Connect with us

Defense

Nuclear Testing resurgence due to crumbling arms control frameworks

Published

on

Recent media reports that China started nuclear testing and Trump administration is also mulling ideas to initiate nuclear testing is the precedent of extremely dangerous trajectory in the 21st century. The erosion of arms control framework, may bring us to the obsolete ruins of nuclear testing sites. This paper will discuss the emergence of possibility of limited and high yield nuclear tests by the major nuclear powers especially the US China and Russia at the global level, and India and Pakistan at the regional level. We will note and observe trends which will decipher the quite resurgence of nuclear weapons test sites, not just for delivery means but for its actual yield. The erosion of arms control treaty was perceived as impossible a decade ago, and the arms control frameworks and the verification procedures evolved enough which become routine for the members of any such frameworks, after resurgent posturing from Russia and the new dislike for treaties by the administration in US, which sought solo flight in the global affairs by scraping and renegotiate almost every deal and agreement America made since its came into being. This new fragmented world is reintroducing some serious nuclear fallouts, almost from all the nuclear weapons states, with new ones in the offing, as the commitment to proliferation is eroding, the nuclear testing can be seen in the near future.

Prelude: Throughout the ages the invention of weapons systems brought about a seismic change in the world, whether it’s a castle warfare techniques of the medieval wars, where a formidable castle was an enduring challenge for the invaders, the castle was considered as the political and military heart of any territory, without getting control of the castle the invaders were considered as defeated in their mission. The siege warfare emerges to exhaust the castle strength by laying a siege. The evolution of weaponry to have a decisive edge in any conflict remained the prime focus of humans. The careful examination of conflicts over the ages shows that conflicts intent evolved overtime, first it was about getting more territory, then it shifted to arable lands, then acquiring supremacy through both, the religion was a late entry into the fray, the ideas and ideologies away from religion also shaped the dynamics of conflicts, the ideologies played a crucial role in the conflict we see today. The emergence of nuclear weapons after the two horrific great wars, was the single most event which changed the conflict we see today. The American atomic bombs may have killed millions, but the very nature of this weapons changed the way we see conflict and wars.

The memory of the cold war generation in Europe, Americas and Soviet Union, is a stark reminder that the world divided in two poles on the basis of ideology and economic system, put their bet on the most powerful weapons system human ever built and used, the nuclear genie from 1945 onwards was captured in a transparent fragile glass, but its horrific consequences was periodically shown to the world in the form of nuclear explosion by both poles. The nuclear testing is still the stark reminder of the world which was convinced enough to turn the world into ashes, if other side tried to intrude into its sphere of influence or resort to force to pursue that end. The colonial and major powers used a vast swath of land, air and sea for the nuclear testing. The nuclear testing have two intended objectives to demonstrate the power of the weaponry, and to show the rival pole that they are willing to pursue any end if they are threatened. Vast literature available on the emergence of nuclear testing, testify these findings. The nuclear explosions in the cold war era where not just limited to the gigantic blasts, but were also introduced at the small level, by experimenting atomic weapons at the battlefield and asymmetric or sabotage level, in the form of man pack. The legacy of nuclear testing still haunt us in many ways, whether it’s the cases sought by Marshall Islands and the ex-French colonies against its colonizers, the United States and France and ex-Soviet Union, the nuclear testing today have many facades and emerges as a well-researched area in the nuclear politics realm, the history of nuclear testing by all the 5 major nuclear powers is a history of human suffering. Nuclear explosion is all history and there is much written on the topic, from the world first nuclear explosion to the last one in contemporary history when North Korea tested its thermonuclear weapon on 3 September 2017.  We will focus on the possible emergence of nuclear testing in South Asian region. Both India and United States was the first country to detonate a series high yield nuclear weapon in the bravo test in 1954, followed by the Soviet Union in 1961, the explosion was the most powerful in the human history, the bomb was labeled as Tsar Bomba means Tsar’s bomb.

