evolve to meet new challenges. The integration of stealth aircraft, more advanced unmanned systems, and advanced, internet-based networking and cyberwar capabilities ensures that the carrier battle group will remain a fundamental cornerstone of naval power projection for the rest of the 21st Century.

Laying at the heart of the United States Navy’s global power projection capabilities, the carrier battle group (CVBG), also known as a carrier strike group (CSG) is a formidable assembly of warships and aircraft, centered around a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, representing one of the most potent concentrations of military might ever to sail the world’s oceans. Usually comprising an aircraft carrier, a single guided missile cruiser for air defense, at least two LAMPS-capable warships (focusing on anti-submarine and surface warfare), and one or two anti-submarine destroyers or frigates, such battle groups frequently deploy more combat power than that possessed by most individual nations in the world.

The cornerstone of any carrier battle group is the aircraft carrier itself. As of 2024, the US Navy operates eleven nuclear-powered carriers, primarily of the Nimitz class, with the newer Gerald R. Ford class gradually being introduced into service. These floating airfields, crewed by between 4,000 and 5,000 sailors, displace approximately 100,000 tons and can carry an air wing of 60-75 aircraft.

The air wing of a 21st Century US aircraft carrier typically consists of:

  1. F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets: Multirole fighters capable of air superiority and strike missions.
  2. EA-18G Growlers: Electronic warfare aircraft for jamming enemy radar and communications.
  3. E-2D Hawkeyes: Airborne early warning and control aircraft.
  4. MH-60R/S Seahawk helicopters: For anti-submarine warfare, search and rescue, and utility missions.
  5. F-35C Lightning II: The Navy’s newest stealth multirole fighter, gradually being integrated into carrier air wings.

 

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft conduct a test flight near St. Augustine, FL, 2009. US Navy photo. Public Domain.

 

Surrounding the carrier are several Aegis-equipped guided missile cruisers and destroyers. These ships form a protective screen around the carrier and provide a wide range of capabilities:

  1. Ticonderoga class cruisers: Usually one or two per battle group, these ships specialize in air defense but are also capable of land attack and anti-ship warfare.
  2. Arleigh Burke class destroyers: Typically three to four per group, these versatile warships can perform anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare missions.

 

Both classes of ships are equipped with the Aegis combat system, which integrates powerful radars with various close-in and long-range weapon systems, allowing for sophisticated air and missile defense capabilities.

Although not always visible, one or two nuclear-powered attack submarines often operate in conjunction with a carrier battle group. These could be Los Angeles-, Virginia-, or Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarines. Their primary roles include:

  1. Gathering intelligence
  2. Providing an unseen protective screen against enemy submarines
  3. Potential land-attack capabilities with Tomahawk cruise missiles

 

A carrier battle group also includes several support ships crucial for sustained operations:

  1. Supply ships: Usually one or two fast combat support ships (T-AOE) or a combination of fleet oilers (T-AO) and dry cargo ships (T-AKE) to replenish fuel, ammunition, and supplies.
  2. Hospital ships: While not typically part of the regular battle group, these can be attached for humanitarian missions or in anticipation of major combat operations.

 

Royal Australian Navy ship HMAS Sirius (OR-266) and amphibious transport dock USS Juneau (LPD-10) conducts a replenishment at sea (RAS), 2007. US Navy photo. Public Domain.

 

An entire battle group, such as that outlined above, is under the command of a Rear Admiral (lower half), who typically serves as the Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CCSG). The CCSG and their staff coordinate the activities of all ships and aircraft in the group, ensuring they work together as a cohesive fighting unit.

A fully equipped US carrier battle group is ideally positioned to:

  1. Project power far from American shores, with the ability to strike targets hundreds of miles inland.
  2. Establish air superiority over a wide area.
  3. Conduct sustained air operations, launching over 100 sorties per day.
  4. Provide a visible deterrent to potential adversaries.
  5. Respond rapidly to crises anywhere in the world.
  6. Conduct humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.

 

The versatility of the carrier battle group allows it to transition quickly from peacetime presence to crisis response to full-scale war fighting. This is no more true than in its mission of supporting assault landings by combat units (MAGTF’s) of the United States Marine Corps, which remains a part of the Department of the Navy. The US Navy’s ten Amphibious Ready Groups are able to quickly insert up to 6,000 US Marines quickly, at multiple points along a hostile shoreline, ranging well inland, if necessary…as long as the naval squadron can get to the area quickly enough – hence, the acceleration of the USS Abraham Lincoln and her CVBG to the Levant.

