National Security Evidence File

Jun19: New National Security Information: Indicators and Surprises
Why Is This Information Valuable?
June 4th marked the 30th anniversary of Tiananmen Square; this month also saw unprecedented protests in Hong Kong over a proposed new extradition bill
The anniversary was marked by stories noting China’s economic growth over the past 30 years, the creation of a large middle class, the failure of these changes to produce the political liberalization that many had expected, in part because of disenchantment with developments in the US and Europe. Indeed, under Xi Jinping China has become a more repressive state.

Yet two weeks later, the world witnessed demonstrations in Hong Kong of unprecedented size (involving at least one in five residents) against a proposed extradition treaty that would have further eroded the “one country, two systems” arrangement (established in the 1984 China-UK Joint Declaration) that followed the British handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997.

As described by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the proposed law “would amend Hong Kong’s laws to allow extraditions to mainland China. A broad range of offenses that carry a minimum three-year jail sentence under Hong Kong law would be eligible for extradition, and the bill would remove independent legislative oversight in the extradition process. Such changes would undermine the strong legal protections guaranteed in Hong Kong and leave the territory exposed to Beijing’s weak legal system and politically motivated charges…”

“The new arrangement would diminish Hong Kong’s reputation as a safe place for U.S. and international business operations, and could pose increased risks for U.S. citizens and port calls in the territory…Passage of the bill would almost certainly make operations harder for prodemocracy advocates and the business community, who are already worried about Beijing’s illegal detention of Hong Kong and other foreign citizens.”

Under popular pressure, the proposed bill has been temporarily withdrawn. What remains to be seen is how Xi and the CCP will react in the face of large-scale popular resistance that was visible to many people on the mainland, who themselves face a slowing economy, worsening demographic, income, and geographic inequalities, and rising uncertainty about their economic future in the face of worsening China-US relations.

As Jamil Anderlini put it in a recent Financial Times column (“Beijing Tightens Its Grip on the Periphery”, 4Jul19), “the very first line of Romance of the Three Kingdoms, one of the four great classical novels of Chinese literature, holds a prophecy for anyone seeking to rule China: ‘The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide. Thus it has ever been’…

“Probably the biggest question facing Chinese President Xi Jinping today is whether the empire is in one of its centrifugal or centripetal phases.”

I estimate the probability of an eventual aggressive and repressive Chinese response in Hong Kong to be 70%, which will further worsen relations with the US and ratchet up global uncertainty.
June also saw the ratcheting up of tensions between the United States and Iran, including a “kinetic” act on a US military asset – the shooting down of an American surveillance drone, and president Trump’s last minute cancellation of a retaliatory military strike on Iranian targets (although a reported US cyberattack on Iranian missile command and control systems took place). Iran has also announced that it will soon resume enriching uranium, which could subsequently be used to develop nuclear weapons.
Since 1979, the United States has been engaged in a conflict with Iran, in which casualties have continued to mount (e.g., see “Killing Americans and Their Allies: Iran’s Continuing War Against the US and the West” by Kemp and Driver-Williams).

This has been just part of a larger conflict between Shia Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia that increasingly resembles the Thirty Years War. An on a global level, Iran, along with Russia and China, has become a key player in an increasingly robust de facto anti-US alliance.

Finally, possession of nuclear weapons is clearly a redline that Israel is unlikely to allow Iran to cross, as it lacks confidence that the theory of nuclear deterrence reliably applies to a nation that remains messianic in character.

Both Iran and the United States undoubtedly realize that an all out war between the two would impose very high costs (on themselves and the world economy) that would likely exceed the eventual gains for either side. However, as this month’s drone shootdown shows, when tensions are high, conflict escalation can happen rapidly.

From a macro perspective, the key point is that the escalating conflict between the US and Iran has undoubtedly increased uncertainty, which is likely to have a delayed but debilitating impact on global GDP growth.
Recent stories highlighted deteriorating conditions in two important countries.
The headline of a 6Jun editorial in the Financial Times says it all: “Debt and Populism Test Italy’s Bedraggled Polity.” In the case of the Greek Crisis, the European Union could impose its will. Because of Italy’s far larger size, that will be far harder, if not impossible, if the slowly building crisis there continues.

As the FT noted on 6Jun, “Italy is the only large EU country where the eurozone crisis never truly ended. Its economy is burdened with extremely high public debt, chronically low growth and too much fragility in the banking sector. Its traditional political classes have lost so much public trust that the government fell last year into the hands of an unholy alliance of anti-immigrant, rightwing nationalists and inexperienced anti-establishment populists. Each wing of the government, the League and the Five Star Movement, is hostile to the EU’s economic and fiscal orthodoxies.”

The next day, the FT’s Henny Sender warned that, “Foreign investors should be wary of the seductive India story”, noting that “Mr Modi’s victory comes just as the macro numbers suggest an economy that not only is unable to take advantage of the broken international trading system, but is slowing dramatically after years of dysfunctional policies — many of them from Mr Modi’s own administration.”
Two new papers provide more insight into critical national security issues
In “Cybersecurity of NATO’s Space-Based Strategic Assets”, Beyza Unal from Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) notes that “almost all modern military engagements rely on space based assets”, and that “all satellites depend on cyber technology including software, hardware and other digital components. Any threat to a satellite’s control system or available bandwidth poses a direct challenge to national critical assets.”

Hence, “Cyber vulnerabilities undermine confidence in the performance of strategic systems. As a result, rising uncertainty in information and analysis continues to impact the credibility of deterrence and strategic stability. Loss of trust in technology also has implications for determining the source of a malicious attack (attribution), strategic calculus in crisis decision-making and may increase the risk of misperception...

“However, the increasing vulnerability of space-based assets, ground stations, associated command and control systems, and the personnel who manage the systems, has not yet received the attention it deserves…policymakers are struggling to grasp the full impact of cyber vulnerabilities in the context of both space-based assets and strategic systems.”

The Power of Will in International Conflict: How to Think Critically in Complex Environments” is a new book by Wayne M. Hall, a retired US Army General officer with a military intelligence background. While far from a light read, Hall’s analysis is innovative and thought provoking, and correctly identifies “will” as a critical and often decisive phenomenon that emerges from complex national systems and their interaction when they come into conflict.

This is an issue that was first touched on years ago in Colonel John Boyd’s pioneering work on the interaction of two adversaries’ repeating decision cycles, which he characterized as being composed of four critical activities: Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (i.e., the “OODA” loop). If one party was able to perform its OODA loop faster than another, it would gradually gain a psychological advantage that would eventually undermine its opponent’s will to continue the conflict. Hall’s approach is a more sophisticated approach to this critical determinant of conflict success.
May19: New National Security Information: Indicators and Surprises
Why Is This Information Valuable?
Artificial Intelligence and National Security” by Kelley Sayler, Congressional Research Service
“From the Cold War era until recently, most major defense-related technologies, including nuclear technology, the Global Positioning System (GPS), and the internet, were first developed by government-directed programs before later spreading to the commercial sector…Today, commercial companies—sometimes building on past government-funded research—are leading AI development, with DOD later adapting their tools for military applications. Noting this dynamic, one AI expert commented, “It is unusual to have a technology that is so strategically important being developed commercially by a relatively small number of companies”…

“An apparent cultural divide between DOD and commercial technology companies may also present challenges for AI adoption. A recent survey of leadership in several top Silicon Valley companies found that nearly 80% of participants rated the commercial technology community’s relationship with DOD as poor or very poor. This was due to a number of factors, including process challenges, perceptions of mutual distrust, and differences between DOD and commercial incentive structures.

Moreover, some companies are refusing to work with DOD due to ethical concerns over the government’s use of AI in surveillance or weapon systems…U.S. competitors may have fewer moral, legal, or ethical qualms about developing military AI applications.”
“Space Threat Assessment 2019” by Harrison et al from CSIS
“Satellites are vulnerable to a wide array of intentional threats, such as killer satellites. Other nations have learned how to attack the global commons of space. Our vulnerability is acute because our satellites are the juiciest targets. Cripple our satellites, and you cripple us.

“Satellites are not only our crown jewels but the crown itself—and we have no castle to protect them.

“The United States is not the leader in anti-satellite technology. We had naively hoped that our satellites were simply out of reach, too high to be attacked, or that other nations would not dare. As this report meticulously documents, other nations are developing, testing, and fielding a range of counterspace weapons that threaten to deprive us of the many economic and military advantages we derive from space.

“The risk of a space Pearl Harbor is growing every day. Yet this war would not last for years. Rather, it would be over the day it started. Without our satellites, we would have a hard time regrouping and fighting back. We may not even know who had attacked us, only that we were deaf, dumb, blind, and impotent.

“We have been officially warned of this danger since at least 2001 when the Rumsfeld Report was released, but the Pentagon has done very little to reduce this existential risk. The 2008 Allard Report even warned that ‘no one is in charge’ of our space strategy. Sadly, this is still true.”
The Mexico Tragedy” by Shepard Barbash in The American Interest
“Will Mexico ever become a healthy democracy—more law abiding and better governed, more prosperous and free?

“The question is as enduring as it is hard to answer. Few nations have inspired such a mixture of love, fear, and revulsion—a perennial sense that it has come so far, yet has so far to go…political dysfunction and the resulting feebleness of many government institutions threaten to destroy all this progress. Adding to the worries: the landslide victory in July of a president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who is a creature of the system at its worst…

“Whereas ten years ago, most crime came from drug cartels on the U.S. border, the problem has since metastasized nationwide. In cities and villages, from north to south and sea to sea, an ever-evolving, ever-replenishing population of thieves, extortionists, kidnappers, drug traffickers, cheats, and assassins has besieged society, defying or coopting governments at every level. Mexicans’ ingenuity and ambitions, long stifled by their self-dealing political class, are finding an outlet in outlawry…

“The numbers shock. More than 135,000 people have been killed since 2012. More than 1,300 clandestine graves have turned up since 2007. More than 37,000 people are reported missing. More than 600 soldiers have been killed in the drug war. At least 130 politicians and nine journalists were killed preceding the elections in July…

“And the violence is indeed spreading. Murder rates have risen in 26 of the country’s 32 states. In 2014, 152 municipalities accounting for 43 percent of Mexico’s population reported at least one execution-style murder per month; in 2017, the number grew to 262 municipalities and 57 percent of the population. Villages have become worse than cities: 40 percent of the population lives outside metropolitan areas but suffers 48 percent of homicides…

“Most killings remain tied to the drug wars, but a growing share comes from robbery, assault, extortion, and kidnapping…All told, the government reports 33.6 million crimes with a victim in 2017, an all-time high. Most victims were women… Only one in 6,000 crimes ends in a conviction…

“According to the World Values Survey, the percentage of Mexicans who say that most of their countrymen can be trusted has fallen from 34 percent in 1990 to 11 percent in 2017, the lowest rate ever recorded in Mexico and among the lowest rates in the world…Resignation is realism in Mexico. The country breaks one’s heart.”
“Russia Has Americans’ Weaknesses All Figured Out” by Jim Sciutto of CNN in The American Interest
“What are Americans supposed to think when their leaders contradict one another on the most basic question of national security—who is the enemy?

“This is happening every day on the floors of the House and the Senate, in committee hearing rooms, on television news programs, and in President Donald Trump’s Twitter feed. Is Russia the enemy, or was the investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 election just a slow-motion attack on the president and his supporters? Are Russian fake-news troll farms stirring up resentment among the American electorate, or are mainstream-media outlets just making things up?

“U.S. military commanders, national-security officials, and intelligence analysts have a definitive answer: Russia is an enemy. It is taking aggressive action right…now, from cyberspace to outer space, and all around the world, against the United States and its allies. But the public has been slow to catch on, polls suggest, and Trump has given Americans little reason to believe that their president recognizes Russia’s recent actions as a threat.

“All the uncertainty is part of Vladimir Putin’s plan. America’s confusion is both a product and a principal goal of a qualitatively new kind of warfare that the Kremlin is waging—a campaign that systematically targets a democratic but politically divided society whose economy, media environment, and voting systems all depend on vulnerable electronic technologies. The essence of this strategy is to attack U.S. interests just below the threshold that would prompt a military response and then, over time, to stretch that threshold further and further.

“The purpose of this shadow war is simple: to create what Russian General Valery Gerasimov has called ‘a permanent front through the entire territory of the enemy state.’” …

“Yet for years after the end of the Cold War, leaders in the United States and other Western nations were willfully blind to Russia’s hostility. They fell victim to “mirroring,” imagining that the Russians—and the Chinese, for that matter —wanted what the U.S. wanted: for them to be drawn into the rules-based international order.

“But leaders of both Russia and China view that system as skewed toward the interests of the West. Perhaps not coincidentally, China is pursuing a strategy nearly identical to Russia’s, and with similar success—from stealing U.S. trade and government secrets to manufacturing territory in the disputed South China Sea to deploying offensive weapons in space.

“Only now, as these events unfold, are decision makers in the American public and private sectors abandoning misconceptions about the kind of relationship they might have with Moscow and Beijing.”
In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata won re-election by a large margin that surprised many commentators, and provoked a mix of reactions.
Some (e.g., Ed Luce, who was the Financial Times’ correspondent in India for five years) saw it as another example of “the global advance of ethno-nationalism around the world” (FT, 24May19), and what Kanchan Chandra has called the “triumph of Hindu majoritarianism” and the death of the original pluralist idea of a secular Indian state (Foreign Affairs 23Nov18. See also “How Hindu Nationalism Went Mainstream in Modi’s India” by Amy Kazmin in the 8May19 Financial Times).