The culmination of high yield weapons by both countries provided them with evidence about the actual data about the status of damage, in few of the explosion actual military assets are being placed in the range of tests to gauge the effects of nuclear explosion of those assets. The history of nuclear testing and fissile material seem capped till the Obama presidency, but the Trump administration’s revival of the old concepts, like new tactical nuclear weapons, the space force and possible future nuclear tests, as the Trump’s America seem to negate the global treaties and frameworks, the recent pullout from the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, opened the hatch for the testing of new delivery systems, the hypersonic both in Intercontinental ballistic missiles ICBMs and cruise missile realms are ready to be developed by the leading weapons manufacturers.

As the established and time tested, treaties and arms control frameworks fell apart in the form of CFE treaty, INF treaty and the slow but sure erosion of the Open skies treaty, because of the growing mistrust between the major global powers. As we revisit the history of nuclear history, it has three visible trends, that is development of the warheads, its development system, followed by the sabre rattling and potential threats because of offensive nuclear postures In the form of doctrines and strategies, followed by the new frameworks to control the threat, by reaching a common understanding to eliminate the threat posed by that weapon system. The complete architecture of arms control which was the bedrock of global security by not just minimizing the nuclear threat, but excluding it entirely from the conflict scenario, is now crumbling, both at global and regional level. Few years back the concept of crumbling of the arms control framework was unimaginable, though various factors were there to rollback treaties but both Obama administration and Russian government never tried to go for such options, but the world saw a revival in the form of new start and later at regional level in proliferation realm when EU and US opted to go for a treaty with Iran. The spirit of rule based order was seen in all these steps, where threat was being caped using the existing frameworks, which neutralizes threat to the world peace posed by the nuclear realm. The commitment and trust factors are driving major stakeholders away from their global commitments, which already initiated the global arms race, in which the possible resumption of nuclear tests may make a debut, the last reported US nuclear explosion was in the 1992, at the dawn of the new world order, the France and others closed in 1996. The regional nuclear rivals, has its solo show stealer in the 1998, after that the only nuclear mad child North Korea remained in news because of their nuclear testing.

Regional Nuclear Rivals: These explosions Pakistan are observing a moratorium on further nuclear explosions but the changing nature of leadership in India pose a threat to this mutual understanding. The US and French companies involved in the nuclear commerce with India and the recent push by the US to make India a de jure nuclear power by admitting them in the Nuclear Supplier Group, is a step seen with suspicion by Pakistan and China. The blind western eye on India in its human rights violations, and other global issues, mainly with Pakistan shows US clearly accommodating India, in the club, where they have the luxury to go ballistic in the nuclear realm. Pakistan opposition to the Fissile Material Cut Off Treaty FMCT and the US and Indian support to the treaty shows that they lift India out of the fissile material deficiency, and India at any stage can turn this fissile material allowed to obtain for energy use, for the weapons purposes, the steps which validate this argument, are the inclusion of India in various strategic export control regimes, like Wassennar Arrangement, Australia Group, Missile Technology Control regime, MTCR, and its push for NSG Nuclear Supplier Group. India Pakistan nuclear equation can only be balanced with parity between both at the nuclear level. Any gigantic leap on Indian part which is already happening, will move Pakistan away from its commitments, as national interests and its security won’t allow it to observe those moratorium, and will ward off its defensive strategies which are in place since it detonated its first device.

Make in India may mark the end of moratorium: Defense acquisition is normal activity in almost every country, countries acquire weapons from foreign countries according to their arms forces need, few countries in the world go all alone to suffice their defense needs, the prime example of such counties are United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France, means all the UNSC permanent members, others countries rely heavily on foreign purchases to either feel safe or threaten others by those acquisitions. India is among this second tier vast grouping which rely heavily on foreign input for its defense needs. India under Nrendar Modi introduced an ambitious plan to convert Indian defense needs into entirely domestic domain, to lessen and at later stage eliminate any foreign input in its defense acquisition, in nuclear realm they gain much by signing up to nuclear deals with United States, France and Russia, at the space level they made sufficient advances, by thrusting for ingenious GPS system and space Prowse which can seriously rival that of major powers, Indian military plans in almost all domains defy its regional posture which they tout being influenced by China and on later stages Pakistan, but its military ends are truly global In nature. Whether its acquisition related to naval assets or aerial combat fighters they are pushing for indigenous build and operate model, by purchasing technology from the lead tech countries. The Indian nuclear programme is running full pace and unnoticed in the western circles because of their newly formed alliance against China. India at later stage may come up with their nuclear testing plans. Totally ingenious India for its defense need and its global economic clout will make it hard for the global powers to punish India the way did in the aftermath of 1998 nuclear tests.