As of 2024, the US Navy continues to adapt its carrier battle groups to meet evolving threats:

  1. Anti-ship ballistic missiles: The development of these weapons, particularly by China, has led to increased emphasis on integrated air and missile defense capabilities.
  2. Unmanned systems: The Navy continues to explore the integration of unmanned aerial, surface, and undersea vehicles to extend the reach and capabilities of the battle group.
  3. Cyber warfare: Increased focus on protecting the battle group’s networks and exploiting adversary vulnerabilities in the digital domain.
  4. Distributed lethality: Spreading offensive capabilities across more platforms in the battle group to complicate enemy targeting.

 

Conclusion

The Navy is continuously evolving the concept of the carrier battle group. Some areas of focus include:

  1. The integration of directed energy weapons for close-in defense.
  2. Development of long-range anti-ship missiles to counter peer competitors.
  3. Exploration of smaller, more numerous carriers to distribute capabilities.
  4. Enhanced networking capabilities to better integrate with joint and allied forces.

 

The US carrier battle group remains a cornerstone of American military power projection, and will continue to do so well into the 21st Century, and likely beyond. Its ability to bring a flexible, sustained, and potent military presence to any region of the world makes it a unique and invaluable strategic asset. As geopolitical tensions and technological advancements continue to shape the global security landscape, and as unrest continues to disrupt the trade vital to the modern world, the carrier battle group will continue to evolve, maintaining its role as a key instrument of US national security policy, as well as protecting the civilized world at large.

 

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Estate of Wayne P Hughes Jr. USN (Ret.) & Robert P. Girrier (2018), Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations, 3rd Ed
  2. Patrick Degan (2003), Flattop Fighting in World War II
  3. Paul S. Dull (2007), A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945
  4. Thomas Ricks (2012), The Generals
  5. James F. Dunnigan (2003), How To Make War, 4th Edition
  6. James F. Dunnigan (1991), Shooting Blanks

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran: Fiddling In The Fire

Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran: Fiddling In The Fire

Michael Cessna August 9, 2024 0

 

 

 

The period from 2020 onward has seen a significant escalation in tensions between Israel and its regional adversaries, primarily Iran and its proxy forces, Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the more distant Houthi’s of Yemen. This complex web of conflicts and alliances has continued to shape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, and has significantly escalated tensions, to the point of a realistic chance for a much-expanded war.

The long-standing animosity between Israel and Islamic revolutionary Iran began to intensify in the early 2020’s. Iran’s nuclear program remained a central point of contention, with Israel consistently opposing any deal that would allow Iran to continue its nuclear development; this attempt at preventing nuclear proliferation, however integral to Israel’s security as it may be, is also highly unrealistic; the assassination of top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November 2020, widely attributed to Israel, marked a significant escalation, as this differed from the Israeli Mossad’s previous assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai, as the killing of Fakhrizadeh happened within Iran itself.

In this context, Israel is now accused of the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ political head, who was killed in his hotel room on July 31st, in an apparent drone attack. This, too, occurred in Iran, but in the capital of Tehran itself. While Israel is unarguably at war, following the Hamas offensive of Oct. 7, 2023, an assassination such as this – known as a “decapitation strike” in military parlance – happening in a technically-neutral country (even given the events of April of 2024), is doing Israel no favors internationally.

 

 

The Biden administration has proven itself ineffectual with its diplomatic efforts, demonstrating both weakness and incoherence, to the point of encouraging the ambition of the Iranian ruling mullahs.

The election of hardliner Ebrahim Raisi (who was killed on May 19th, 2024 in a helicopter crash while returning from neighboring Azerbaijian) as Iran’s president in 2021 further complicated diplomatic efforts. Raisi’s administration took a more confrontational stance towards both Israel and the West, leading to increased concerns about regional stability.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah – the Iran-backed militant group that has controlled Lebanon’s southeastern Bekaa Valley since the mid-1980’s, remained a significant threat to Israel’s northern border. In 2020 and 2021, there were several minor skirmishes along the Israel-Lebanon border, though both sides managed to avoid a full-scale conflict.

