The Peninsula Foundation

Blog

  • The Shame and The Pain

    The Shame and The Pain

    A prominent historian is working on a book about AIPAC and interviewed me. Although they’re fairly mainstream, it was clear from their questions that this will be an exposé focused heavily on AIPAC’s interference in U.S. elections, beginning in the late 1990s.

    I told them everything I knew. My memories from that era come not from working at AIPAC—which I did from 1982 to 1986—but from my time on Capitol Hill, where I dealt with them regularly as a staffer.

    Although even during my time there, I witnessed them arranging the shipment of cash deliveries to favoured candidates, that was nothing compared to the $1.6 million they give to House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries alone now! (In case you are wondering why the #1 Democrat in Congress refuses to endorse Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of his own city).

    I won’t go into what I said.

    Anyone who reads my Substack already knows what I think: that AIPAC’s existence has inflicted incalculable harm on the United States, on American Jews, on Israel’s long-term survival as a Jewish homeland, and on Judaism. I didn’t even need to mention the damage—”harm” is too soft a word—done to the Palestinian people.

    AIPAC is not merely complicit in genocide; if AIPAC did not exist, Joe Biden would have stopped it before it started, not because he isn’t a true-blue Israel lover but because (I think) even for him, genocide is a bridge too far. He could have ended it with a single phone call, the way President Reagan ended the bombing of Beirut. (PLEASE read Reagan’s diary entry here.)

    I also made clear that I didn’t always feel this way. I left AIPAC amicably in 1986. I was the most dovish person on staff, but I didn’t leave in protest.

    I left simply for another job. It was 10 years before I realised what AIPAC was, but it was another four years before I came to understand what Israel is. 

    That was in 2000 when Prime Minister Ehud Barak sabotaged the Oslo peace process that Yitzhak Rabin had launched. Instead of following through with a withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem in exchange for peace and normalisation, Barak offered noncontiguous slices of land that could never constitute anything remotely like a Palestinian state.

    Cheering him on was the U.S. “peace team,” led by Dennis Ross, a fervent Zionist, who worked hand in glove with their Israeli counterparts. The Palestinians—who naively thought they were negotiating with the Israelis, with the US serving as mediators—sensed, and then saw the evidence, that they were negotiating with a combined US-Israel team. One team: all Zionists.

    In fact, President Clinton had privately assured Barak that if the summit failed, he’d pin the blame on the Palestinians no matter who was responsible. He kept that promise—and later came to regret it.

    That’s when I began to reexamine everything I thought I knew about Israel. That process hasn’t stopped. Today, I support a single democratic state for all the people of Israel and Palestine—equal rights, no state religion but freedom of religion or no religion for all, security guaranteed by an international force like NATO.

    None of this will surprise anyone who reads me.

    But during the interview, the historian asked a question that caught me off guard. He said he found my career interesting—he was impressed I’d discussed the Middle East and AIPAC with every Democratic president since Carter—and wanted to know which part of my career I was most proud of.

    I gave a modest but truthful answer because the truth is, I never held any power. I was never important but had some influence at the margins—nothing more. But I told him honestly: this is the part of my career I’m proudest of. I’m retired. No one pays me a salary. I don’t “do meetings” on the Hill or the White House.

    I’m just proud that I was smart enough to recognise that what I’d believed for most of my life was propaganda, grounded in ethnic identity, not facts.

    The Six-Day War made me a Zionist. I stayed one for 33 years. Then it ended. I’ve been to Israel dozens of times. I loved Tel Aviv. But I doubt I’ll ever go back—unless, by some miracle, Israel becomes a real democracy for both peoples. At 77, I don’t expect to see that. Nor, I expect, will anyone else.

    These are terrible times. My own country has been captured by a racist, fascist clique—a nonmilitary junta. And Israel, a country I once loved, has become an international pariah, deservedly so, for its genocidal war in Gaza and 58 years of occupation in the West Bank.

    Judaism—for thousands of years a light in a dark world—has been stained by the crimes committed in its name, and in the name of the Jewish people. And yet, it will survive and flourish. As most Jews outside the (10%) Orthodox minority turn away from Israel, many—especially the young—are rediscovering the richness of Jewish culture and faith on their own terms.

    I myself have one source of peace, besides family and friends: I woke up in time. I saw through the lies. And I’ve raised my small voice against one of the great crimes of any century—the destruction of Palestine. Feeling good about oneself at this age is no small thing.

    The truth does set you free.

    But it does nothing to ease the shame and the pain.

    This article was published earlier in Scheerpost.

    Feature Image: Amnestyusa

  • 80 Years of Lies: The US Finally Admits it knew it didn’t Need to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    80 Years of Lies: The US Finally Admits it knew it didn’t Need to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    As we commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, the world is drifting as close to another nuclear confrontation as it has been in decades.

