Defense Budget Addresses Major Challenges

For a number of years following the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States faced comparatively weak opponents. Washington’s armed forces were far more advanced than any opponent.

That began to change when China, its technology developed through both its own efforts and the intellectual property theft and outright espionage it successfully engaged in, and the vast financial resources it brought to bear, resulted in a vast, first-rate military. Recently, China has fielded its first aircraft carrier, demonstrated its ability to shoot down satellites, continued to field short, medium, and long-range missiles, successfully tested hypersonic glide vehicles, and modernized and expanded its nuclear capabilities.

Vladimir Putin dramatically upgraded and modernized Russia’s conventional armed forces, as well as fielding the planet’s most potent nuclear arsenal. In the second decade of the 21^st century, Moscow engaged in a $723 billion modernization program that included procuring 1,700 warplanes, including cutting edge fighters and new air defense batteries. The Voice of Russia reported that Moscow revamped its air force with many new craft. In 2016, Spacewar reported that “A total of eight Borey-class submarines are planned to join the Russian Navy by 2020 to be the backbone of Russia’s marine nuclear forces. The first three have been launched, and another three are currently under construction. By 2020, the Russian Navy also plans to operate a total of eight Borei-class nuclear-powered ballistic-missile submarines, which will become the mainstay of the naval component of the country’s strategic nuclear deterrent.” Russia is upgrading other subs with Kalibr cruise missiles…Moscow’s innovative undersea fleet is getting a further upgrade through the development of ‘fifth generation submarines,’ unmanned nuclear vessels with advanced stealth, noise-reduction, automated reconnaissance and warning systems.”

In the far east, The Associated Press noted, the Kremlin’s military will deploy state-of-the art Bal and Bastion anti-ship missile systems and new drones will be deployed. The Arctic region is also receiving substantial attention.

The Beijing and Moscow developments are all the more troubling since the two military giants are virtually united in their opposition to the United States. Russia, the planet’s geographically largest nation, and China, with the world’s largest population, have combined their strengths in an alliance clearly aimed at the United States. The two enormous states have engaged in extensive joint military exercises across the globe, have engaged in sales of military equipment, and have covered for each other’s military misdeeds in diplomatic forums.

In their study of this extraordinary alliance, Douglas Schoen and Melik Kaylan in their book “The Russian-China Axis” described the cooperation between the two giant states: “Militarily, the two nations are cooperating and collaborating like never before…Put simply, this coalition has the potential to permanently and fundamentally alter international relations. It was envisioned as, and it has functioned as, a counterweight to liberal democracy generally and the United States specifically…The Russia-China alliance—we call it a new Axis—already possesses extraordinary power, as it is clear not just with new economic and trade agreements and military cooperation but also in the areas of nuclear proliferation and cyber warfare. Individually and together, Russia and China seek to undermine the social, economic, and political framework of democratic societies and our alliances in a way that has yet to be fully understood. Their efforts to do so are emboldened immeasurably by a United States that is losing the confidence and trust of its allies and partners around the world. “

Counter-intuitively, while this was occurring, the United States actually reduced military spending during the Obama Administration. The resulting danger is undeniable, and the Pentagon is forced into a catch-up position.

Deputy Defense Secretary David L. Norquist worries that “erosion of our competitive edge against China and Russia continues to be DOD’s central problem. To preserve peace, we must prepare for the high-end fight against near-peer competitors. While counterterrorism will continue as a core challenge, future conflicts with other nations will likely be radically different than wars fought since the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

In response, the Pentagon’s proposed 2020 $718 billion budget, according to Norquist, provides funding for several key areas, according to Norquist, including:

It significantly increases the investments in space and cyberspace as warfighting domains.
It makes investments in the air, land and sea domains to modernize the force and includes the largest shipbuilding request in 20 years.
It puts emphasis on innovation, such as artificial intelligence, hypersonics and unmanned vehicles.
It invests in developing and experimenting with and prototyping to build out and prepare for future conflicts. The research and development program has a significant funding increase.

Last Longer Pills Naturally Increasing Sperm CountWhen you are trying to expand your female libido then here herbal tadalafil 10mg uk work to build libido as well as help the development of all the obliged female sex hormones in the body. It is viagra properien Get More Info manufactured in seven different fruity flavors. Age is also a contributing factor with vision problems if you are taking generic tadalafil 20mg . All you have to do is select a reliable online pharmacy store that has the accreditation to sell FDA-approved drugs only. viagra active

Photo: Chinese Defense Ministry

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.