In contrast, Guy Sorman, writing in City Journal, noted that the socialist and redistributive orientation of the previously dominant Congress had for many years held down India’s economic growth, even as its population continued to rapidly grown. On the economic front, Modi has implemented reforms that have increased economic growth and raised living standards (“Triumph of a Free Society”, 29May19).

To be sure, more reforms are needed; however, Sorman notes that “By keeping Modi and his BJP party in power, Indians are declaring that a free economy is good for them, particularly for the poor.” Whether Hindu majoritarianism will increased domestic conflict and derail rising growth remains to be seen, and remains, in the medium term, a critical issue global security and economic issue.
Apr19: New National Security Information: Indicators and Surprises
Why Is This Information Valuable?
The New Revolution in Military Affairs” by Christian Brose
A recurring pattern in the history of private and public sector organizations is the lag in their adoption of disruptive technologies, due to the time it takes to rethink strategy and doctrine to incorporation them, and then implement the new approach via changes in processes, systems, structure, staffing, and often culture.

This creates a dynamic in which organization(s) – including companies and nations – can gain a significant (if temporary) competitive advantage by being the first to complete these changes. However, this often carries with it the seeds of later danger, as established advantages tend to blind an organization to the emergence of disruptive technologies and their adoption by others.

This paper documents the same process at work in the US military, and in particular its intensifying Great Power competition with China. Brose notes, for more than 20 years now (since the term “Revolution in Military Affairs” or RMA first entered the language), “the basic idea has remained the same: emerging technologies will enable new battle networks of sensors and shooters to rapidly accelerate the process of detecting, targeting, and striking threats, what the military calls the “kill chain.”

“The idea of a future military revolution became discredited amid nearly two decades of war after 2001 and has been further damaged by reductions in defense spending since 2011. But along the way, the United States has also squandered hundreds of billions of dollars trying to modernize in the wrong ways. Instead of thinking systematically about buying faster, more effective kill chains that could be built now, Washington poured money into newer versions of old military platforms and prayed for technological miracles to come (which often became acquisition debacles when those miracles did not materialize).

“The result is that U.S. battle networks are not nearly as fast or effective as they have appeared while the United States has been fighting lesser opponents for almost three decades. Yet if ever there were a time to get serious about the coming revolution in military affairs, it is now.

“There is an emerging consensus that the United States’ top defense-planning priority should be contending with great powers with advanced militaries, primarily China, and that new technologies, once intriguing but speculative, are now both real and essential to future military advantage. Senior military leaders and defense experts are also starting to agree, albeit belatedly, that when it comes to these threats, the United States is falling dangerously behind.

This reality demands more than a revolution in technology; it requires a revolution in thinking. And that thinking must focus more on how the U.S. military fights than with what it fights. The problem is not insufficient spending on defense; it is that the U.S. military is being countered by rivals with superior strategies. The United States, in other words, is playing a losing game. The question, accordingly, is not how new technologies can improve the U.S. military’s ability to do what it already does but how they can enable it to operate in new ways.

It is still possible for the United States to adapt and succeed, but the scale of change required is enormous. The traditional model of U.S. military power is being disrupted, the way Blockbuster’s business model was amid the rise of Amazon and Netflix. A military made up of small numbers of large, expensive, heavily manned, and hard-to replace systems will not survive on future battlefields, where swarms of intelligent machines will deliver violence at a greater volume and higher velocity than ever before. Success will require a different kind of military, one built around large numbers of small, inexpensive, expendable, and highly autonomous systems. The United States has the money, human capital, and technology to assemble that kind of military. The question is whether it has the imagination and the resolve.”

For an argument that China will struggle to develop and implement disruptive military technologies, see, “Why China Has Not Caught Up Yet: Military- Technological Superiority and the Limits of Imitation, Reverse Engineering, and Cyber Espionage”, by Gilli and Gillin in International Security.

See also, “America’s Nightmare” by Harry Kazianis in National Interest; “Piercing The Fog Of Peace: Developing Innovative Operational Concepts For A New Era” by Mahnken et al from CSBA; and “Forecasting Change in Military Technology, 2020-2040” by Michael O’Hanlon for a detailed discussion of potential technology developments, and his companion paper “A Retrospective on the Revolution in Military Affairs, 2000-2020
America’s Strategy-Resource Mismatch” by Bonds et al is a major new analysis from RAND
“The 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) identifies long-term, strategic competition with China and Russia as the central challenge to U.S. security and the principal priority for the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The NDS tasks DoD with simultaneously defending the homeland and deterring aggression in Europe, the Indo-Pacific, and the Middle East. The NDS also directs DoD to counter North Korea and Iran and defeat terrorist threats to the United States…Unfortunately, the NDS is not adequately supported by military forces, causing a strategy-resource gap…

“Significant gaps exist in the ability of the United States and its allies to deter or defeat aggression that could threaten their national interests. NATO members Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania remain vulnerable to a rapid Russian invasion. South Korea is vulnerable to a drawn out barrage from a relatively small percentage of North Korea’s artillery. China’s neighbors— especially Taiwan—are vulnerable to coercion and aggression. Finally, violent extremists continue to pose a threat in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and around the world.

“Solutions to these problems will take both money and time. In the United States, the needed funds are limited today by the Budget Control Act and the competing imperatives to modernize nuclear and conventional forces.”

The authors make recommendations for “discuss which missions should be prioritized and suggest changes to U.S. strategy and investments to best close these gaps”
Two other new reports from RAND, focused on Russia, must be seen in light of the above report
Overextending and Unbalancing Russia”, evaluates low cost options for weakening Russian power through low cost means that exploit its many serious economic, social, and military vulnerabilities.

Deterring Russian Aggression in the Baltic States Through Resilience and Resistance” proposes a wide spectrum of deterrence, low and high intensity warfare options that would enable national governments, along with their NATO allies, to prevent a successful Russian takeover of Balkan territory, as occurred in the Crimea.
This month saw the publication of two new thought-provoking documents on China
As mandated by law, the US Defense Department published its annual “Chinese Military Power Report.” It summarized China’s strategy as follows: “China’s leaders have benefited from what they view as a “period of strategic opportunity” during the initial two decades of the 21st century to develop domestically and expand China’s “comprehensive national power.”

“Over the coming decades, they are focused on realizing a powerful and prosperous China that is equipped with a “world-class” military, securing China’s status as a great power with the aim of emerging as the preeminent power in the Indo-Pacific region. In 2018, China continued harnessing an array of economic, foreign policy, and security tools to realize this vision…

“China’s leaders employ tactics short of armed conflict to pursue China’s strategic objectives through activities calculated to fall below the threshold of provoking armed conflict with the United States, its allies and partners, or others in the Indo-Pacific region. These tactics are particularly evident in China’s pursuit of its territorial and maritime claims in the South and East China Seas as well as along its borders with India and Bhutan…

“In support of the goal to establish a powerful and prosperous China, China’s leaders are committed to developing military power commensurate with that of a great power. Chinese military strategy documents highlight the requirement for a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) able to fight and win wars, deter potential adversaries, and secure Chinese national interests overseas, including a growing emphasis on the importance of the maritime and information domains, offensive air operations, long-distance mobility operations, and space and cyber operations…

“China’s military modernization also targets capabilities with the potential to degrade core U.S. operational and technological advantages.”

The second important publication was “The Sources of CCP Conduct”. Its author, US Congressman Mike Gallagher, has extensive experience in the intelligence community, as well as a PhD in International Relations. He notes that his title deliberately echoes George Kennan’s famous Long Telegram and anonymously published 1947 article on “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” that advocated a long-term policy of containment.

Gallagher argues that “understanding the CCP is essential to understanding China’s external ambitions and why they cannot be reconciled with those of the free world.” He describes three fundamental sources of the CCP’s conduct:

(1) “Chinese history – or, more precisely, two strongly held and CCP-perpetuated narratives about China’s history…The first narrative comes from Chinese dynastic history. Unlike Europe, where countries competed constantly for power, China enjoyed long periods without true rivals … Xi’s message is clear: It is time for the Americans to leave and for China to return to its Idealized traditional primacy over its Asian neighbor-vassals… The second narrative is that the greatest threat to China is weak central leadership that invites foreign aggression and corresponding national humiliation…

(2) The second source of CCP conduct, and one habitually discounted by Westerners, is the Party’s own history as an underground influence organization. From its earliest days, the CCP has played the role of insurgent, first within China and then abroad as it has sought to expand its power. A central tool in this struggle has been “United Front” work, or “a range of methods to influence overseas Chinese communities, foreign governments, and other actors to take actions or adopt positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred policies

(3) The third defining source of CCP conduct is the dictatorial nature of its power. Like the ruling class in any autocracy, CCP leaders fear losing power. The party perceives itself to be engaged in a “life-or-death struggle” against Western ideas, including democracy, the universality of human rights, neoliberal economic policy, and even independent journalism… [This] sense of ideological struggle also creates an absolutist view of security.”
Sri Lanka’s Pain is Going to Spread”, by Mihir Sharma, Bloomberg, 22Apr19
Following the Easter terrorist attacks in Sri Lanka, the author concludes that, “The entire subcontinent that the British once ruled from Delhi has seen, over the past decade, religious and ethnic identities harden and divisions deepen…The naive presumption that economic growth and prosperity, or even increasing education, would help minimize these cleavages and prevent them exploding into violence stands completely discredited…

“The truth is that all of our postcolonial states have failed in one crucial respect. They never built up the sort of modern, inclusive, all=embracing national identity that is the only defense against violence in a region as integrated and as burdened with history as this one.

India came close. But the Indian state’s preferred belief in the country’s “composite culture” depended on the myth that different communities had lived in peace with each other for centuries before colonialism. That was, of course, nonsense; and a liberal project of nation-building that centers upon lies about the past cannot survive.”

See also, “How Hindu Nationalism Went Mainstream in Modi’s India”, by Amy Kazin, FT 8May19
US-Iranian relations are rapidly deteriorating, with an increasing chance of some type of kinetic conflict between the two.
Key developments have included the US designating the Iranian Republic Guard Corps as a terrorist organization, the decision to eliminate sanctions waivers on Iranian oil exports (which will put more pressure on its economy, with the IMF forecasting a 6% decline in GDP), Iranian threats to break its nuclear treaty and resume uranium enrichment (a precursor to nuclear weapons development), deployment of additional US military resources to the Middle East (in response to reports that Iran was “escalating its military activity”), and Iranian threats to block the Strait of Hormuz and sink American ships. About 19 million barrels/day of oil pass through the Strait, out of a forecast global total daily consumption of about 100 million b/d in 2019.

For more on this, see, “How Iran Could Strike the US Military in a War”, by Harry Kazianis and “Worry About This: Could Iran Sink America's Aircraft Carriers in a Fight?” by Kyle Mizokami, both in National Interest
Mar19: New National Security Information: Indicators and Surprises
Why Is This Information Valuable?
Future of War: Not Back to the Future”, by Lt. General Mike Dana, USMC, in
This is a short but content rich article by a career Marine approaching retirement. It is well worth a read.

Like most Marines, Dana doesn’t mince words. He states his conclusion at the outset: “The rhythm of 21st century warfare is accelerating…We are ill prepared for the next war, because we are not fully adapting to the changing character of 21st century warfare.”

Key elements of his argument include the following:

“The information evolution will bring extraordinary complexity and lethality to the next war.”

“In World War II we primarily fought a three-domain fight — sea, air, and land. American factories ensured we had the mobility and mass to overwhelm our enemies in these three domains. Today, and in the future, we will be fighting adversaries in seven domains — sea, air, land, space, cyber, as well as two “new-old” domains: perception and time. Space and cyber operations hold the potential to have more of an impact on future war than the bombs and bullets in wars past.”

Artificial intelligence — better described as augmented intelligence — has the potential to create man-machine teams that will establish overmatch at every level and function of warfare. All of this is new and foreboding.”

“Artificial intelligence has the potential to accelerate John Boyd’s observe-orient-decide-act loop to cognitive speeds never before seen in the history of warfare — across every capability area, every domain of warfare, and all levels of war.”

“We need to recognize that our Napoleonic staff" structure and processes will not keep pace with the demands of the future operating environment…Twenty-first century war will not be a war of mass. It will be won by whoever best takes advantage of information and connectivity”

“Tomorrow’s foes may defeat or destroy us before the first kinetic round is fired, because cyber attacks will render our systems inoperable or unreliable. On the other hand, if we go “kinetic” and start destroying targets, man-machine teaming has the potential to deliver precision lethality and decapitate leadership, literally and figuratively.”
Two recent articles highlighted the accelerating development of hypersonic weapons.
In “Gliding Missiles that Fly Faster than Mach 5”, the Economist notes that, “A new generation of hypersonic missiles [that travel at Mach 5 or more] is changing all that. Some might be capable of gliding across continents at great speed, their target unpredictable until seconds before impact. Russia claims to have a hypersonic glider on the cusp of deployment; others are redoubling their efforts. Many are likely to start entering service in the 2020s…What is different about the hypersonic weapons in the pipeline is that they are designed to sustain such speeds over long distances, manoeuvre as they do so and, in some cases, hit targets with pinpoint accuracy…All this opens up new military possibilities—and problems.”