    With Israeli and American attacks on Iranian nuclear energy sites, India and Pakistan going to war in May, and escalating violence between Russia and NATO-backed forces in Ukraine, the shadow of another nuclear war looms large over daily life.

    EIGHTY YEARS OF LIES

    The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was a power play, intended to strike fear into the hearts of world leaders, especially in the Soviet Union and China.

    The United States remains the only nation to have dropped an atomic bomb in anger. While the dates of August 6 and August 9, 1945, are seared into the popular conscience of all Japanese people, those days hold far less salience in American society.

    When discussed at all in the U.S., this dark chapter in human history is usually presented as a necessary evil, or even a day of liberation—an event that saved hundreds of thousands of lives, prevented the need for an invasion of Japan, and ended the Second World War early. This, however, could not be further from the truth.

    American generals and war planners agreed that Japan was on the point of collapse, and had, for weeks, been attempting to negotiate a surrender. The decision, then, to incinerate hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians was one taken to project American power across the world, and to stymie the rise of the Soviet Union.

    “It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse,” General Henry Arnold, Commanding General of the U.S. Army Air Forces in 1945, wrote in his 1949 memoirs.

    “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages” – Gen Hap Arnold

    Arnold was far from alone in this assessment. Indeed, Fleet Admiral William Leahy, the Navy’s highest-ranking officer during World War II, bitterly condemned the United States for its decision and compared his own country to the most savage regimes in world history.

    As he wrote in 1950:

    “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

    By 1945, Japan had been militarily and economically exhausted. Losing key allies Italy in 1943 and Germany by May 1945, and facing the immediate prospect of an all-out Soviet invasion of Japan, the country’s leaders were frantically pursuing peace negotiations. Their only real condition appeared to be that they wished to keep as a figurehead the emperor—a position that, by some accounts, dates back more than 2,600 years.

    “I am convinced,” former President Herbert Hoover wrote to his successor, Harry S. Truman, “if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan—tell them they can have their emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists—you’ll get a peace in Japan—you’ll have both wars over.”

    Many of Truman’s closest advisors told him the same thing. “I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb,” said John McCloy, Truman’s Assistant Secretary of War.

    “The war might have ended weeks earlier,” he said, “If the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” – Gen Douglas MacArthur

    Nevertheless, Truman initially took an absolutist position, refusing to hear any Japanese negotiating caveats. This stance, according to General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of Allied Forces in the Pacific, actually lengthened the war. “The war might have ended weeks earlier,” he said, “If the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor.” Truman, however, dropped two bombs, then reversed his position on the emperor, in order to stop Japanese society from falling apart.

    At that point in the war, however, the United States was emerging as the sole global superpower and enjoyed an unprecedented position of influence. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan underscored this; it was a power play, intended to strike fear into the hearts of world leaders, especially in the Soviet Union and China.

    FIRST JAPAN, THEN THE WORLD

    “Japan was already defeated, and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…[it was] no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face.” – President Ike Eisenhower

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki drastically curbed the U.S.S.R.’s ambitions in Japan. Joseph Stalin’s forces had invaded and permanently annexed Sakhalin Island in 1945 and planned to occupy Hokkaido, Japan’s second-largest island. The move likely prevented the island nation from coming under the Soviet sphere of influence.

    To this day, Japan remains deeply tied to the U.S., economically, politically, and militarily. There are around 60,000 U.S. troops in Japan, spread across 120 military bases.

    Many in Truman’s administration wished to use the atom bomb against the Soviet Union as well. President Truman, however, worried that the destruction of Moscow would lead the Red Army to invade and destroy Western Europe as a response. As such, he decided to wait until the U.S. had enough warheads to completely destroy the U.S.S.R. and its military in one fell swoop.

    War planners estimated this figure to be around 400. To that end, Truman ordered the immediate ramping up of production. Such a strike, we now know, would have caused a nuclear winter that would have permanently ended all organised life on Earth.

    The decision to destroy Russia was met with stiff opposition among the American scientific community. It is now widely believed that Manhattan Project scientists, including Robert J. Oppenheimer himself, passed nuclear secrets to Moscow in an effort to speed up their nuclear project and develop a deterrent to halt this doomsday scenario. This part of history, however, was left out of the 2023 biopic movie.

    By 1949, the U.S.S.R. was able to produce a credible nuclear deterrent before the U.S. had produced sufficient quantities for an all-out attack, thus ending the threat and bringing the world into the era of mutually assured destruction.

    “Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated,” concluded a 1946 report from the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.

    Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and future president, was of the same opinion, stating that:

    “Japan was already defeated, and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary…[it was] no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face.”