Israel continued to conduct airstrikes in Syria, targeting what it claimed were Iranian weapons shipments to Hezbollah. These operations aimed to prevent the group from obtaining advanced missile systems that could threaten Israeli cities.

In 2022, tensions further escalated when Israel and Lebanon engaged in U.S.-mediated negotiations over their maritime border, which involved disputed gas fields. Hezbollah threatened to attack Israeli gas installations if an agreement wasn’t reached, leading to a tense standoff that was eventually resolved through diplomacy. Now, following a rocket attack on the Israeli Druze community of Majdal Shams on 27 July that killed a number of Druze children, Israel is at the point of invading southern Lebanon to try and attrit Hezbollah’s ability to strike into Israel, much as it attempted in 2006. In this, the ineffectual Lebanese government can offer no resistance against an invasion, or even an “incursion”, and calling on Muslim countries for aid could easily trigger a new civil war in the unstable and bankrupt nation.

In the south, the situation in Gaza remained volatile, with periodic flare-ups of violence between Israel and Hamas, which has retained power in Gaza since 2006, when Hamas won Gaza’s first election – then made sure that no other elections occurred to challenge its grip on power. In May 2021, a significant escalation occurred when Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza fired thousands of rockets at Israel. Israel responded with extensive airstrikes on Gaza, resulting in a 11-day conflict that caused substantial casualties and damage. The aftermath of this short conflict saw increased international pressure for a long-term solution to the Gaza situation. However, progress remained elusive, with Hamas maintaining its control over Gaza and continuing to clash with Israeli forces, which would escalate dramatically on October 7th of 2023.

In 2022 and 2023, there were several smaller-scale exchanges of fire between Gaza militants and Israel. These incidents, while not escalating to the level of the 2021 conflict, served to maintain a state of tension and uncertainty in the region.

The ongoing civil war in Syria that began in 2011, and the unstable situation in Lebanon have provided fertile ground for proxy conflicts involving Israel, Iran, and their respective allies. Israel continued its policy of preventing Iranian entrenchment in Syria through targeted airstrikes, while Iran sought to maintain and expand its influence in the region.

The Abraham Accords, negotiated by US President Donald Trump and signed in 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, altered the regional dynamics. This realignment put additional pressure on Iran and its allies, as Israel’s diplomatic and strategic position in the Middle East was greatly strengthened.

The conflict between these actors is increasingly playing out in the cyber domain. Both Israel and Iran have engaged in sophisticated cyber attacks against each other’s infrastructure, including attempts to disrupt nuclear facilities, water supplies, and electrical grids. For its own part, rumors persist that Israel was at least partly behind the deployment of the highly destructive STUXNET virus in 2010.

 

 

Covert operations, including assassinations and sabotage, have become more frequent – as with the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh noted above – as the conflict has evolved. These actions, carried out with only the thinnest veneer of “plausible deniability“, have served to maintain tension without triggering open warfare; that situation, however, may be coming to an end.

The United States remains heavily involved in the region – building on its rocky, 20 years “War on Terror” – by supporting Israel while also attempting to prevent a widening conflict. The Biden administration’s efforts to re-engage with Iran on the nuclear issue met with – being charitable – mixed success, complicated by regional tensions and domestic politics in both the U.S. and Iran, as well as its own failings in the disastrous end to United States adventurism in Afghanistan. The Biden-Harris administration has consistently demonstrated that it cannot make any sort of definitive decision, one way or another, on the diplomatic front.

Russia and China also play significant roles in the Levantine conflict, with Russia maintaining its presence in Syria and with China increasing its economic and diplomatic engagement with Iran. In both cases, Moscow and Beijing figuratively smell blood in the water, as they sense the weakness in NATO [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO] as a whole, but also in the United States in particular, as the Biden-Harris team continues to flounder internationally.

 

 

The ongoing conflicts and tensions have had severe humanitarian consequences, particularly in Gaza and parts of Lebanon. International organizations repeatedly called for increased access to provide aid and for all parties to respect international humanitarian law. The ongoing war in Gaza following the October 7 massacre, as well as the Houthi strikes against Red Sea shipping, has only made the situation far worse, with Israel now resolved to end the Gaza question once and for all, leading to worsening violence and rhetoric directed against them in the West, with criticism coming from all sides, driving the Israeli mindset further into an “Us Alone Against The World” outlook.