In “Hypersonics Are Speeding up Great Power Competition”, Lyle Goldstein, in the National Interest, notes that “China is deploying or on the cusp of deploying a hypersonic weapon (DF-17), joining Russia in possessing that novel capability. It is worth emphasizing that, despite ample research in this area, the United States is yet to field any equivalent military capability. It may be true that hypersonic threats do not require hypersonic responses, but the argument that these weapons are not significant is not persuasive.”
Release of the “Electromagnetic Defense Task Force Report” was followed by issuance of a new Executive Order by President Trump, “ordering federal government agencies to harden the nation’s infrastructure against potentially devastating attacks by a nuclear-bomb-produced electromagnetic pulse, or EMP.”
Co-authored by former CIA Director James Woolsey, the Task Force’s conclusion was sobering:

“At present, the United States and its allies are at an EMS crossroads. In some areas, if timely actions fail to advance allied EMS capabilities, there is a likelihood adversaries can achieve parity or even dominance of the spectrum in a matter of years.

“Communications and data and a myriad of essential military and economic functions—including precision navigation and timing and banking— are maintained in and through the EMS. The EMS may be described as a “Super Domain.” While the only internationally recognized domains are land, sea, air, space, and cyber, electromagnetic activities operate in and through all domains regulating the most critical functions therein. EMS is arguably the one domain that can rule them all.

“Failure to maintain technological dominance or freedom of operations in EMS can diminish or stop a modern nation’s broad civil and defense activities…

“While EMS vulnerabilities and threats have matured, national and even international capabilities to deny or mitigate such threats and vulnerabilities remain highly dispersed or incomplete.

“In some areas, there is a complete absence of strategy. In other cases, traditional deterrence efforts afford little to no utility in preventing adverse enemy action in the EMS. In many respects, this is not dissimilar from deterrence activities in cyber space—which are almost completely ineffective…

“Based on the totality of available data, the task force contends the second- and third-order effects of an EMS [electromagnetic spectrum] attack may be a threat to the United States, democracy, and the world order…The prospect of oppressive control of communications and information represents not only a capability to dictate how mankind may access information, but in an world increasingly run through the internet of things (IoT), it may disparagingly allocate or deprive individuals, groups, or societies of elements required for their survival, such as food, water, and sanitation. Therefore, the ways and means relating to EMS activities must be safeguarded.”
China Building Long-Range Cruise Missile Launched From Ship Container” by Bill Gertz, Washington Free Beacon, 27Mar19
“China is building a long-range cruise missile fired from a shipping container that could turn Beijing's large fleet of freighters into potential warships and commercial ports into future missile bases. The new missile is in flight testing and is a land-attack variant of an advanced anti-ship missile called the YJ-18C, according to American defense officials.”

“The missile will be deployed in launchers that appear from the outside to be standard international shipping containers used throughout the world for moving millions of tons of goods, often on the deck of large freighters….”

“The YJ-18C container missile also is being developed as China is engaged in a major global program called the Belt and Road Initiative that will provide Chinese military forces and warships with expanded access through a network of commercial ports around the world.”

“China operates or is building deep water ports in several strategic locations, including Bahamas, Panama, and Jamaica that could be used covertly to deploy ships carrying the YJ-18C.”

“Other locations include Pakistan's Gwadar port near the Arabian Sea and in Djibouti on the Horn of Africa close to the strategic choke point of the Bab el Mandeb at the southern end of the Red Sea…”

“Retired Navy Capt. Jim Fanell, a former Pacific Fleet intelligence chief, said a containerized YJ-18 anti-ship cruise missile would add a significant threat to the Navy given the volume of Chinese container ships that enter U.S. ports on the west and east coast, well within range of the vast majority of the U.S. fleet.”
The Strongmen Strike Back” by Robert Kagan in the Washington Post, 14Mar19
Kagan argues that, “Authoritarianism has reemerged as the greatest threat to the liberal democratic world — a profound ideological, as well as strategic, challenge. And we have no idea how to confront it…

“In this new battle of ideas, we are disarmed, perhaps above all because we have forgotten what is at stake. We don’t remember what life was like before the liberal idea…”

Kagan provides an excellent history of the long contest between the liberalism of the Enlightenment, and various forms of authoritarianism. Consistent with a theme in the articles noted abode, Kagan observes that, “Humans do not yearn only for freedom. They also seek security — not only physical security against attack, but the security that comes from family, tribe, race and culture. “

“Liberalism, [with its focus on individual freedom] has no particular answer to these needs… Liberalism’s main purpose was never to provide the kind of security that people find in tribe or family. It has been concerned with the security of the individual and with treating all individuals equally regardless of where they come from, what gods they worship, or who their parents are. And, to some extent, this has come at the expense of the traditional bonds that family, ethnicity and religion provide…”

When economies cease to provide broadly distributed improvements in living standards, and uncertainty increases, it is deeply ingrained in human nature to seek security by hewing more closely to one’s own tribe, whether defined by nationalism, group identify, or in some other manner, usually by a strong leader.

As Kagan notes, “authoritarians are succeeding, but not only because their states are more powerful today than they have been in more than seven decades. Their anti-liberal critique is also powerful. It is not just an excuse for strongman rule, though it is that, too. It is a full-blown indictment of what many regard as the failings of liberal society, and it has broad appeal.”

He also observes that, “the United States has been experiencing its own anti-liberal backlash. Indeed, these days the anti-liberal critique is so pervasive, at both ends of the political spectrum and in the most energetic segments of both political parties, that there is scarcely an old-style American liberal to be found.”
Another new article highlights the dangers posed by the combination of advanced technology and authoritarian governments.
In “The Autocrat’s New Toolkit”, Fontaine and Frederick claim that,
“a sophisticated new set of technological tools – some of them now maturing, others poised to emerge over the coming decade – seem destined to wind up in the hands of autocrats around the world. They will allow strongmen and police states to bolster their internal grip, undermine basic rights, and spread illiberal practices beyond their own borders. China and Russia are poised to take advantage of this new suite of products and capabilities, but they will soon be available for export, so that even second-tier tyrannies will be able to better monitor and mislead their populations.”
The Asian Century is Set to Begin”, Financial Times, 26Mar19
“Economists, political scientists and emerging market pundits have been talking for decades about the coming of the Asian Age, which will supposedly mark an inflection point when the continent becomes the new centre of the world.”

“Asia is already home to more than half the world’s population. Of the world’s 30 largest cities, 21 are in Asia, according to UN data. By next year, Asia will also become home to half of the world’s middle class, defined as those living in households with daily per capita incomes of between $10 and $100 at 2005 purchasing power parity (PPP)…”

“Leaders in the region are beginning to talk more openly about the shift. “Now the continent finds itself at the centre of global economic activity,” Narendra Modi, prime minister of India, told the last annual meeting of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. “It has become the main growth engine of the world. In fact, we are now living through what many have termed the Asian Century,” he said.”

“So when will the Asian Age actually begin? The Financial Times tallied the data, and found that Asian economies, as defined by the UN trade and development body Unctad, will be larger than the rest of the world combined in 2020, for the first time since the 19th century. The Asian century, the numbers show, begins next year…To put this in perspective, Asia accounted for just over a third of world output in 2000…Asia’s recent surge, which began with Japan’s postwar economic surge, represents a return to a historical norm. Asia dominated the world economy for most of human history until the 19th century.”
China Military Power 2019”, by the US Defense Intelligence Agency
The subtitle of this report says it all: “Modernizing a Force to Fight and Win”. The report contains a rich amount of unclassified detail, covering threat perceptions, national security strategy, and military doctrine, capabilities, and strategy, all of which help readers to better understand and assess the potential threat China could pose in a range of future scenarios.
In the US, The Committee on the Present Danger has been reformed, with a focus on China. This is a significant step in institutionalizing a much more competitive and conflict laden relationship between the United States and the PRC.
The Committee’s predecessor played a critical role during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. It’s press release said the “the independent, nonpartisan group will seek to educate and inform the American public and government policymakers regarding the threat from China ruled by the Communist Party of China.”

Its first act was to issue a warning about the expected trade deal the Trump administration is negotiating with China: “"The trade deal is expected to address its Communist Party's longstanding practice of stealing American intellectual property—the lifeblood of our information-based economy and a key component of our national security. It remains to be seen whether any new commitments from the Chinese to end this practice will be honored since past ones have not."
Three articles and reports provide further indicators of China’s mounting economic problems – some of which could also have negative implications for the United States
In “A Forensic Examination of China’s National Accounts”, Chen et al from Brookings observe that, “China’s national accounts are based on data collected by local governments. However, since local governments are rewarded for meeting growth and investment targets, they have an incentive to skew local statistics.” As a result, they conclude that growth in Chinese GDP between 2008 and 2016 was overestimated by 12%.

The Economist notes a critical change in China’s economy (“China May Soon Run Its First Current Account Deficit in Decades”) and the Financial Times notes one of its possible consequences (“Chinese Appetite for US Assets Imperiled at Worst Possible Time”).

A nation’s current account balance reflects the difference between its aggregate domestic savings and investment. In the case of China, its rapidly aging population is saving less, and in a growing number of cases drawing down accumulated funds. This has pushed domestic savings below investment, leading to the nation’s first current account deficit since 1993.

This will potentially create at least two problems. Nations running current account deficits must import savings from abroad. However, given deteriorating relations with the west, as well as an uncertain legal environment for foreign investors, this is likely to prove challenging, and may act to constrain China’s behavior in ways we do not yet fully understand.

On the other hand, the United States is forecast to run very substantial government deficits in the coming years, and China, when it ran a current account surplus, has been a major purchaser of those bonds (as well as private sector debt) as its foreign exchange reserves increased. With China now poised to begin drawing down some of its foreign exchange reserves to cover its current account deficit, challenges will increase for borrowers around the world.
Two new reports analyze the tactical and strategic aspects of Western conflict with Russia.
In “Deterring Russia in the Gray Zone”, McCarthy et al from the US Army War College argue that the United States (and by extension its allies) lack a coherent strategy for deterring Russia in what have become known as “gray zone” conflicts.

As the authors note, the gray zone includes “those areas of state competition where antagonistic actions take place; however, those actions fall short of the red lines that would normally result in armed conflict between nations. The lines between war and peace in the gray zone are blurred, and competition occurs across all instruments of national power. By leveraging a creative strategy and hybrid tactics, Russia attempts to achieve its strategic objectives without compelling the United States to respond using military force…”

“Examples of gray zone tactics include cyberattacks, information operations and propaganda, deception, sabotage, proxy war, assassinations, espionage, economic coercion, violations of international law, and terrorism.”

At the strategic level, in “Russian Challenges from Now Into the Next Generation: A Geostrategic Primer”, Zwack and Pierre from the Institute for National Strategic Studies (part of the US National Defense University) note that “Russia remains driven by a worldview based on existential threats—real, perceived, and contrived… However, time is not on Russia’s side, as it has entered into a debilitating status quo that includes unnecessary confrontation with the West, multiple unresolved military commitments, a sanctions- strained and only partially diversified economy, looming domestic tensions, and a rising China directly along its periphery.”

The authors conclude that, “rebuilding atrophied conduits between key American and Russian political and military leadership is imperative in order to calm today’s distrustful and increasingly mean-spirited relations, to seek and positively act upon converging interests, and to avert potential incidents or accidents that could potentially lead to dangerous brinksmanship… Yet in recent months, the relationship has only continued to weaken on multiple fronts too numerous to summarize.”
Feb19: New National Security Information: Indicators and Surprises
Why Is This Information Valuable?
The Party Congress Test: A Minimum Standard For Analyzing Beijing’s Intentions”, by Peter Mattis
The Chinese Communist Party Congress is held every five years. The 19th, and most recent, was in 2017. Mattis emphasizes the important information contained in Party Congress work reports, and how seldom these important indicators are incorporated into forecasts of China’s future actions.

Mattis’ analyzes the most recent work report. He notes that, “One of the benefits of working one’s way through a document like the 19th Party Congress Work Report is that the reader sees a clear nesting of ideas. At the top, national rejuvenation is identified as the overriding objective. The features of national rejuvenation are identified: (1) national reunification; (2) securing China’s international position and leadership in global affairs; and (3) “build[ing] China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful. Each of those words attached to Chinese modernity, as the party defines it, have specific meanings within the party context that may not resemble how we in a liberal democratic society might understand them.”

For example, “’the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation’ or ‘the Chinese dream of national rejuvenation’— the shorthand for China’s rise to great power capability and status — operates on two levels: domestic and global. There is no intermediate regional space…the report also notes national rejuvenation requires ‘toppling the three mountains of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic-capitalism that were oppressing the Chinese people.’ Contemporary threats of imperialism and bureaucratic-capitalism come from beyond China’s borders…Simply put, the party congress work report does not provide any evidence for regionally constrained ambitions. To those who reject this analysis on the basis that Chinese capabilities and reach fall short of their ambitious aims, Xi Jinping said ‘we should not stop pursuing our ideals because they seem out of our reach.’ China’s capabilities today simply are not a reliable indicator of its intentions for tomorrow.”
Domestic Repression And International Aggression? Why Xi Is Uninterested In Diversionary Conflict” by George Yin from Brookings
Rising internal opposition to Xi Jinping is an underreported story in the west. This new article provides an excellent overview. It’s key conclusion: “Forces that oppose Xi may be dormant but their powers remain intact, and criticisms of Xi’s administration have been multiplying since the 19th Party Congress.”