Pakistan and the nuclear tests: Pakistan being vigorously pushed by the leading western scholars in their famous Stimson’s paper the Normal Nuclear Pakistan, written by Toby Dalton and Michael Krepon. The paper said that Pakistan should not wait for India and tread its own way to join the test ban framework. This will put pressure on India, to sign up to those frameworks in response, citing Pakistan recognition at the global level. Pakistan nuclear weapons program remained robust, and emerge as one of the most advanced among the nuclear weapons, the rational posturing vise a vis India, and various proposals being presented by Pakistan, to introduce a strategic restraint regime, and others measures to sign up to those frameworks which can put a visible limit on the uncontrolled arms race being imposed by India on Pakistan. The introduction of other domains into the nuclear foray by India, such as the concept of nuclear triads, aircraft carriers, to carry out long range nuclear air strikes, to dilute Pakistan defenses, the expansion is disturbing enough for Pakistan to commit to any such frameworks in recent future, because the south Asian nuclear politics is still an unfinished business, as Pakistan is being dragged below by its opponent in parity. Any future decision by India to test nuclear devices, whether low of high yield will invite Pakistan to demonstrate its capability to maintain deterrence vis a vis India, and thus remain relevant in the nuclear game. The political and economic fallout will be worse for Pakistan as compared to India. But looking at the development at international and regional level it seem possibility that nuclear testing may become a headline in the strategically unstable South Asia.

China and nuclear testing: China remained the only constant in nuclear equation. Its swift and decisive nuclear forces seem to replace Russians in the Western strategic lens, as the growing literature in leading research organizations is dedicated to China vs. United States nuclear equation, discussing number of delivery means, the strength and type of payload, its role and place in nuclear arms control domain, and the offset technologies China is pursuing and testing in nuclear realm. The Chinese being the efficient partner in nuclear nonproliferation and arms control domain remain committed to nuclear peace.

Russia and nuclear testing: The Russians being labeled as bully in the recent skirmishes in the nuclear realm, by introducing a series of violations, in various treaties and frameworks, most notably the cold war milestone called INF intermediate nuclear forces treaty. The CFE treaty and other framework related to fissile material was set aside by the Russian Federation, citing it as contrary to Russia’s global influence and non-compliance from west. The Russian concept of Poseidon which is in its infant stages, the concept is terrifying for test ban advocates, as the Russian calculations of this weapons till now is only limited to computer generated models, the downward trajectory in US West relation, with harsh sanctions in place, and Russia fighting it out with extending influence In other parts of the world, like Middle East, Asia, Arctic and the Eastern Europe, the United States and Russia may find them in the loggerheads, to offset any coercion in the future the nuclear testing to demonstrate its new arsenal seem possibility.

The Russian introduction of hypersonic missiles in the nuclear and conventional realm, forced other western powers like France and United States to keep up with the pace, in the nuclear delivery, France announced to have hypersonic missiles by 2021, United States also on project to introduce such missiles. The steps in the delivery means by all the rivals, won’t be limited to the delivery means alone, the strength of any weapon is its payload, the gradual evolution of kilotons to megatons, and then its fragmentation according to strategy in the cold war era and post-cold war era, will require these powers especially Russia to come out of computer simulation and test weapons in real time, to reintroduce the concept of arms control for the 21st century, where weapons, range, payload, target and all other parameters got new definitions. The US seem to initiate or follow the testing, as there already plans in place. The Russian actions shows that they are planning for this eventuality to happen.