As of early 2024, the situation remained tense and unpredictable. While full-scale war has been avoided so far, the risk of escalation into a much wider war – a war with the potential to draw in larger powers is increasingly possible. The interplay between Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas continues to be a major driving factor in regional instability, with implications extending far beyond the Middle East. The international community is attempting to remain engaged, seeking ways to reduce tensions and prevent a larger conflict, but face significant challenges due to systemic internal problems facing Western nations, crushing demographic issues with Communist China, and Russia’s seemingly interminable war in Ukraine.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Militarization of the Poles: Future Warfare On The Frozen Frontier

The Militarization of the Poles: Future Warfare On The Frozen Frontier

Michael Cessna August 2, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

Amid the ongoing chaos of in the world of 2024, other areas of military research and development continue apace. Despite nearly thirty years of warfare in the arid climates of the Middle east, as climate change reshapes the Arctic and Antarctic landscapes, these once-forbidding regions are being strenuously studied as new arenas for potential conflict. Polar warfare, long considered a niche aspect of military strategy, is now gaining prominence as nations vie for resources and strategic advantages in these harsh environments.

Arctic region (orthographic projection) with national borders and land highlighted. 2023. Credit: Heraldry, Isochrone. CCA/3.0.

The Arctic, in particular, has become a focal point of international interest. With an estimated 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas, the region is attracting attention from both Arctic and non-Arctic nations. As ice coverage over the poles recedes, new shipping routes are opening up, promising shorter transit times between Europe and Asia. These developments have spurred a renewed focus on developing and improving military capabilities suited to polar conditions.

The Antarctic Continent, 1928 map. Credit: New York Times. Public Domain.

The challenges of warfare in polar regions are numerous and unique. Extreme cold, unpredictable weather, and long periods of darkness or constant daylight create a hostile environment for both personnel and equipment. Standard military gear often fails in these conditions, necessitating specialized cold-weather equipment and extensive training for troops.

One of the primary concerns in polar warfare is cold-weather logistics. The vast, often empty expanses of the Arctic and Antarctic make supply lines long and vulnerable. Fuel consumption increases dramatically in cold weather, and equipment requires constant maintenance to prevent freezing and malfunction. These factors make theater sustainment a critical aspect of polar military operations.

Naval operations in polar regions present their own set of challenges. Ice-covered waters require specially designed ships with reinforced hulls. Icebreaker ships become crucial assets, not just for clearing paths but also for projecting power and maintaining presence in these regions. Submarines, long seen as the ideal platform for under-ice operations, are gaining renewed importance in polar strategy.

The USCG Healy (WAGB-20) breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome, Alaska, Jan. 6, 2012. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis, U.S. Coast Guard. Public Domain.

Air power in polar regions is complicated by the lack of established airfields and the effects of cold on aircraft systems. However, long-range patrol aircraft and drones are becoming increasingly important for surveillance and maintaining situational awareness over vast Arctic expanses. While the US Navy has only recently resumed carrier operations north of the Actic Circle after a near-thirty year absence, there has a been a steady, if quiet, push to improve operational capabilities for ship-based aviation going on for the last decade or so.

Ground operations in polar environments also require specialized training and equipment. Troops require specialized – and thus, very expensive – training in cold-weather survival techniques and must be able to operate vehicles and weapons in the extreme environments they will encounter. White-out conditions, crevasses, and unstable ice make movement treacherous, requiring expert navigation skills and fast reactions. These aspects of arctic warfare were brought into sharp focus during the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982, when an attempt to insert a Special Air Service (SAS) team onto Fortuna Glacier on the island of South Georgia, went disastrously wrong, although fortunately without fatalities.

The role of technology in polar warfare cannot be overstated. Satellite communications, crucial for modern military operations, can be unreliable at extreme latitudes. GPS systems also face challenges, necessitating the development of alternative navigation methods. Advanced sensors capable of operating in harsh conditions are becoming increasingly important for detection and targeting in the polar environment.

Several nations are actively developing their polar warfare capabilities. Russia, with the world’s longest Arctic coastline, has been particularly active in militarizing its northern regions. The country has reopened Soviet-era Arctic bases and is developing new icebreakers, including nuclear-powered vessels, as well as hypersonic missiles adapted to the Arctic environment. The United States, Canada, and Nordic countries are also enhancing their Arctic capabilities, conducting regular exercises in the region.