The author also notes that, “the theory of diversionary wars posits that leaders often have the incentive to pursue aggressive foreign policies in order to divert the domestic audience’s attention from domestic troubles. Through international conflict, leaders can either foster national solidarity or demonstrate their competence.” He then asks if Xi could “seek to consolidate power by adopting an assertive foreign policy in his second term?”

In his answer to this question, Yin notes that, “crucially, diversionary war theory rests on a number of assumptions, two of which do not hold for Xi today…First, that leaders prefer foreign adventure over addressing domestic troubles…[and] Second, that key domestic players want conflict…A diversionary conflict is likely to further galvanize Xi’s opposition.”

That said, Yin also cautions that, “Taiwan’s pursuit of de jure independence is probably the only issue that could unite the rival CCP factions under Xi for conflict.”
For most of January, there were many stories speculating that the US and China might be able to reach a face saving trade deal. But at the end of the month, the US announced an expanded series of criminal charges against Huawei Communications, in addition to the charges against the company’s CFO that led to her arrest at Vancouver airport, and pending extradition to the US.
In its negotiations with China, the US is demanding structural reforms – e.g., removal of Chinese regulations forcing foreign investors to disclose their technology – that have been an important part of their economic model. Eliminating the Chinese law the compels its technology companies to cooperate with China’s military and intelligence services would be harder still, and could potentially cause sufficient embarrassment to Xi to trigger attempts at removing him from power (and perhaps subsequent infighting between different Chinese Communist Party factions at a time when economic conditions are worsening at an accelerating pace).

These developments raise the probability that rather than a relaxation of the growing US/China conflict, it may instead grow more intense. One important potential consequences of this was recently highlighted by the Financial Times’ Gillian Tett, who wrote: “Do not underestimate the risk of an iron curtain in tech” which could substantially disrupt those supply chains in which China has played an important role. Should this happen, the negative impact on economic growth would likely be substantial.
Two new papers provide more insight into the threats posed by cyber technologies, and the rate at which we are adapting to them
CrowdStrike 2019 Global Threat Report Adversary Tradecraft and the Importance of Speed”:

“It is quite remarkable to see that Russia-based threat actors are almost 8 times as fast [in reaching a system penetration threshold] as their speediest competitor — North Korea-based adversaries, who themselves are almost twice as fast as intrusion groups from China.”

In “Civil Defence Gaps Under Cyber Blitzkrieg”, Greg Austin, Professor of Cyber Security at the University of New South Wales, notes that, “cyber storm thinking [attacks on critical infrastructure] is now being replaced by a concept he calls "cyber blitzkrieg". It's effectively a more nuanced version of the somewhat tired "cyber Pearl Harbor" concept.

"We're really talking the plans by states to attack each other with multiwave, multi-vector destructive cyber attacks across the entire civil and military infrastructure of the enemy…in which suddenness (including pre-emption) may be an essential characteristic”…

“The aim of such a cyber blitzkrieg will be to prevent the billion dollar weapons platforms of an enemy from reaching the front line of combat or (if they get there) to malfunction, to disrupt enemy command and control, and to disrupt civil sector support (including political support) to the enemy’s armed forces.”
Victory Over and Across Domains”, by Jennifer McArdle, from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
“Today’s U.S. military is an information-dependent force, one that is wholly reliant on information communication technology (ICT) for current and future military operations. The adaptation and integration of ICTs into weapons platforms, military systems, and in concepts of operation has put the battle for information control at the heart of great power competition. While the use of ICTs exponentially increases the U.S. military’s lethality, the dependence on these technologies, in many ways, is also a vulnerability.

U.S. competitors and adversaries—most notably Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea—recognize this reality. Each state plans to employ a range of cyber and informationized capabilities to undermine the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of U.S. and allied information in competition and combat.”

“It is impossible to deny an adversary entirely of the ability to shape aspects of the information environment, to include spoofing and sabotaging ICT-based warfighting systems. As a result, the U.S. military’s goal should be to sustain military operations
in spite of a denied, disrupted, or subverted information environment. This requires a paradigm shift away from information assurance to mission assurance. U.S. warfighters should be trained to fight as an integrated whole in and through an increasingly contested and complex battlespace saturated by adversary cyber and information operations. The battle for information control should drive training adaptation to provide warfighters the experiential learning that translates into quick reflexes, critical thinking, and cross-domain synergies on the battlefield”…

“At this juncture, however, a high-fidelity training environment that realistically simulates the effects of cyber or informationized attacks on military platforms and systems remains somewhat aspirational. Tactical cyber and informationized training across the Services is nascent and not fully integrated across the force. To the extent cyber is included in training events, the focus is primarily on networks and mission command systems.”
India Will Rise, Regardless of Its Politics”, by Martin Wolf, FT, 5Feb19
“Recently, the [Indian] economy has returned to its potential growth rate of about 7 per cent. Growing faster than that would require big improvements in performance — at the least, a revival in investment and manufacturing, together with better external competitiveness.

Nevertheless, annual growth of India’s real gross domestic product per head has averaged 5.5 per cent since 2000. Now it is growing faster than China’s, mainly because of the latter’s slowdown. If recent growth were sustained, India’s real GDP per head would reach China’s current levels in the early to mid- 2030s. India would still be a relatively poor country, as China is now. But it would be a superpower.

“The potential for such growth exists: India’s real GDP per head is only 12 per cent of US levels and 40 per cent of China’s….

“We should be modestly optimistic about India’s economic prospects over the next decade.”
Putin Needs More than Spending to Lift Ratings”, FT 22Feb19
“An independent pollster, Levada, found 45 per cent of citizens think the country is moving “in the wrong direction”, outstripping the 42 per cent happy with the country’s path, for the first time since 2006.

The economy is largely to blame. Russians’ real incomes have fallen every year for five years — the longest decline since the chaotic 1990s — and are now 13 per cent below their 2013 level. Since Mr Putin returned as president in 2012 after four years as prime minister, annual economic growth has averaged less than 1 per cent….

Meanwhile, services and infrastructure are creaking and 13 per cent of Russians, or 19m people, are below an official poverty line of income of Rbs11,280 ($172) per month.

The ruling circle is in a bind. Genuine economic reform, strengthening property rights and rule of law, would threaten its hold on power. Instead, the Kremlin might be tempted to distract attention with another “small wa
r”… But few foreign policy issues rouse strong feelings among Russians beyond Ukraine and Crimea, which an overwhelming majority believed was rightly Russian…

Polling suggests, moreover, that Russians are starting to see the official obsession with restoring national greatness in the face of supposed threats from the west for what it is — a diversion from domestic malaise”.
Power Transitions and Internal Challenges in East Asian History”, by David Kang
“Theories promoted by international relations scholars about the Western liberal order, state behavior, and the inevitability of certain types of conflict are less widely applicable around the world than often realized. Indeed, almost all ostensibly universal and deductive theories in the field of international relations are, in reality, inductively derived from European history…

“Structural analyses based primarily on Western examples are profoundly misleading, particularly because they crowd out a larger universe of cases that show what is possible in international politics. Idealized representations about the West are so ubiquitous that it is almost invariably invoked as the obvious reference point for the East…

Perhaps the most important reason it is difficult to transpose power transition theory to East Asian history is that the forms of political regime, survival, and transition in East Asia have all differed from what has been experienced in Europe. The four most long=enduring major powers in the region — China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam — all had political regimes that have been characterized as “dynasties,” and which had remarkable longevity.

Political regimes rose and fell in East Asia, but not due to power transitions. Most strikingly, only three out of 18 dynastic transitions that occurred prior to the 19th century came as a result of external war. All the other transitions were the result of internal rebellions, coups, or civil wars…This brief look at the rise and fall of East Asian political dynasties reveals that most of them crumbled from within — not due to outside forces as Western historical data would suggest.”
A trio of columns this month provided further indicators of rising tensions in Europe
In France, “A climate of hate is emerging in France. The targets are varied, apparently unconnected and shifting: Jews, journalists, the rich, policemen, members of parliament, the president…The gilets jaunes (yellow jackets) protest movemenet has radicalised as it has shrunk…When the gilets jaunes movement emerged last November, it was broadly a social protest and fiscal revolt. But the infiltration of ultra-left and extreme-right agitators, and the determination of a radical core to seek the overthrow of Mr. Macron, has hardened the movement’s edge. (“Anti-Semitism, racism and anti-elitism are spreading in France”, The Economist 21Feb19)

In the
Financial Times, Wolfgang Munchau notes that Germany’s “biggest problem is falling behind in the technological race. Excessive fiscal consolidation has been the main cause of under-investment in roads, telecoms networks, and other new technologies.

Germany is also under-investing in its defence sector. Ursula von der Leyen, defence minister, recently proposed a plan to increase the defence budget from the current 1.3 per cent to 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product by 2023. But Olaf Scholz, finance minister, objects...

“Perhaps the Europeans have been so self-absorbed over the past 10 years that they did not see this coming. The now emerging protectionism, the sudden realisation of a need to protect against Chinese takeovers, are signs that complacency is about to turn into panic.” (“
China Gains the Upper Hand Over Germany”)

Commentary magazine, Josef Joffe’s “Europe Does Not Exist” paints a scathing picture of a continent in accelerating decline.

By the numbers, the European Union is a giant. Its economy exceeds China’s by $7 trillion and is just a bit smaller than America’s $20 trillion. Russia? Its GDP of $ 1.7 trillion is petty cash. On paper, the EU nations marshal as many soldiers as does the United States, and half a million more than Russia. Their combined population dwarfs both. But if one measures by its weight in world affairs, Europe is a runt…

“The halcyon days are over. Europe confronts new threats aplenty. Indeed, at no time since the birth of European integration in 1952 has the Old Continent faced so many perils all at once, inside and out… Europe’s tragedy is the gulf between fabulous wealth and feeble will, between its glorious past and a future now dimmed by the return of power politics.”
Two recent articles, both well worth a read, are excellent indicators of the state of the external and internal challenges facing the West
In “The New Containment” (Foreign Affairs, 12Feb19), Michael Mandelbaum notes that, “Should Vladimir Putin’s [5] Russia succeed in reasserting control over parts of the former Soviet Union, Xi Jinping’s China gain control over maritime commerce in the western Pacific, or Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s Iran dominate the oil reserves of the Persian Gulf, the United States, its allies, and the global order they uphold would suffer a major blow.”, Hence, “the new world requires a new American foreign policy.” The one he proposes is a coalition-based strategy to contain Russia, China, and Iran, but notes that the greatest challenge to the success of this strategy may come from within the United States itself.

In “The Sources of the West’s Decline” Andrew Michta delves into this critical issue, claiming that, “The real trouble for the West, is what has been happening within our own societies.

Internal changes have made us more vulnerable than any economic calculus would indicate.

For the first time since the end of World War II, the so-called declinists may be onto something fundamental when they argue that the West’s heyday may be a thing of the past.

The problem is not the economy or technology, but the centrifugal forces rising within the Transatlantic alliance: in short, the progressive civilizational fracturing and decomposition, fed by the growing disconnect between political and cultural elites and the publics across the two continents.

Alongside this is an even more insidious trend of fragmenting national cultures and the concomitant debasement of the idea of citizenship, the latter increasingly defined almost exclusively in terms of rights, with reciprocal obligations all but relegated to the proverbial dustbin of history. The growing disunity of the West, exacerbated by tensions caused by the rejection by some in the Transatlantic community of a historical and cultural narrative that once inspired pride and admiration, both across state lines and internally, is now arguably the key national security challenge confronting us…

The greatest challenges to redefining and strengthening the security community of the West will remain internal. In the final analysis, institutions are only as resilient as the people who make them work (or not). The deepening alienation of electorates from policy elites, the increasingly “de-nationalized” corporate practices of the business world, government paralyzed by political polarization, and media that function now more as propaganda channels than as sources of information, all reflect a deeper cultural malaise across the West.

At what point does a democracy’s ability to respond to new challenges become overwhelmed?
After the Responsible Stakeholder, What? Debating America’s China Strategy” by Brands and Cooper
Dealing with an increasingly confident, assertive China is arguably the most difficult geopolitical challenge America has faced in a generation … The authors ask, “Now that the responsible stakeholder approach to China is essentially defunct, how should America respond?”

They note that, “there are four basic options for resetting America’s China policy: accommodation, collective balancing, comprehensive pressure, and regime change. These options are ideal-types: They illustrate the range of possible approaches and capture distinct analytical logics about the nature of the China problem and the appropriate response. At one extreme, Washington could seek an accommodation with Beijing in hopes of striking a grand bargain and establishing a cooperative long-term relationship. At the other extreme, the United States could seek regime change or even precipitate a military showdown to prevent China from growing more powerful. Both of these options assume that America must take urgent action to “solve” the China challenge. Yet, neither of these approaches is realistic, and, in fact, each is downright dangerous.