United States and Nuclear test ban : The US remain the only nuclear weapons state to have conducted the most nuclear tests to gauge its weapons vitality for both performance and signaling purposes. United States is not party to comprehensive test ban treaty. Under Obama, various programs like Nuclear Security Summit and Proliferation Security initiative were bolstered and used to ensure nuclear safety and security, the administration dedicated much focus to these areas, but its last leg the fourth summit was briefly politicized and the major nuclear power Russia skipped the summit, citing nuclear bias. The NSS remained active platforms to discus and implement ideas, the Trump administration is not willing to commit to such platforms.

The nuclear testing threat from United states is two pronged, one, it’s from the United States itself, and second, the United states commitment and concrete steps to export nuclear technology to Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Arab states like United Arab Emirates, the geopolitical standing of these countries is precarious in a troubled region, which cite Iran as a security threat, the Iran nuclear program is a no secret and they like United States and Israel are vary of the Europe efforts to stop Iran from acquiring bombs. The India Pakistan nuclear rivalry completing its second decade proved to be the enduring one, but with a rational underpinnings, both countries maintained the relevance of these nukes, by not restoring to cold war’s hair trigger strategies, nor the weapons are being put on table as option like the North Korean regime, the North Korean like nuclear brinkmanship is anticipated from Iran and its Arab rivals, if they get their hand on these weapons.

The nuclear testing genie can erupt from the Arabian sands, because of the blind us strategic exports. With trump at the helm, the United States which is developing and upgrading its SSBN fleet, may find it necessary to test the trident or its successor, with a new payloads. One enduring feature remained constant at the end of cold war, is the development of delivery system but no side tested its revised and updated payload. The evolution in fissile material technology is evident from the fuels like MOX and others, the payload for nukes evolved over time, adding lethality to the device. . The cold war strategies like massive retaliation flexible response are dust now, all the strategies were carefully designed citing the delivery means and payload used in those devices, United States and Russia are both convinced to have updated nuclear delivery means to dilute each other strategies, the nuclear testing remain the most relevant item after they get their hands on updated delivery means.

Nuclear Testing in Brexited Europe, France and UK nukes: The nuclear testing in Europe is not a realistic assumption, France carried out almost its nuclear tests on the foreign occupied territories and islands. The last one being in 1996, The France resorting back to nuke testing holds no ground, the same hold true for United Kingdom, which also remained committed to the nuclear test ban, in the greater interest of humanity. Others factors being on the back foot in this realm, is the gradual military weakness of both countries vis a vis their rivals, the parity is unachievable and they still rely on united states to guard them against any future nuclear threat.

Conclusion: The examination of developments that occurred in all these nuclear countries shows that, the halt in the nuclear weaponry that the world saw in the first two decades of the 21st century is disappearing. Large scale nuclear developments, commitments for upgrading and replacing those weapons with new one is established fact. The United States will have new SSBNs operating in the oceans, a force that clearly offset the major power like China and even Russia, Russia offsetting United States in aerial delivery means, China being the newcomers among both of them on the path to have efficient nuclear force to take on the largest nuclear weapons states, Pakistan, India parity dilemma, European countries grappling with their own security dilemma, all these factors surely bring back the nukes as tool for the survival. A lot have been appearing and written on the delivery means but they payload problem is just resurfacing, and these nuclear weapons states may initiate a new wave of cold and hot tests to rewrite the rules of nuclear game in their respective regions. The major powers need to commit to the test ban, the world may not see high yield testing in the near future, but once a low yield new material weapon is tested by any power, it will reverse the gains of test ban, and will give reprieve to others to start the menace of nuclear testing, which is not just lethal from the environmental and human perspective but will also relive the horrors of nuclear winters, which have just started to fade from the human memory.