In the Antarctic, while the Antarctic Treaty System prohibits military activity, nations maintain a presence through scientific research stations. However, the potential for future conflict cannot be ignored, particularly as the treaty comes up for potential revision in 2048. The Islamic Republic of Iran, however, is attempting to establish its own presence on the continent, claiming both “property rights” on the continent, as well as stating that the terms of the 1959 treaty system do not apply to them, as they were never signatories to that treaty. It remains to be seen what, if anything, may come of this apparent (hopefully) chest-thumping.

Remaining in the forefront of the Treaty System’s signatories is “Operation Highjump“, now remembered in popular media mostly for various conspiracy theories. In fact, the United States sent a massive force, Task Force 68, totaling some seventy ships, including the aircraft carrier USS Philippine Sea (CV-47), acting as the flagship. Whatever the actual reasons for the expedition, the ability of the United States to operate in the extremes of the Antarctic was one of the factors that ultimately lead to the establishment of the Treaty System a decade later.

A U.S. Navy personnel use a bulldozer to clear a path to facilitate transport of supplies from ships during Operation Highjump in Antarctica. Note the supply ships USS Yancey (AKA-93), right, and USS Merrick (AKA-97) in the background. US Navy photo, c.1947. Public Domain.

The geopolitical implications of increased military activity in polar regions are significant. There are concerns that the Arctic could become a new theater of great power competition, potentially destabilizing the current international order. The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum for Arctic nations, has so far managed to maintain cooperation on issues like search and rescue and environmental protection. However, military matters are explicitly excluded from its mandate.

Environmental concerns add another layer of complexity to polar warfare. The fragile ecosystems of the Arctic and Antarctic are particularly vulnerable to pollution and disturbance. Military activities, from exercises to potential conflicts, could have severe and long-lasting impacts on these environments.

As nations develop their polar warfare capabilities, there is a growing need for international dialogue and agreements to prevent militarization from spiraling into conflict. Transparency in military activities, joint exercises focused on common challenges like search and rescue, and agreements on resource exploitation could help maintain stability in these regions. These needs for dialog and agreement, however, will only be effective if strengthened by realistic enforcement protocols, something that has been studiously avoided since 1959.

The future of polar warfare will certainly be shaped by technological advancements: autonomous systems capable of operating in extreme conditions to reduce the risks to human personnel; advanced materials science to provide better cold-weather gear and more resilient equipment; improved satellite and communication technologies could enhance command and control capabilities in these remote regions. These form only the tip of research that can be applied to the issue at hand.

Climate change – from whatever source – will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the polar battlespace. As ice coverage decreases, new areas will become accessible for military operations. However, this also means that the environment will be in constant flux, requiring adaptable strategies and equipment.

As the polar regions become more accessible and strategically important, military planners worldwide are grappling with the unique challenges of potential conflicts in these extreme environments. The combination of harsh conditions, valuable resources, and geopolitical tensions makes the Arctic and Antarctic potential flash-points for future conflicts. As technology advances and climate change reshapes these landscapes, the nature of polar warfare will continue to evolve, presenting both challenges and opportunities for nations with interests in these regions.

War happens everywhere. You either prepare for war in any environment, or you cede that environment to whoever gets there first.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Kathleen H. Hicks (2016), Undersea Warfare in Northern Europe
  2. Klaus Dodds and Mark Nuttall (2015), The Scramble for the Poles: The Geopolitics of the Arctic and Antarctic
  3. James Kraska, Editor (2013), Arctic Security in an Age of Climate Change
  4. Shelagh D. Grant (2010), Polar Imperative: A History of Arctic Sovereignty in North America
  5. Brian Garfield (1995), Thousand-Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

 

You may have missed

Bear Trap: Russia’s African Disaster

Bear Trap: Russia’s African Disaster

Michael Cessna May 8, 2026 0
The Little Missile That Could – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The Little Missile That Could – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna May 1, 2026 0
The Dragon They Loved To Hate – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The Dragon They Loved To Hate – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna April 24, 2026 0
The SMAW – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The SMAW – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna April 17, 2026 0
Main

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!

Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here