The real debate involves the two middle options: collective balancing and comprehensive pressure. Collective balancing would rely on U.S. cooperation with allies and partners to prevent China from constructing a regional sphere of influence or displacing the United States as the world’s leading power.

Comprehensive pressure would go further, attempting not simply to counter-balance Chinese influence overseas but to actively erode China’s underlying political, economic, and military power. These options, in turn, rest on different fundamental assumptions. Collective balancing accepts that Chinese power is likely to expand but assumes that it is possible to prevent Beijing from using its power in destabilizing ways.

Comprehensive pressure assumes that China’s power must be limited and even diminished, despite the risk that doing so will sharply escalate tensions. Probing the logic of these strategies, and assessing their various strengths and weaknesses, is critical to going beyond “competition” and adopting a new approach. The alternative — practicing tactics without strategy — is no way to confront the daunting geopolitical challenge that China presents.”

If U.S. leaders accept that China poses a formidable challenge without a decisive solution, they are left with two primary options: collective balancing and comprehensive pressure. Where these two strategies differ is in their approach to the changing balance of power. Comprehensive pressure seeks to reverse the ongoing power shift. Collective balancing accepts that shift as a fact of life — and does not attempt to significantly disrupt the economic relationship with China — but maintains that Beijing can be deterred by a coalition of like-minded states…

The authors conclusion: For these reasons, we favor a hybrid approach fusing elements of collective balancing and comprehensive pressure. This strategy, which we call collective pressure, would seek to build a coalition of allies and partners strong enough to deter or simply hold the line against Chinese revisionism until such a time as the Chinese Communist Party modifies its objectives or loses its grip on power. If China continues to challenge critical elements of that order, and if Chinese power continues to grow in dangerous ways, the United States would gradually intensify the pressure. It would lead the coalition in efforts to reduce China’s geopolitical, economic, and ideological influence; weaken its power potential; and exacerbate the strains under which Beijing operates.
There is no shortage of papers and columns published each week on developments in China. This month, we found two of these to be indicators worth noting.
In “China’s High Savings: Drivers, Prospects, and Policies”, Zhang et al from the IMF, the authors address a critical issue at this juncture in Chinese economic history: Its willingness and ability to reduce high savings to increase consumption as a share of GDP, and reduce the dependence of growth on increasingly inefficient investment.

The IMF analysis concludes that, “Boosting household consumption still essentially depends on a more even distribution of growth benefits between households and the state, including greater income-earning opportunities for the private sector. Policy efforts to lower savings should focus on strengthening the social safety net and reducing income inequality.” The authors also note that raising private sector incomes will require an increase in entrepreneurial activity, which in turn depends on increasing private companies’ access to formal financing institutions like bank debt.

The issue that the IMF dances around is that today the informal/shadow banking system that is the main source of finance for many private sector firms – and an important source of investment opportunities for household savings – is in increasingly precarious shape.

The second interesting interest article was the Financial Times’ Yuan Yang’s excellent in-depth analysis of “China’s Crackdown on Young Marxists” (FT, 13Feb19). We have previously noted increasing Chinese student protests over the conditions faced by factory workers. The FT provides valuable background on this movement, and its linkages to rising inequality in China.

Yang notes that, “Despite being a socialist country by name, China has no meaningful social safety net and its labour laws are poorly enforced for the worst-off workers. As a result, family health problems, a bad boss or an economic downturn can be the blow that knocks someone down to a position from which they can’t climb up.”

As Rebecca Karl, a professor of Chinese History at New York University observes, “China is now sufficiently capitalist to make Marxist categories perfectly suited to social analysis.” She also notes that the speed with which the student/worker alliance has grown “has raised a red flag” about the potential danger it poses to the current CCP leadership.
Movement and Maneuver: Culture and the Competition for Influence Among the U.S. Military Services”, by Zimmerman et al from RAND
This new report provides an outstanding guide to the different cultures the US military services (including the Marine Corps and Special Operational Command), including what they perceive as their primary interests and the different ways they seek to advance them.

As such, this provides a critical addition to mental models of how national security decisions emerge from the complex US defense system.
Jan19: New National Security Information: Indicators and Surprises
Why Is This Information Valuable?
The Party Congress Test: A Minimum Standard For Analyzing Beijing’s Intentions”, by Peter Mattis
The Chinese Communist Party Congress is held every five years. The 19th, and most recent, was in 2017. Mattis emphasizes the important information contained in Party Congress work reports, and how seldom these important indicators are incorporated into forecasts of China’s future actions.

Mattis’ analyzes the most recent work report. He notes that, “One of the benefits of working one’s way through a document like the 19th Party Congress Work Report is that the reader sees a clear nesting of ideas. At the top, national rejuvenation is identified as the overriding objective. The features of national rejuvenation are identified: (1) national reunification; (2) securing China’s international position and leadership in global affairs; and (3) “build[ing] China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful. Each of those words attached to Chinese modernity, as the party defines it, have specific meanings within the party context that may not resemble how we in a liberal democratic society might understand them.”

For example, “’the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation’ or ‘the Chinese dream of national rejuvenation’— the shorthand for China’s rise to great power capability and status — operates on two levels: domestic and global. There is no intermediate regional space…the report also notes national rejuvenation requires ‘toppling the three mountains of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic-capitalism that were oppressing the Chinese people.’ Contemporary threats of imperialism and bureaucratic-capitalism come from beyond China’s borders…Simply put, the party congress work report does not provide any evidence for regionally constrained ambitions. To those who reject this analysis on the basis that Chinese capabilities and reach fall short of their ambitious aims, Xi Jinping said ‘we should not stop pursuing our ideals because they seem out of our reach.’ China’s capabilities today simply are not a reliable indicator of its intentions for tomorrow.”
Domestic Repression And International Aggression? Why Xi Is Uninterested In Diversionary Conflict” by George Yin from Brookings
Rising internal opposition to Xi Jinping is an underreported story in the west. This new article provides an excellent overview. It’s key conclusion: “Forces that oppose Xi may be dormant but their powers remain intact, and criticisms of Xi’s administration have been multiplying since the 19th Party Congress.”

The author also notes that, “the theory of diversionary wars posits that leaders often have the incentive to pursue aggressive foreign policies in order to divert the domestic audience’s attention from domestic troubles. Through international conflict, leaders can either foster national solidarity or demonstrate their competence.” He then asks if Xi could “seek to consolidate power by adopting an assertive foreign policy in his second term?”

In his answer to this question, Yin notes that, “crucially, diversionary war theory rests on a number of assumptions, two of which do not hold for Xi today…First, that leaders prefer foreign adventure over addressing domestic troubles…[and] Second, that key domestic players want conflict…A diversionary conflict is likely to further galvanize Xi’s opposition.”

That said, Yin also cautions that, “Taiwan’s pursuit of de jure independence is probably the only issue that could unite the rival CCP factions under Xi for conflict.”
For most of January, there were many stories speculating that the US and China might be able to reach a face saving trade deal. But at the end of the month, the US announced an expanded series of criminal charges against Huawei Communications, in addition to the charges against the company’s CFO that led to her arrest at Vancouver airport, and pending extradition to the US.
In its negotiations with China, the US is demanding structural reforms – e.g., removal of Chinese regulations forcing foreign investors to disclose their technology – that have been an important part of their economic model. Eliminating the Chinese law the compels its technology companies to cooperate with China’s military and intelligence services would be harder still, and could potentially cause sufficient embarrassment to Xi to trigger attempts at removing him from power (and perhaps subsequent infighting between different Chinese Communist Party factions at a time when economic conditions are worsening at an accelerating pace).

These developments raise the probability that rather than a relaxation of the growing US/China conflict, it may instead grow more intense. One important potential consequences of this was recently highlighted by the Financial Times’ Gillian Tett, who wrote: “Do not underestimate the risk of an iron curtain in tech” which could substantially disrupt those supply chains in which China has played an important role. Should this happen, the negative impact on economic growth would likely be substantial.
The newly released US National Intelligence Strategy contains a very sobering warning about cyber threats. So too did the US Intelligence Community’s annual Worldwide Threat Assessment report to Congress.
The National Intelligence Strategy states that, “Despite growing awareness of cyber threats and improving cyber defenses, nearly all information, communication networks, and systems will be at risk for years to come. Our adversaries are becoming more adept at using cyberspace capabilities to threaten our interests and advance their own strategic and economic objectives. Cyber threats will pose an increasing risk to public health, safety, and prosperity as information technologies are integrated into critical infrastructure, vital national networks, and consumer devices.”

The Worldwide Threat Assessment contained this: “Our adversaries and strategic competitors will increasingly use cyber capabilities—including cyber espionage, attack, and influence—to seek political, economic, and military advantage over the United States and its allies and partners.

China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea increasingly use cyber operations to threaten both minds and machines in an expanding number of ways—to steal information, to influence our citizens, or to disrupt critical infrastructure…”

“At present, China and Russia pose the greatest espionage and cyber attack threats, but we anticipate that all our adversaries and strategic competitors will increasingly build and integrate cyber espionage, attack, and influence capabilities into their efforts to influence US policies and advance their own national security interests.”

In the last decade, our adversaries and strategic competitors have developed and experimented with a growing capability to shape and alter the information and systems on which we rely. For years, they have conducted cyber espionage to collect intelligence and targeted our critical infrastructure to hold it at risk. They are now becoming more adept at using social media to alter how we think, behave, and decide. As we connect and integrate billions of new digital devices into our lives and business processes, adversaries and strategic competitors almost certainly will gain greater insight into and access to our protected information…”

For 2019 and beyond, the innovations that drive military and economic competitiveness will increasingly originate outside the United States, as the overall US lead in science and technology (S&T) shrinks; the capability gap between commercial and military technologies evaporates; and foreign actors increase their efforts to acquire top talent, companies, data, and intellectual property via licit and illicit means.”

“Many foreign leaders, including Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, view strong indigenous science and technology capabilities as key to their country’s sovereignty, economic outlook, and national power.”
New publications have addressed the implications of increased cooperation between Russia and China, and the threat this poses to the west.
The title of a new RAND analysis makes an important point: “Russia is a Rogue, Not a Peer; China is a Peer, Not a Rogue.” As the report notes, “Russia and China represent quite distinct challenges. Russia is not a peer or near-peer competitor but rather a well-armed rogue state that seeks to subvert an international order it can never hope to dominate. In contrast, China is a peer competitor that wants to shape an international order that it can aspire to dominate.”

Another new RAND report, “Russia’s Hostile Measures in Europe” goes into great detail about the nature and use of the “measures short of war” that Russia employs to pursue its goals.
Perhaps most interesting of all this month have been reports related to Putin’s falling domestic support.
In “Don’t Shoot the Messenger” (published in The American Interest), Karina Orloval writes that, “The Kremlin’s trusted polling firm WCIOM, which also happens to be state-owned, has been releasing the results of its surveys faster and faster, and the news isn’t good for Russia’s President Vladimir Putin. The latest poll, measuring Russians’ “trust” in politicians, shows Putin registering only 32.8 percent support—his lowest rating in more than 13 years. This follows a poll released one week ago that had Putin at 33.4 percent. Both of those are a big fall from May of last year, when almost 47 percent of Russians trusted him…[Also], the respected independent pollster Levada reported that 53 percent of the public wants the government to resign, 20 points up from a month ago. Price increases and income drops were cited as prime causes for the discontent.”
There has been continuing chaos in the UK this month, as Theresa May’s government struggled to find an alternative to the draft UK/EU separation agreement that was rejected by Parliament
To oversimplify, the essential stumbling block is where to place the new border between the UK and EU. The problem is that the island of Ireland is divided between the Republic of Ireland (a member of the EU), and Northern Ireland (which is part of the UK). Northern Ireland accounts for about 30% of the population of the island, and 3% of the population of the UK.

Essentially there are three border options: (1) Across the Republic/Northern Ireland border. This border was removed as part of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that ended the violent period known as “the Troubles”; (2) Across the Irish Sea that separates the island of Ireland from the island containing England, Scotland, and Wales. The Northern Ireland Democratic Union Party objects to having part of the UK treated differently – i.e., remaining under European Union regulations, and since the last UK election, Theresa May’s government’s survival depends on the DUP’s support in Parliament; or (3) Across the English Channel, to which the Republic of Ireland objects because it would be forced to accept UK regulations.

The current UK/EU Separation Agreement (that was rejected by Parliament) contained a so-called “Irish Backstop” to ensure that a physical border would not be rebuilt between the Republic of Ireland and the North. The backstop would force the UK to remain in a customs union with the EU if no subsequent trade agreement between the two was reached by March 2021 – two years after the UK is due to leave the EU. As long as the customs union was in effect, the UK would be prohibited from negotiating separate trade agreements with other nations.

EU negotiators have thus far been unwilling to give any ground on this arrangement, nor has the UK proposed a detailed alternative. The probability has thus increased that in March, the UK will leave the EU without a transitional customs union agreement, and revert to trading with the EU on World Trade Organization terms.
Even if that happens, the Irish border issue may not go away. It has been suggested that the UK could simply state it was not going to establish new customs checks on the Northern Ireland side of the border, and thus continue to comply with the Good Friday Agreement. This would put the EU in the awkward position of having to ask the Republic to build ones on its side. Time will tell.