Defense

Contemporary Atlantic Alliance: An “Existential” Expansion that Obviates the Evil of Fighting

Avatar photo

Published

on

Image source: NATO

The behavior that characterized the reactions of US President Joe Biden and Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Jens Stoltenberg, about the identity of the missile that fell on Polish territory, is not critical. The two men were keen to deny Moscow’s responsibility for its launch, and content themselves with a simple and simplistic narrative saying that it was a Ukrainian air defense missile that deviated from its course in the face of Russian attacks. The origin is the sufficiency of the evil of the clash with Moscow, on the part of the Atlantic involvement in particular, because whether the narrative that is is correct or fabricated, no one on both sides of the ocean, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea is ignorant of the dangers of a spark like this, which represents an escalation capable of igniting a confrontation like that. The funniest thing in the context is that the White House and NATO contacts with the Polish government did not aim at consolation or tightening the bonds and solidarity, as much as they exercised a series of pressures so that Polish President Andrzej Duda would not request the activation of Article 4 of the NATO Charter, which obliges allies to consult if a member state feels that its territorial integrity or its political independence or security is under threat.

     The principle of the clash, or the sufficiency of its evil either, brings one back to the fact that NATO is not the only military alliance in our contemporary world; And it is not the only reminder, almost, that mankind lived the Cold War throughout an entire and integrated era, just as well; Rather, it is also an alliance of intersecting, converging or opposing interests, often subject to give and take according to the principles of bargaining, settlement, and quota. This does not mean that NATO is not a geographical-civilian-cultural quota, according to what humanity understood from the words of former Czech President Vaclav Havel, two decades ago when his country hosted a NATO summit unlike any other, simply because it was considered a “transformation summit”. At that time, Havel said, in an unmistakable tone of warning, that “the alliance should not expand outside a very specific arena of civilizations that are generally known as Euro-Atlantic or Euro-American civilizations, or simply the West.” Was it Turkey that was meant by that implicit definition that does not completely succeed in purifying all the racist odors? Or were the countries in which Muslim communities still live? What is the motive for issuing this warning when the summit is discussing the expansion of the alliance in eastern and southern Europe, and the inclusion of seven new countries in the club? And which of these countries (which received their membership documents in the alliance at that time: Estonia, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Latvia, and Lithuania) did not meet the criteria of the Euro-Atlantic civilization track?

     Some argue, as these lines do, that such questions remain superfluous, whoever asked them, as long as the alliance’s military-political structure is, and as long as the United States is at the forefront of its leadership and direction on various levels, from which considerations of America’s geo-political interests are not absent in the first place. Indeed, the French and Germans do not stop harassing the Pentagon, and the right in Spain lost the battle of the sacred alliance with Washington, and the legacy of the alliance in Libya, Iraq, and Syria is not at all a significant harvest … On the other hand, all members of the alliance know that the shock of 9/11 granted the United States more than a military license; Washington also spared the embarrassment of consulting with Atlantic allies whenever the bell rang in a church. And if the Prague meeting deserved to be called the “Transformation Summit,” this was not primarily for military reasons, but rather because NATO penetrated all the former Warsaw Pact sites, and reached Russia’s back, belly, and flank, north, south, east, and west!

     It is also true that the balance within the alliance is not only imbalanced in favor of the United States but rather lacks a set of elements that allow the use of the term “balance” in any tangible sense. The correspondent of the British newspaper “The Independent” chose a funny way to express this imbalance, so he recorded the fact that the American delegation to that summit of transformation occupied seven floors of the Hilton Hotel that hosted the delegations, compared to one floor for the Dutch delegation, for example! In other, more indicative terms, the United States alone spends one billion US dollars daily on defense affairs, while the total of the 15 European members of the alliance spends nearly 500 million dollars. The world needed the tactlessness of former US President Donald Trump to read tweets like this one: “Without success, for years Presidents have tried to get Germany and other rich Atlantic nations to pay more for protection from Russia. They pay a small portion of their alimony. The United States pays tens of billions of dollars more than it should subsidize Europe and loses a lot in trade. Or this: “Above all, Germany has begun to pay Russia, the country from which it seeks protection, billions of dollars for its energy needs through a pipeline from Russia. this is unacceptable! All NATO nations must implement the 2% commitment, and this must rise to 4%.