    Nevertheless, both Truman and Eisenhower publicly toyed with the idea of using nuclear weapons against China to stop the rise of Communism and to defend their client regime in Taiwan. It was only the development of a Chinese warhead in 1964 that led to the end of the danger, and, ultimately, the détente era of good relations between the two powers that lasted until President Obama’s Pivot to Asia.

    Ultimately, then, the people of Japan were the collateral damage in a giant U.S. attempt to project its power worldwide. As Brigadier General Carer Clarke, head of U.S. intelligence on Japan wrote, “When we didn’t need to do it, and we knew we didn’t need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn’t need to do it, we used them [Japanese citizens] as an experiment for two atomic bombs.”

    TIPTOEING CLOSER TO ARMAGEDDON

    The danger of nuclear weapons is far from over. Today, Israel and the United States – two nations with atomic weaponry – attack Iranian nuclear facilities. Yet their continued, hyper-aggressive actions against their foes only suggest to other countries that, unless they too possess weapons of mass destruction, they will not be safe from attack. North Korea, a country with a conventional and nuclear deterrent, faces no such air strikes from the U.S. or its allies. These actions, therefore, will likely result in more nations pursuing nuclear ambitions.

    Earlier this year, India and Pakistan (two more nuclear-armed states) came into open conflict thanks to disputes over terrorism and Jammu and Kashmir. Many influential individuals on both sides of the border were demanding their respective sides launch their nukes – a decision that could also spell the end of organised human life. Thankfully, cooler heads prevailed.

    Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine continues, with NATO forces urging President Zelensky to up the ante. Earlier this month, President Trump himself reportedly encouraged the Ukrainian leader to use his Western-made weapons to strike Moscow.

    It is precisely actions such as these that led the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists to move its famous Doomsday Clock to 89 seconds to midnight, the closest the world has ever been to catastrophe.

    “The war in Ukraine, now in its third year, looms over the world; the conflict could become nuclear at any moment because of a rash decision or through accident or miscalculation,” they wrote in their explanation, adding that conflicts in Asia could spiral out of control into a wider war at any point, and that nuclear powers are updating and expanding their arsenals.

    The Pentagon, too, is recruiting Elon Musk to help it build what it calls an American Iron Dome. While this move is couched in defensive language, such a system – if successful – would grant the U.S. the ability to launch nuclear attacks anywhere in the world without having to worry about the consequences of a similar response.

    Thus, as we look back at the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 years ago, we must understand that not only were they entirely avoidable, but that we are now closer to a catastrophic nuclear confrontation than many people realise.

     

    This article was published earlier in MintPress News and is republished under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.

    Feature Image: Hiroshima, several months after the atomic bombing. Air Force photo from national archives nsarchive.gwu.edu

     