Overall, however, Brexit has already significantly increased uncertainty, and the likelihood of a negative economic shock for both the UK and the EU at a time when their growth rates are already slowing.
The title of a new column by the FT’s Ed Luce raises a critical issue as we move into a period of heightened US-China competition: “America’s Strange Blind Spot Towards India
As Luce writes, “Some time in the coming years, India will become the largest country in the world. It’s the only possible counterweight to neighbouring China, which is America’s only serious rival. It’s the world’s largest democracy. And it's no longer mired in hopeless poverty…India’s economic growth is likely to be higher than China’s for the next 25 years.”
Dec18: New National Security Information: Indicators and Surprises
Why Is This Information Valuable?
Macron's Ghosts Return To Haunt Him” – Spiegel’ commentary on the Giletes Jaunes demonstrations in France
“For Macron, for his credibility and authority, which he has orchestrated publicly like few others before him, it is too much. If he ends up having to backtrack on his policies, it will represent a U-turn and a watershed moment for his presidency -- a point from which he will struggle to recover Rather than playing the role of a Jupiter, he would be an Icarus; a man who wished to fly high, but fell. He would have to govern with clipped wings… Almost everything he wanted to accomplish for his country is at stake. Up to this point, he and his government had abided by the principle that no matter what happens, they would stay the course. His aim was nothing less than the "transformation" of France. Everything was to become new, different. But now it appears things could turn out very differently… Many are now talking about the forgotten France, about the rural areas, largely disconnected from public life, where people eke out a grim marginal existence… When Macron traveled through France during his election campaign, he often spoke of the "feeling of degradation" he witnessed in some places. He wanted to fight against it, he said. But perhaps he should have done more to heed his own advice. When people picture him, they don't exactly conjure up images of him visiting remote villages.

"The yellow vests' revolt is also one of the rural areas against Paris, led by French people who, contrary to what is often said about them, do not belong to the middle class. It is the little people, the 'class populaire,' or working class -- those to whom Macron promised social advancement and who voted for him instead of the Socialists in response and helped secure his win. These people feel degraded, even if that is more of a sentiment than reality… If you were to try to sum up the yellow vests, as varied as they may be, one would describe them as pessimists and people who trust nothing, especially not things that take a long time. And democracy takes time. These days, they only rely on themselves -- and, if necessary, on their own capacity for violence. They have also registered that this can be effective given the zig-zagging by a government that appears to be increasingly unstable. It might also be that people in France feel particularly neglected because inequalities seem even crueler in a country that constantly invokes the noble virtue of equality…

"Macron, of all people, is becoming the target of an anger that has been growing for years, and even decades. He is paying for others' mistakes, which is, on the one hand, unfair, but, on the other, understandable.”
A Macron Failure Would Bode Ill for the EU’s Future”, by Wolfgang Muchau, Financial Times, 29Dec18
“The new year promises to be one of important decisions for the EU. The biggest of these will probably not be Brexit but the European parliamentary elections in May and the resulting decisions on the future direction of the EU. The polls will determine whether the balance of power will tilt towards EU reformers, assorted populists or a new group of Nordic decelerators of European integration.

This coalition is also known under the misnomer of the “ new Hanseatic League” and is led by Mark Rutte, prime minister of the Netherlands. The so-called populists stand no chance of taking control of the European Parliament, but they could end up shifting the balance of power in one direction or another…It is too early to conclude that we are staring at the abyss of yet another failed French presidency — he still has time to recover. But that would require a dramatic presidential reboot…

The more immediate issue is whether he can recover in time for the European elections. He might not, and such a failure would probably end any hopes of further European integration for a long time. Without him, there will be nobody else of weight in the European Council to push for it….

If Mr Macron were to fail, the EU would retreat in on itself and become at the mercy of outside forces, China among them. At no point will you hear a loud bang, but you might discern a faint echo of deflating soft power. That said, we Europeans still have a lot going for us. We are liberal and rich, have some of the world’s most beautiful cities, great art and great wine and are vastly over-represented in international institutions. But we are not investing in the future. We are falling behind in innovation and we are getting old. The 2019 elections are about whether the EU can stand on its own in a more hostile world.”
Two Roads for the New French Right” by Mark Lilla, 20Dec18

“Journalists have had trouble imagining that there might be a third force on the right that is not represented by either the establishment parties or the xenophobic populists… In countries as diverse as France, Poland, Hungary, Austria, Germany, and Italy, efforts are underway to develop a coherent ideology that would mobilize Europeans angry about immigration, economic dislocation, the European Union, and social liberalization, and then use that ideology to govern. Now is the time to start paying attention to the ideas of what seems to be an evolving rightwing Popular Front.”
Divided Kingdom: How Brexit is Remaking the UK’s Constitutional Order” by Amanda Sloat, from Brookings

While the media is filled with stories about the last minute game of three way Brexit chicken being played between UK Prime Minister Theresa May, the EU, and the British Parliament (current estimate: Parliamentary vote in favor of draft UK/EU separation treaty fails, after which many outcomes seem possible at this point), Sloat’s analysis is unique and takes a closer look at how the Brexit experience is affecting domestic politics in the UK, and where this could lead.
On 20Dec18, in a widely reported speech to a military conference, “Rear Admiral Lou Yuan has told an audience in Shenzhen that the ongoing disputes over the ownership of the East and South China Seas could be resolved by sinking two US super carriers.”

The Hoover Institution (and partners) released a report on China’s broad attempts to influence domestic American institutions and politics (“Chinese Influence & American Interests: Promoting Constructive Vigilance”). “To achieve its global ambitions it is exercising a new form of power—not the hard power of military force, but not the soft power of transparent persuasion either. Rather, this is "sharp power" that seeks to penetrate the institutions of democracies in ways that are often what a former Australian prime minister called "covert, coercive, or corrupting." We need to learn to recognize these forms of influence and strengthen our institutions to resist them.”

There were a variety of indicators related to concerns about the sharp slowing of China’s economy, including Apple’s earnings miss due to weakening sales in China, widening problems in China’s non-bank financial system (and losses being incurred by the nation’s middle class), and increasing unemployment (e.g., “China Factory Jobs Dry Up as Trade Tensions Hit Manufacturing”, Financial Times 26Dec18). Trade tensions continued to increase, with the CFO of Huawei being arrested at US request (on charges of evading US sanctions on trade with Iran) during a transit stop at Vancouver airport (e.g., “Chinese Elites Reel From Shock of Huawei Executive’s Arrest”, Financial Times 12Dec18).

Finally, in the 17Dec18 Financial Times, Gideon Rachman questioned whether China’s leaders have fully grasped that “there has been a profound bipartisan shift in US thinking” about China, while on 14Dec18 Graham Allison wrote an article in National Affairs titled, “China and Russia: A Strategic Alliance in the Making.” Finally, in his 18Dec18 speech
on the 40th anniversary of Deng Xiaoping’s economic reforms, president Xi Jinping aimed squarely at many Chinese’ resentments over past humiliations when he stated that “No one is in a position to dictate to the Chinese people what should or should not be done.”
All of these are further indicators of worsening of China’s domestic economy and its growing conflict with the United States. While we may yet see some sort of face-saving truce in the trade war between the two nations (which will give US President Trump the public relations victory he seeks), it is very unlikely that this will reverse the current trajectory of Chinese-US relations.
Trump Delivers a Victory to Iran” by Gerecht and Dubowitz

“Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria, concurrently with his intention to drastically reduce the number of American soldiers in Afghanistan and the likely soon-to-be-announced further drawdown of U.S. personnel in Iraq, has made mincemeat of the administration’s efforts to contain Iran. If you add up who wins locally by this decision (the clerical regime in Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, Lebanese Hezbollah, Iraqi Shiite radicals, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo─čan) and who loses (Jordan, Israel, the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds and Sunni Arabs, everyone in Lebanon resisting Hezbollah, the vast majority of the Iraqi Shia, the Gulf States), it becomes clear that the interests of the United States have been routed.”
Pattern Analysis of World Conflict Over the Past 600 Years”, by Martelloni et al (See also, “Trends and Fluctuations in the Severity of Interstate Wars” by Aaron Clauset, and “On the Statistical Properties and Tail Risk of Violent Conflict”, by Cirillo and Taleb)
Previously, Clauset has concluded that, “historical patterns of war seem to imply that the long peace may be substantially more fragile than proponents believe, despite efforts to identify the mechanisms that reduce the likelihood of interstate wars.” Cirillo and Taleb have also found that claims of a drop in the frequency of wars and severity of casualties are not supported, and that previous studies have very likely underestimated tail risks. As Reinhart and Rogoff concluded in their study of eight centuries of financial crises, “this time isn’t different.”

Martelloni’s study adds to this growing body of research. He and his co-authors find that, “he causes of human conflicts remain largely an unresolved subject, especially for the large conflicts that we call “wars.” Historians often tend to see wars arising from specific decisions of human actors, in turn the result of specific economic or political strains pitting nations or social groups against each other.

But another possible interpretation is that wars are related to the structure of the human society as a whole.” Based on data covering 600 years of human conflict, they find that “the number of casualties [normalized for human population at the time] tends to follow a power law, with no evidence of periodicity. We also observe that the number of conflicts, again normalized for the human population, show a decreasing trend as a function of time.

Our result agree with previous analyses on this subject and tend to support the idea that war is a statistical phenomenon related to self-organized criticality in the network structure of the human society” and the behavior of human beings that produces it.”
2019 Index of US Military Strength” by the Heritage Foundation
This new analysis, like similar ones by other organizations (e.g., RAND) documents in detail the decline of relative US hard power versus key military contingencies.
The Eroding Balance of Terror: The Decline of Deterrence” by Andrew Krepinevich in Foreign Affairs

“Deterring aggression has become increasingly difficult, and it stands to become more difficult still, as a result of developments both technological and geopolitical. The era of unprecedented U.S. military dominance that followed the Cold War has ended, leading to renewed competition between the United States and two great revisionist powers, China and Russia. Military competition is expanding to several new domains, from space and cyberspace to the seabed, and new capabilities are making it harder to accurately gauge the military balance of power.

Meanwhile, advances in cognitive science are challenging the theoretical underpinnings of deterrence by upending our understanding of how humans behave in high-risk situations— such as when facing the possibility of war. Taken together, these developments lead to an inescapable—and disturbing—conclusion: the greatest strategic challenge of the current era is neither the return of great-power rivalries nor the spread of advanced weaponry. It is the decline of deterrence.”
How a World Order Ends” by Richard Haas in Foreign Affairs
Haas uses historical analogies to explain the deterioration of the current world order, and where it might lead.

“A stable world order is a rare thing. When one does arise, it tends to come after a great convulsion that creates both the conditions and the desire for something new. It requires a stable distribution of power and broad acceptance of the rules that govern the conduct of international relations. It also needs skillful statecraft, since an order is made, not born. And no matter how ripe the starting conditions or strong the initial desire, maintaining it demands creative diplomacy, functioning institutions, and effective action to adjust it when circumstances change and buttress it when challenges come.

Eventually, inevitably, even the best-managed order comes to an end. The balance of power underpinning it becomes imbalanced. The institutions supporting it fail to adapt to new conditions. Some countries fall, and others rise, the result of changing capacities, faltering wills, and growing ambitions. Those responsible for upholding the order make mistakes both in what they choose to do and in what they choose not to do. But if the end of every order is inevitable, the timing and the manner of its ending are not. Nor is what comes in its wake.”
Understanding the Emerging Era of International Competition” by Mazarr et al from RAND

Mazaar and his colleagues in some ways take up with Haas’ article leaves off. This excellent new report from RAND provides a useful framework for better understanding the evolving world of weaker rules and intensified interstate (and inter-bloc) competition.
Nov18: New National Security Information: Indicators and Surprises
Why Is This Information Valuable?
The Role of AI in Future Warfare”, by Michael O’Hanlon, published by Brookings
Good, concise overview. The author concludes that, “Robotics and AI could take on a central, and very important, role in warfare by 2040—even without anything resembling a terminator or a large killer robot.” Critically, this increases the risk of faster escalation of future conflicts.
U.S.-China Economic And Security Review Commission, 2018 Report To Congress
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission is mandated by Congress to investigate, assess, and report to Congress annually on “the national security implications of the economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.”

This very thorough, 539 page report provides extensive evidence to support key findings that have become familiar but are still critical and in many cases unmet.

Economic Challenges

“China’s state-led, market-distorting economic model presents a challenge to U.S. economic and national security interests. The Chinese government, directed by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership, continues to exercise direct and indirect control over key sectors of the economy and allocate resources based on the perceived strategic value of a given firm or industry. This puts U.S. and other foreign firms at a disadvantage— both in China and globally—when competing against Chinese companies with the financial and political backing of the state.”

“The Chinese government continues to resist—and in some cases reverse progress on—many promised reforms of China’s state led economic model.”

“Chinese President and General Secretary of the CCP Xi Jinping has prioritized efforts to consolidate control over economic policymaking. However, this strategy may have unintended consequences for China’s economic growth. Increased state control over both public and private Chinese companies may ultimately reduce productivity and profits across a range of industries, with firms pursuing CCP—rather than commercial—objectives.”

“China’s debt burden poses a growing threat to the country’s long-term economic stability. Even as Chinese banks’ nonperforming loans rise and unofficial borrowing by local governments comes due, Chinese policymakers continue to spur new credit growth to combat fears of an economic slowdown.”