     And the situation is that the Atlantic began as an American military arm in practice, where the European units affiliated with it are nothing more than a completion of the external decoration; And so the alliance remains today, even after it has grown in number, in equipment, and the area of deployment. It has expanded from 12 founding countries to 15 in the fifties of the last century, until it has reached 32 countries today, including Sweden and Finland; Among them are three former Soviet republics (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), and seven former members of the now-extinct Warsaw Pact (Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia, Poland), and there is a discordant mix in the record of those aspiring to the membership that includes Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia and …Ukraine!

     As for the level of ideological preaching, military doctrine, and tactical cover, the justifications for the existence of the alliance can begin with the assertion that it is “the largest and most successful alliance in history,” according to former US Secretary of State and retired General Colin Powell; It will not end with the certainty of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy (who apostatized from the Gaullist philosophy and restored France to the military leadership of the alliance) that NATO is the only guarantor of European security, which has come and has not come for decades; In addition to the certainty of a country like the Czech Republic, that the difference between its reliance on European defense, versus the American defense, is like the difference between earth and sky!

     Whatever these “existential” questions, or others, the matter is the same in terms of the immortality of the alliance’s essence, militarily and politically. As long as the United States is the most important country in ensuring its survival, and in strengthening its technological fork in particular, both in defense and attack. The French and Germans indeed tried to harass Washington before the invasion of Iraq in 2003; And Afghanistan, under Obama, turned from a secondary front to a central one… But it is also true that Western Europe (capitalism, free, relatively healthy because of the grace of the United States in protecting the free world and capitalism…), is not allowed to flourish more than the prosperity of the United States itself, and to unify its ranks by detracting from the principle of American hegemony over the international system. That is why the United States pours whatever oils it wants on wars here and there, and it does not find embarrassment when it avoids the evil of fighting, and there are no big differences here between Trump and Biden in terms of the lack of diplomacy or the excessive use of it.

Continue Reading

Defense

Leaving the legacy behind: Analyzing Gen. Bajwa’s six years of Command

Avatar photo

Published

on

Image source: dawn.com

The military is a country’s most potent institution. The army has been the most important and responsible institution in Pakistan during the 75 years since its independence and the country’s founding. Assuming what is considered the most powerful position in the country Pak Army chief is expected to ensure a secure and stable environment in the country and Gen. Qamar Javed Bajwa proved him a person having great real leadership qualities. Currently, Gen. Bajwa will be retiring by the end of November 2022 after commanding the Army for six years. Due to the significance of the title, the army chief plays a crucial role in leading the armed forces and maintaining the nation’s peace and stability, and Gen. Bajwa has performed his duties admirably. He truly left a noteworthy legacy. His philosophy has received high praise and served as the foundation for his vision of Pakistan.

Owing to the complex and volatile geo-strategic environment of the region it is quite challenging to balance the risks of conflict with India, a nuclear-armed rival, and instability and tension that may arise with Afghanistan on its western border. During the Bajwa administration, the Pakistan Army launched Operation Radd-ul-Fasaad in February 2017 and Operation Khayber IV to flush out terrorist sleeper cells throughout the nation as well as purge the tribal regions of militant strongholds. This led to extraordinary accomplishments in the fight against terrorism and the refurbishment of peace in Afghanistan for the region’s long-term development. One of the major achievements of Gen. Bajwa’s tenure was the fencing of the Afghan border. The 2,600 km long fence along the Afghan border has almost been finished by the Pakistani Army.

Goals and objectives are always attained through consistency and adherence to the plan. Gen. Bajwa has consistently spoken out in favor of the Kashmir cause, stating that “peace and stability will remain elusive” in the absence of a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir dispute. His well-founded actions led to promoting Islamabad’s diplomacy and mediation with the surrounding nations. A prime example of his statesmanship is his choice to reinstate the cease-fire along the line of control separating Pakistan and India.