“The Chinese government structures industrial policies to put foreign firms at a disadvantage and to help Chinese firms. Among the policies the Chinese government uses to achieve its goals are subsidies, tariffs and local content requirements, restrictions on foreign ownership, intellectual property (IP) theft and forced technology transfers, technical standards that promote Chinese technology usage and licensing, and data transfer restrictions.”

“China has reaped tremendous economic benefits from its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO), and participation in the rules-based, market-oriented international order.”

“However, more than 15 years after China’s accession, the Chinese government’s state-driven industrial policies repeatedly violate its WTO commitments and undermine the multilateral trading system, and China is reversing on numerous commitments.”

Security Challenges

“China signaled a decisive end to its more than quarter century- old guidance to ‘hide your capabilities and bide your time, absolutely not taking the lead’ as President Xi issued a series of new foreign affairs and military policy directives calling on China to uncompromisingly defend its interests and actively promote changes to the international order.”

“The United States faces a rising power in China that sees the security structures and political order of the Indo-Pacific as designed to limit its power. The widening gap in military capability between China and the rest of region also enables Beijing to coerce its neighbors with the increasingly credible implied threat of force.”

“Beijing is currently capable of contesting U.S. operations in the ground, air, maritime, and information domains within the second island chain, presenting challenges to the U.S. military’s longstanding assumption of supremacy in these domains in the post-Cold War era.”

“By 2035, if not before, China will likely be able to contest U.S. operations throughout the entire Indo-Pacific region…China’s large-scale investment in next-generation defense technologies presents risks to the U.S. military’s technological superiority. China’s rapid development and fielding of advanced weapons systems would seriously erode historical U.S. advantages in networked, precision strike warfare during a potential Indo-Pacific conflict.”

“China continues to develop and field medium- and long-range air, sea, and ground-launched missile systems that substantially improve China’s capability to strike both fixed and moving targets out to the second island chain. China’s ability to threaten U.S. air bases, aircraft carriers, and other surface ships presents serious strategic and operational challenges for the United States and its allies and partners throughout the Indo-Pacific.”

“Prior to the PLA [Chinese military] achieving its objectives of becoming a “modern” and “world-class” military, Beijing may use coercive tactics below the threshold of military conflict rather than resorting to a highly risky use of military force to achieve its goals in the region. However, as military modernization progresses and Beijing’s confidence in the PLA increases, the danger grows that deterrence will fail and China will use force in support of its claims to regional hegemony.”
A Fifth of China’s Homes Are Empty: That’s 50 Million Apartments”, Bloomberg News, 8Nov18

This article provides further evidence that improvements in China’s military capabilities are occurring at the same time as its financial system and economy’s situation is becoming more fragile and precarious.

“The nightmare scenario for policy makers is that owners of unoccupied dwellings rush to sell if cracks start appearing in the property market, causing prices to spiral. The latest data, from a survey in 2017, also suggests Beijing’s efforts to curb property speculation -- considered by leaders a key threat to financial and social stability -- are coming up short.”

In “China’s Real Estate Market”, Liu and Xiong provide more important background on this issue.

As they note, “The real estate market is not only a key part of the Chinese economy but also an integral component of China’s financial system. In 2017, housing sales totaled 13.37 trillion RMB, equivalent to 16.4% of China’s GDP. The real estate market is also deeply connected to China’s financial system through several important channels.”

“First, housing holdings are the biggest component of Chinese households’ asset portfolios, partly due to a lack of other investment vehicles for both households and firms in China’s still underdeveloped financial markets.”

“Second, China’s local governments heavily rely on land sale revenues and use future land sale revenues as collateral to raise debt financing.”

“Third, firms also rely on real estate assets as collateral to borrow, and since 2007, firms, especially well-capitalized firms, have engaged heavily in acquiring land for investment purposes.”

“Finally, banks are heavily exposed to real estate risks through loans made to households, real estate developers, local governments, and firms that are either explicitly or implicitly backed by real estate assets…”

Through the third quarter of 2016, property-related loans totaled 55 trillion RMB, accounting for about 25% of China’s banking assets. Among these loans, mortgage loans to households accounted for 17.9 trillion, loans to real estate developers accounted for 14.8 trillion (including 7 trillion in regular loans, 6.3 trillion in credit through shadow banking, and 1.5 trillion through domestic bond issuance), and loans collateralized by real estate assets to firms and local governments accounted for 22.2 trillion. This heavy real estate exposure of banks makes the real estate market systemically important in China’s financial system.”
Risks in China’s Financial System”, by Song and Xiong“
The authors argue that while “a financial crisis in China is unlikely to happen in the near future, the ultimate financial risk lies with declining Chinese economic growth.” They point to “a vicious circle of distortions in the financial system has lowered the efficiency of capital allocation and thus economic growth, which will eventually exacerbate financial risks.”
Chinese Influence and American Interests”, published by the Hoover Institution
“For three and a half decades following the end of the Maoist era, China adhered to Deng Xiaoping’s policies of ‘reform and opening to the outside world” and “peaceful development.’

“After Deng retired as paramount leader, these principles continued to guide China’s international behavior in the leadership eras of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao. Admonishing Chinese to ‘keep your heads down and bide your time,’ these Party leaders sought to emphasize that China’s rapid economic development and its accession to “great power” status need not be threatening to either the existing global order or the interests of its Asian neighbors.”

“However, since Party general secretary Xi Jinping came to power in 2012, the situation has changed. Under his leadership, China has significantly expanded the more assertive set of policies initiated by his predecessor Hu Jintao. These policies not only seek to redefine China’s place in the world as a global player, but they also have put forward the notion of a “China option” that is claimed to be a more efficient developmental model than liberal democracy.”

“While Americans are well acquainted with China’s quest for influence through the projection of diplomatic, economic, and military power, we are less aware of the myriad ways Beijing has more recently been seeking cultural and informational influence, some of which could undermine our democratic processes. These include efforts to penetrate and sway—through various methods that former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull summarized as ‘covert, coercive or corrupting’—a range of groups and institutions, including the Chinese American community, Chinese students in the United States, and American civil society organizations, academic institutions, think tanks, and media…”

“China’s influence activities have moved beyond their traditional United Front focus on diaspora communities to target a far broader range of sectors in Western societies, ranging from think tanks, universities, and media to state, local, and national government institutions. China seeks to promote views sympathetic to the Chinese Government, policies, society, and culture; suppress alternative views; and co-opt key American players to support China’s foreign policy goals and economic interests.”
China’s Xi Jinping revives Maoist call for ‘self-reliance’”, Financial Times 12Nov18

Even as Xi has sought to position China as a champion of globalisation amid the US retreat into protectionism, the call for “self-reliance” highlights how he is also advocating mercantilist policies that could reshape global supply chains…
False hopes of trade truce between US and China after the G-20 meeting in Argentina were quickly dashed by the arrest in Vancouver of the CFO of Huawei (on a charge of conspiring to evade US sanctions on Iran), and China’s subsequent threat to impose grave consequences on Canada if she is not released.
Make no mistake. The Second Cold War has begun.

As Ely Ratner notes in Foreign Affairs this month, “There is No Grand Bargain with China”:

“The days when the world’s two largest economies could meet each other halfway have gone. Over the course of his first five-year term, Xi passed up repeated opportunities to avert rivalry with Washington. His increasingly revisionist and authoritarian turn has instead eliminated the possibility of a grand bargain between the United States and China. On most issues of consequence, there is simply no overlap between Xi’s vision for China’s rise and what the United States considers an acceptable future for Asia and the world beyond.”
Change in Post-Putin Russia?” by Andrew Wood, in The American Interest

This is an excellent analysis that should improve investors’ mental model(s) of the forces driving future scenarios for Russia.

“Putinist authoritarian rule has returned Russia to the dilemma confronting the Soviet Union at the end of the Brezhnev era: whether it can rethink or reformulate its fundamental purposes without un-leashing forces that its rulers cannot control.”

“Russia has reverted to a condition comparable to that which led in the end to the fall of the USSR. Today’s Kremlin, like its Soviet predecessor, has proved unable to adequately address the linked questions of how to secure beneficial relationships with the outside world, responsible governance, and stable economic and social development.”

“Putin’s Russia is ruled by an opaque and shifting power structure centered on the Kremlin. It is now devoid of authoritative institutions beyond that framework that would enable Russia to develop into a fully functional or accountable state.” Can this change? Putin’s mission was from the beginning to re-establish “order,” with the recipe of a centralized KGB/FSB as its mandatory magic ingredient. Maintaining such order is still his central purpose, within Russia and beyond it.”

“Putinist authoritarian rule has thereby returned Russia to the dilemma confronting the Soviet Union at the end of the Brezhnev era: whether it can rethink or reformulate its fundamental purposes without unleashing forces that its rulers cannot control. Putin’s Kremlin has in consequence become increasingly determined to centralize decision making and to preserve its hold on power.”

“Rethinking Russia’s options as to its international relations, system of governance, and economic and social policies has thereby over time become more difficult and more risky than it once might have been…Putin has no compelling view as to what new domestic policies he can or should offer his public. That has made the myth of defending a besieged Fortress Russia an essential buttress for his regime.”

“Russia’s governing structures have become predominantly staffed and directed by law enforcement and security agencies (Siloviki). The KGB was never in overall political charge in Brezhnev’s time, or even Andropov’s. It occupied a much-reduced place under Yeltsin. But the FSB in its various guises is now at the undisciplined heart of government under Putin, expressed in a variety of security organs under differing acronyms and troubled by internal rivalries. The link between the Russian security organs and Putin’s preoccupation with Russian nationalism is an essential element in that dominance, a preoccupation naturally shared with Russia’s military organizations.”

“The Siloviki, broadly defined, also have parallel interests in the opportunities for enrichment opened up to them by their role. Those interests extend to cooperation with organized crime groups and working with illegitimate but tolerated vigilante forces.”

“The Siloviki will have their say in determining whoever or whatever succeeds Putin. There may well be divisions among them but it would take a stubborn courage to suppose that any of their leaders might perhaps favor liberalizing reform…Absent a change of direction over the next few years, [the Siloviki] will inherit a Russia weakened by an economy and society troubled by low growth, secured in place by the politically determined structures imposed upon it.”

“It follows from the above account that Russia will not in the predictable future find a way to address the linked questions of how to secure beneficial relations with the outside world, responsible governance, and stable economic and social development.

“Those Russians who fear that a car crash is inevitable sooner or later, and possibly even before 2024, have a persuasive case to make. There are a number who judge that only such a catastrophe will enable Russia to escape from its present travails. If the fear of an imminent internal crisis while Putin is still in charge proves justified, its implications for the West could well prove troubling. That would also be the case if, as seems more plausible, the next Russian leadership proves unable to establish and legitimate its authority.”
“Providing for the Common Defense”, by the independent, non-partisan “Commission on National Defense Strategy for the United States”, established by the US Congress.

This report reviews the 2018 National Defense Strategy published by the Trump Administration.

Its key conclusion is blunt, and needs to be seen in the context of the Report of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

“The security and wellbeing of the United States are at greater risk than at any time in decades. America’s military superiority—the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security—has eroded to a dangerous degree. Rivals and adversaries are challenging the United States on many fronts and in many domains. America’s ability to defend its allies, its partners, and its own vital interests is increasingly in doubt. If the nation does not act promptly to remedy these circumstances, the consequences will be grave and lasting.”
The Power of Nations: Measure What Matters” by Michael Beckley

Most quantitative assessments of relative national power are based on comparisons of gross resources. Beckley argues (and provides evidence) that comparing net resources is a better measure.

Using this metric, he claims that the United States’ net power advantage over China is still substantial. A very thought provoking challenge to a lot of today’s conventional wisdom.

“China may have the world’s biggest economy and military, but it also leads the world in debt; resource consumption; pollution; useless infrastructure and wasted industrial capacity; scientific fraud; internal security spending; border disputes; and populations of invalids, geriatrics, and pensioners. China also uses seven times the input to generate a given level of economic output as the United States and is surrounded by nineteen countries, most of which are hostile toward China, politically unstable, or both. Accounting for even a fraction of these production, welfare, and security costs substantially reduces the significance of China’s rise.”
What Deters, and Why” by Mazarr et al from RAND

Another report from RAND that will improve our mental models of conflict.

“The challenge of deterring territorial aggression, which for several decades has been an afterthought in U.S. strategy toward most regions of the world, is taking on renewed importance. An increasingly belligerent Russia is threatening Eastern Europe and the Baltic States with possible aggression, conventional and otherwise. China is pursuing its territorial ambitions in the East and South China Seas with greater force, including the construction of artificial islands and occasional bouts of outright physical intimidation. North Korea remains a persistent threat to the Republic of Korea (ROK), including the possibility of large-scale aggression using its rapidly advancing nuclear arsenal.”

“Yet the discussion of deterrence—as a theory and practical policy requirement—has lagged in U.S. military and strategy circles. This study aims to provide a fresh look at the subject in this context, with two primary purposes: to review established concepts about deterrence, and to provide a framework for evaluating the strength of deterrent relationships…”

“The study stems from a specific research question: What are the requirements of effective extended deterrence of large-scale military aggression? … Our research highlighted several specific themes about successful extended deterrence, including:”

“Potential aggressors’ motivations are highly complex and typically respond to many variables whose interaction is difficult to anticipate.”