Under Bajwa, Pakistan’s internal security significantly increased. The “Bajwa Doctrine,” which envisioned a stable Pakistan at peace with its neighbors, was his pitch for a peaceful nation. The Royal United Services Institute coined the phrase “Bajwa Doctrine” after his speech at the 54th Munich Security Conference in 2018. In addition to emphasizing democracy and ensuring proper respect for the state’s institutions, the doctrine placed a strong check and balance on putting an end to terrorism and also urged Paki-citizens, particularly the young, to combat extremism, claiming that it is a major catalyst for terrorism.

Similarly, under the leadership of General Ba­jwa, Pak-ar­my’s efforts contributed to the completion of the socio-eco­nomic development projects in Balochistan. Due to COAS’ ef­forts (bringing allpar­ties under one table) for a national consensus, Pakistan was saved from an $11 billion penalty in the Reko Diq case. The project was reconstituted and aimed at excavating huge gold and copper reserves from the site in Balochistan.

Subsequently, Pakistan made unexpected progress with its FATF action plans, as well during last 6 years. The frantic efforts of both the civilian and military leadership enabled Pakistan to project sustainable and irre¬versible progress by enacting laws that addressed various legal, financial, and terrorism-related issues. As a result, Pakistan was taken off the Financial Action Task Force (FATF”grey) list.”

Another feather in the cap of Gen. Bajwa is reducing the friction in civil-military relations. He had the vision that an institution like the military could develop into a mediator and supporter of democracy. Gen. Bajwa will always be appreciated as a pro-democracy general, who not only stabilized civilian governments and provided space for democratic forces but also limit the military’s role to that mandated by the constitution. This proves that he has demonstrated his responsible attitude toward democracy and politics by maintaining this neutral stance.

Gen. Bajwa improved Pakistan’s international diplomacy. His covert efforts prevented Pakistan from going into economic default and made it possible for the governments to get much-needed financial support from foreign lenders in exchange for rollovers from China and Saudi Arabia. Additionally, under Bajwa’s tenure, Pakistan’s initiatives like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and relations with nations like the United States have improved significantly. Gen. Bajwa’s unceasing efforts for Pakistan earned him the Nishan-e-Imtiaz, Hilal-e-Imtiaz (Pak-Military), and many other international awards. The country is honored to have courageous soldiers like him.

Continue Reading

Defense

The Ukraine War is a sales-promotion campaign for Lockheed and other U.S. ‘Defense’ Contractors

Avatar photo

Published

on

On 3 December 2021, a year ago, Lockheed Martin shares cost $333.81. On 23 November 2022, they cost cost $481.07. That’s a 44% gain during this year-long period. 

$4,027.26 is the S&P on 23 November 2022, and it was $4,701.46 on 24 November 2021. That’s a 14% decline during this year-long period. 

A dollar invested in the S&P became $0.86, but in Lockheed became $1.44, and that is 68% more than the S&P market-average performance. 

That’s the benefit of owning a controlling interest in a mega-corporation whose market is the Government in which you have purchased a controlling interest (by political donations and lobbyists), as compared to not.

And you will see there that though the stock-price of Lockheed soared after Russia’s 24 February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the rise in its stock-price actually started on 3 December 2021. Perhaps that was when U.S.-Government insiders got their first clear indications that the U.S. Government was going to force Russia to invade Ukraine in order to prevent Ukraine from ever being able to join NATO so as for the U.S. to place its missiles only 317 miles away from The Kremlin.

Here are all of the headlined news-stories at the New York Times site on 3 December 2021, all 45 of them, and here are all 3 of the ones there featuring national defense or international relations:

“Shell pulls out of a U.K. oil field targeted by climate activists”

“With No Resources, Authority or Country, Afghan Ambassador Presses On”

“Why Peng Shuai Has China’s Leaders Spooked”

NONE has to do with national defense or international relations at all, but 100% of the news-stories are instead domestic-affairs articles, even the ones on global warming and on the former Afghan Ambassador, and on the Chinese tennis star. This fact (0 out of 45 being ‘defense’ or international-relations) goes to exemplify that if anyone is interested in warfare or other international-relations topics, it’s NOT the general public. Who might it be, then? Perhaps it’s the types of people who control firms such as Lockheed and other ‘Defense’-contractors — firms that sell only to the U.S. Government and to its allied (or vassal) Governments such as in NATO, and so these firms need to control their own Government in order to control their sales-volumes and their profits — which they manifestly do (the U.S. Government is bipartisanly neoconservative — pro-increasing the U.S. empire)

Here are all of the headlined news-stories at the New York Times site on 23 November 2022, and these are the 8 international-relations stories there:

“Will Mexico Be the Next Venezuela?”

“Ukraine Fights for Peninsula That Could Prove Critical to War’s Next Phase”

“Missiles for Poland Raise Questions on NATO Stance in Ukraine War”

“Ukraine raided a holy site amid suspicion of an Orthodox Church tied to Moscow”

“Buffeted by Economic Woes, U.K. Starts to look at Brexit With ‘Bregret’”

“Even the Saudi Team Is Stunned After Its Victory Over Argentina”

“England Had a Game, but First Its Fans Had a Quest. For Beer.”

“France decisively beat Australia, capping a wild day at the World Cup”

Five of those 8 concern international relations and national defense. All of a sudden, after Russia invaded Ukraine on 24 February 2022 because America rejected on 7 January 2022 Russia’s demand on 17 December 2021 “Article 6: All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States”, America’s public care at least a little about international relations and national defense.

But: Is Ukraine actually about defending America, at all? Of course, it isn’t, but it very much is about Russia’s national defense, because it has the closest border to Moscow of any nation, being only around 300 miles away from The Kremlin. Though keeping Ukraine out of NATO is a national-defense imperative for Russia, it’s no national-defense issue, at all, for America. It is purely a neoconservative issue for America. It is a U.S.-and-allied billionaires’ issue, NOT authentically about “defending” the United States. It is, instead, actually, the most effective marketing campaign for the billionaires who control Lockheed Martin and its Government, the U.S. Government. And THAT is the reason why NO billionaire — not a single one of them in either the U.S. or the UK — advocates for and donates to, writers and organizations that are anti-neoconservative: anti-imperialist. Not a single one of them is and does. They are invested in warfare, against their ‘competitors’ (the countries that they DON’T yet control, and which they therefore are obsessed to “regime-change”).

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia1 hour ago

The Taliban Finally Granted Permission to the Former President Karzai to leave Afghanistan

Based on the information, the former president of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, was permitted to leave the country. At a time,...

South Asia6 hours ago

The Charisma and Chaos of Imran Khan

The chances of Imran Khan winning the elections of 2018 were quite murky. Despite his unparalleled fan base and populist...

Southeast Asia9 hours ago

Can ‘border guard’ diplomacy strengthen ties between Myanmar-Bangladesh?

The 8th Border Conference between Border Guard Bangladesh (BGB) and Myanmar Border Guard Police (BGP) has started. The conference, which...

Economy11 hours ago

The Upcoming Recession and its Ramifications on the World Economies

The recent decision of the new head of Twitter, Elon Musk, to sack approximately 50 percent of the workforce is only indicative...

South Asia20 hours ago

Chattisgarh Elections 2023: Future of United Progressive Alliance and BJP

Chattisgarh, the 9th largest state of India by area and 17th most populous state with population of 30 Million will...

Eastern Europe23 hours ago

Azerbaijan is to open an embassy in Israel: timely or little late?

“Time to open that bottle!” tweeted with joy George Deek, Israel`s Ambassador in Azerbaijan on November 18, by posting a...

biden-foreign-policy biden-foreign-policy
Americas1 day ago

Ron Paul: Biden Administration accept that it has a “Zelensky problem”

“Last week the world stood on the very edge of a nuclear war, as Ukraine’s US-funded president, Vladimir Zelensky, urged...

Trending