“Generally, opportunism in aggression seems less common than desperation caused by real or perceived threats to security or status.”

“Clarity and consistency of deterrent messaging is essential. Half-hearted commitments to allies risk being misperceived.”

“A ‘firm but flexible’ approach strengthens, rather than weakens, deterrence; leaving an adversary no way out is not an effective way to sustain deterrence. Compromise and concession are typically part of any version of successful extended deterrence of large-scale aggression.”

“Multilateral deterrence contexts are especially dangerous. Deterring an aggressive major power while restraining an ally from taking provocative actions at the same time is extremely difficult…”

“In sum, this analysis suggests that aggressor motivations serve as the first, and in some ways decisive, variable for interstate deterrence outcomes. Weakly motivated aggressors are easy to deter; intensely motivated ones, whose level of threat perception verges on paranoia, can be impossible to deter….”

“This analysis also suggests that clarity in what is to be deterred, and how the United States will respond if deterrence fails is the second essential element of a successful deterrent posture.”
Uncertainty in Western Europe continues to increase.
Brexit confusion has only gotten worse this month. Meanwhile, France is faced with worsening street demonstrations over tax increases (and Macron’s policies more generally); in Germany the CDU party struggles to decide on a successor to Angela Merkel who is sufficiently conservative to slow the growth in support for the (right) populist AfD party without moving so far the the right that they lose support of in the center; and Italy continues to play a game of budget chicken with the EU.
Oct18: New National Security Information: Indicators and Surprises
Why Is This Information Valuable?
Beijing’s Nuclear Option: Why a U.S. – Chinese War Could Spiral Out of Control” by Caitlin Talmadge, in Foreign Affairs (Also, “Would China Go Nuclear?” by Caitlin Talmadge in International Security)

“The odds of a U.S. – Chinese confrontation going nuclear are higher than most policymakers think.”

Chinese nuclear forces are embedded with conventional forces, and thus vulnerable to loss in US deep strike against the latter, which could create a “use them or lose them” situation.
America’s New Attitude Towards China is Changing the Countries’ Relationship” in The Economist 18Oct18
A broadly-based interdependence ties Beijing’s pigs to Iowa’s fields, interweaves supply chains and distribution networks across the Pacific and has seen copious Chinese investment in America. That had, until recently, led observers in both China and America to think attitudes like Mr. Trump’s could be nothing but bluster.”

“Though relations might be testy from time to time, the economic logic which favoured getting along was simply too strong to ignore. But American unease about China’s growing technological heft, increasing authoritarianism and military strength is now overriding that logic.”

“America is undergoing a deep shift in its thinking about China on right and left alike. There is a new consensus that China has a deliberate strategy to push America back and impose its will abroad, and that there needs to be a strong American response”.

Meanwhile in China, “Well-connected scholars and retired officials have shared their concerns with Western contacts about a febrile mood within China’s national security establishment. They detect genuine excitement over the prospect of a great-power contest in which China is one of the protagonists. This coincides worryingly with the squeezing of public space for discussion. Scholars are not now supposed to debate foreign policy in the open, and strident nationalists dominate what debate there is.”

“Even the idea of an expensive arms race with America strikes some Chinese experts as a fine plan, given their confidence in the long-run potential of their economy. In this dangerous moment, blending grievance and cockiness, it seems astonishing to remember that less than a generation ago Chinese leaders assured the world that they sought only a ‘peaceful rise’.”
Many stories about China’s mass detention of several hundred thousand to more than one million Muslim Uighurs in the western province of Xinjiang
China has stopped denying, and is now defending its actions in Xinjiang, calling the camps “vocational and educational training centers”. This further worsens China’s relationship with Western nations, and especially the US.
China Faces a Debt Iceberg Threat, Warns Rating Agency”, Financial Times, 16Oct18
“China could be facing a “debt iceberg with titanic credit risks” following a boom in infrastructure projects at local governments around the country, rating agency S&P Global has warned.”

“Local governments could have accrued a debt pile hidden off their balance sheet as high as Rmb30tn to Rmb40tn ($4.5tn to $6tn) following “rampant” growth in borrowings, said S&P Global.”

“The mounting debt in so-called local government financing vehicles, or LGFVs, hit an “alarming” 60 per cent of China’s gross domestic product at the end of last year and was expected to lead to increasing defaults at companies connected to small governments across the country.”
This month saw more indicator stories about protests by Chinese homeowners angry at falling prices; by parents angry at the education system; and by veterans angry at their treatment. (The Economist has a story about the broader context of these protests (“Why Protests are So Common in China”) and concludes that they are all indicators of rising social stress.
Protests add to pressure on the Chinese government to stimulate the economy, despite already high debt levels and the declining marginal productivity of debt (the amount of GDP growth produced by additional amounts of debt).

While Xi Jinping appears to be firmly in control, protests indicate an underlying level of dissatisfaction, which, at some point, could support rapid change in China.
Danger: Falling Powers” by Hal Brands

“We often lose sight of a different pathway to great-power war, for peril may emerge when a country that has been rising, eagerly anticipating its moment in the sun, peaks and begins to decline before its ambitions have been fulfilled. The sense that a revisionist power’s geopolitical window of opportunity is closing, that its leaders cannot readily deliver the glories they have promised the population, can trigger rashness and risk-taking that a country more confident in its long-term trajectory would avoid.”
China’s Coming Financial Crisis and the National Security Connection” by Stephen Joske
This article offers a scenario that is an example of Brand’s thesis.
Improving C2 and Situational Awareness for Operations in and Through the Information Environment” by Paul et al from the RAND Corporation
Noting that “defeat is a cognitive outcome” RAND analyzes the extent to which information operations (IO) in the information environment (IE) have been integrated with situation awareness and operations in the land, sea, air, and space environments. The authors conclude that the integration of IE situation awareness and operations with the other environments has, up to now, been weak.

This echoes findings from Defense Science Board 2018 Summer Study on “Cyber as a Strategic Capability”, which concluded that, “Current cyber strategy is stalled, self-limiting, and focused on tactical outcomes. The DoD must build and adopt a comprehensive cyber strategy.”
US Vice President Mike Pence’s 4Oct18 speech at the Hudson Institute

Pence effectively declared a new Cold War with China. His speech complemented the new US National Security Strategy that describes “a new era of great power competition.”

“America had hoped that economic liberalization would bring China into a greater partnership with us and with the world. Instead, China has chosen economic aggression, which has in turn emboldened its growing military.”

“Nor, as we had hoped, has Beijing moved toward greater freedom for its own people. For a time, Beijing inched toward greater liberty and respect for human rights. But in recent years, China has taken a sharp U-turn toward control and oppression of its own people”

“By 2020, China’s rulers aim to implement an Orwellian system premised on controlling virtually every facet of human life — the so-called “Social Credit Score.” In the words of that program’s official blueprint, it will “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven, while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”

While there have been many indicators that a return to the previous relationship between China and the United States is increasingly unlikely, this speech was a surprisingly blunt statement that the US administration’s view that the relationship will be characterized by higher levels of conflict in the years ahead.
Interagency Task Force Report: “Assessing and Strengthening the Manufacturing and Defense Industrial Base and Supply Chain Resiliency of the United States

Also: GAO Report: “Weapons Systems Cybersecurity
This new report found significant vulnerabilities, particularly dependence on foreign made components (including components manufactured in China), as well as weakening worker capabilities in the United States.

The GAO concluded that, "The Department of Defense (DOD) faces mounting challenges in protecting its weapon systems from increasingly sophisticated cyber threats. This state is due to the computerized nature of weapon systems; DOD’s late start in prioritizing weapon systems cybersecurity; and DOD’s nascent understanding of how to develop more secure weapon systems. DOD weapon systems are more software dependent and more networked than ever before.”

“Automation and connectivity are fundamental enablers of DOD’s modern military capabilities. However, they make weapon systems more vulnerable to cyber attacks. Although GAO and others have warned of cyber risks for decades, until recently, DOD did not prioritize weapon systems cybersecurity. Finally, DOD is still determining how best to address weapon systems cybersecurity.”
Sep18: New National Security Information: Indicators and Surprises
Why Is This Information Valuable?
In addition to headlines about the growing China-US trade war, (and to a lesser extent high Chinese debt/GDP and the fragility of its shadow banking system), other stories appeared in September, including growing frustrations as increasing automation produces rising layoffs, repression of Marxist student movements that have attempted to unionize workers, protests by People’s Liberation Army veterans over their treatment, and parental anger over school crowding.
As summarized by George Magnus in his new book, “Red Flags: Why Xi’s China is in Jeopardy”, increasing use of repression in China – from growing use of surveillance technology to Uyghur concentration camps to forced acquisitions of private companies by state owned companies – comes in response to evidence of growing dissatisfaction within the nation. In the context of Chinese history, this is a pattern that repeats. These indicators provide a reminder that as China-US conflict increases, its domestic problems are also serious.
China Doesn’t Want to Play by the World’s Rules: Beijing's plans are much bigger than the trade war.” By Abigail Grace

“Securing economic growth is a question of existential importance for Xi and his comrades. The Chinese Communist Party knows that it must deliver a higher quality of life to Chinese citizens in order to retain popular support—or else increase repression of internal dissent.

Xi has personally staked out hypernationalist positions and silenced any opposition to his authority, thereby increasing his own personal culpability for losses in a trade war. In fact, rumors that Xi could be facing domestic political trouble have abounded in recent weeks, raising questions about the costs of his shift away from the collective leadership model.

China’s leadership knows that addressing the U.S.-China trade imbalance is a personal priority for
Trump and is priming its own population for a long and ugly fight.

Despite U.S. pressure, China remains committed to its own economic agenda because it believes that achieving technological supremacy today will enable it to write tomorrow’s rules…As long as Chinese leaders
think that the key to winning tomorrow is dominating today’s technology through all means short of war, they will remain unwilling to address the structural issues driving economic tensions between the United States and China.”
An insightful compliment to Magnus’ book, that helps to develop a better mental model of the various forces driving Chinese behavior, that could push us closer to, or away from, potential critical national security thresholds.
The Perfect Weapon: War, Sabotage, and Fear in the Cyber Age” by David Sanger “Bluntly, there are no effective laws which govern cyberhacking originating in St Petersburg or Shanghai— or, for that matter, in Tehran or Pyongyang”
Further evidence of the profound change that is occurring in the nature of international conflict, which has substantially heightened uncertainty and the potential for non-linear events with substantial negative impact.
Assessment of the Role of Cyber Power in Interstate Conflict” by Eric Altamura.

“To understand how actors attack computer systems and networks to accomplish limited objectives during war, one must first identify what states actually seek to accomplish in cyberspace… Achieving such an advantage requires targeting the key functions and assets in cyberspace that enable states to accomplish political objectives…To deny an opponent the ability to utilize cyberspace for its own purposes, states can either attack information directly or target the means by which the enemy communicates its information.

Once an actor achieves uncontested use of cyberspace, it can subsequently control or manipulate information for its own limited purposes, particularly by preventing the escalation of war toward its total form…access to information through networked communications systems provides a decisive advantage to military forces by allowing for “analyses and synthesis across a variety of domains” that enables rapid and informed decision-making at all echelons. The greater a decision advantage one military force has over another, the less costly military action becomes.

Secondly, the ubiquity of networked information technologies creates an alternative way for actors to affect targets that would otherwise be politically, geographically, or normatively infeasible to target with physical munitions.
Finally, actors can mask their activities in cyberspace, which makes attribution difficult. This added layer of ambiguity enables face-saving measures by opponents, who can opt to not respond to attacks overtly without necessarily appearing weak.

In essence, cyber power has become particularly useful for states as a tool for preventing conflict escalation, as an opponent’s ability to respond to attacks becomes constrained when denied access to communication networks.
Societies’ dependence on information technology and resulting vulnerability to computer network attacks continues to increase, indicating that interstate violence may become much more prevalent in the near term if aggressors can use cyberattacks to decrease the likelihood of escalation by an adversary.”

This article caused me to expand my mental model based on a more detailed understanding of the logic that could guide nations’ use of cyberweapons in future conflicts, and how a cyber advantage could actually lead to an increased probability of kinetic conflict.
How China’s Middle Class Views the Trade War”, by Cheng Li in Foreign Affairs.
Up to now the middle class has quietly criticized Xi; but harsher trade sanctions may shift them to blaming Trump.
National Will to Fight” by McNerney et al from RAND Corporation

The authors “define national will to fight as the determination of a national government to conduct sustained military and other operations for some objective even when the expectation of success decreases or the need for significant political, economic, and military sacrifices increases.” They also note that it is “poorly analyzed and the least understood aspect of war.” This initial study is the beginning of an attempt to change that, and improve our mental models for thinking about this critical issue.
Clash of Civilizations – Or Clash Within Civilizations?” by Cropsey and Halem in The American Interest

On the 25th anniversary of the publication of Samuel Huntington’s classic essay on “The Clash of Civilizations”, the authors analyze how well this concept has stood the test of time, and how it needs to be modified to better understand interstate conflict drivers in today’s world, including conflicts within and not just between civilizations. It should provide a significant improvement to many people’s mental models of international competition and conflict. It also integrates well with RAND’s “National Will to Fight.”