  • A P J Abdul Kalam – People’s President

    A P J Abdul Kalam – People’s President

    The country remembers President A P J Abdul Kalam, the people’s president on his 10th death anniversary. APJ Abdul Kalam captured the imagination of young people like no other president had before. He made us believe in ourselves and think the sky was never too high. He dreamed of things that never were and wondered why not? As a nation, we constantly come up short, but that did not deter Kalam. He made it his life mission to exhort the young to greatness. India’s young will miss him.
    July 27th is the death anniversary of former President APJ ABDUL KALAM. He died this day seven years ago. He died on his feet while delivering a lecture at the Indian Institute of Management, Shillong, exhorting young people to a new vision of India to the end.
    Avul Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam had little in common with his predecessors. He did not have the educational attainments of Radhakrishnan, Zakir Hussain and Sharma, who were genuine PhDs from top-notch institutions. Kalam just had a science degree and an aeronautical engineering diploma from Madras University. He did not have the political training of Presidents like Rajendra Prasad, VV Giri and Pranab Mukherjee, whose political and constitutional understanding was tested in politically uncertain times. His entire professional lifetime was spent in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
    The DRDO has not exactly distinguished itself in any great way. The sum of its failures is far greater than its achievements. Some its failures are most notable. The Arjun main battle tank is still bumbling along. The nuclear submarine project, delivered decades too late, still faces uncertainty. The Light Combat Aircraft is just the late combat aircraft; so late that it will be obsolete when it enters service in the next decade. Even the 5.56 mm basic infantry combat weapon is a bit of a dud, requiring the frequent import of AK-47 rifles, much to the delight of Delhi’s arms agents.
    Kalam had earned a reputation as the father of India’s missile program. That might be so, but the offspring are nothing worth writing home about. Our missile program is so far behind times that even the North Koreans, a woebegone and desolate country where people still die of starvation, are ahead of us. Like the Pakistanis, even we would have been better off buying North Korean missiles like the Nodong (Pak name Ghauri), like the Pakistanis have. Many also credit Kalam as being the father of India’s nuclear weapons program. That program has, mercifully, had little to do with the DRDO and is almost entirely an Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) show.
    There is much that is admirable about Kalam. He was honest to the core. He was erudite. He knew Sanskrit. He translated the Thirukural from Tamil into English. He was a nationalist with few peers. He only lived for India.
    What then was Kalam’s kamaal? Clearly, Kalam was no Werner von Braun, who designed the Nazi V-1 and V-2 rockets and then led America’s manned flight foray into space with Alan Shepard’s sub-orbital flight. He most certainly is no Kurchatkov, who pioneered the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons program. But he inspired by his sense of hope and ambition.
    Yet he is clearly among the best of the Presidents we have had, particularly in recent times. I had the pleasure of being invited by him a few times for one-on-one discussions on Bihar, a state with which he was particularly concerned. He publicly asked several times: “How can India move forward, leaving behind Bihar?” There is much that is admirable about Kalam. He was honest to the core. He was erudite. He knew Sanskrit. He translated the Thirukural from Tamil into English. He was a nationalist with few peers. He only lived for India.
    He was also a bachelor and so with no offspring like Zail Singh’s grandson, who shot pigeons in the Rashtrapati Bhavan, or R.Venkatraman’s NRI daughter, who plonked herself there to collect money for her NGO, or like Shankar Dayal Sharma’s grandson, Manu Sharma, who stands convicted of murdering Jessica Lal. The less said for Pratibha Patil, the better. Ramnath Kovind and Draupadi Murmu carry the burden of millennia of oppression and ostracism with quiet dignity, but little more.
    But for a modest man with mostly modest achievements, APJ Abdul Kalam captured the imagination of young people like no other president had before. He made us believe in ourselves and think the sky was never too high. He dreamed of things that never were and wondered why not? As a nation, we constantly come up short, but that did not deter Kalam. He made it his life mission to exhort the young to greatness. India’s young will miss him.
    Opinions expressed are the author’s own.
  • India–U.S. Ties Beyond the Trump Show

    India–U.S. Ties Beyond the Trump Show

    With its deep institutional roots and strategic clarity, the India–U.S. relationship is well-positioned to advance further, driven not by transient rhetoric but by enduring common purpose

    U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions about mediating a ceasefire between India and Pakistan have reignited long-standing apprehensions surrounding external involvement in the Kashmir issue. His remarks, including those referenced during a U.S. court hearing in May 2025—where U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick testified that the Trump administration’s trade policies helped avert a potential nuclear confrontation in South Asia—were met with widespread criticism from strategic experts and policymakers alike. New Delhi has remained steadfast in its position: the issue of Jammu and Kashmir is strictly bilateral and not subject to international mediation.

    Diaspora Influence and Institutional Depth

    Despite Trump’s controversial rhetoric, the India–U.S. relationship has matured well beyond the influence of individual leaders. It now stands as a robust, multi-dimensional partnership, underpinned by shared strategic interests, deepening economic ties, and strong people-to-people linkages. This is evident through the formalization of the relationship via key agreements and strategic initiatives. Today, it is regarded as a promising and one of the most consequential partnerships of the 21st century, given its potential to reshape the dynamics of the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. Moreover, this strength is particularly reflected in the vibrant Indian diaspora in the United States—numbering over four million—one of the most educated and affluent immigrant communities in the country, playing an increasingly influential role in shaping policy.

     

    The diaspora’s clout in U.S. policymaking has grown remarkably. A striking example of this influence was witnessed during the COVID-19 crisis in 2021. At a critical juncture, when the Biden administration had imposed export restrictions on essential medical supplies, Indian-Americans mounted an organized lobbying campaign. Their efforts succeeded in convincing the administration to reverse the ban and dispatch critical medical equipment and raw materials for vaccines to India. This intervention demonstrated the community’s capacity to influence key policy decisions at the highest levels. Their role is not limited to crisis management. The Indian-American community has been instrumental in advancing landmark initiatives such as the U.S.–India civil nuclear agreement, and today, many Indian-Americans serve in influential roles within the U.S. government. This diaspora acts as a cultural and strategic bridge, enhancing bilateral understanding and reinforcing long-term cooperation.

    The evolving India–U.S. partnership is bolstered by a diverse and committed set of stakeholders,including government institutions, private enterprises, think tanks, academic bodies, and civil society in both nations. Crucially, U.S. institutions such as the State Department and Congress continue to regard India as a vital strategic partner, particularly in the context of the Indo-Pacific strategy and broader efforts to counterbalance China’s growing regional influence. These institutions take a long-term, bipartisan approach to India–U.S. relations, one that is grounded in continuity and strategic alignment rather than reactive or transactional impulses, such as those reflected in Trump’s pronouncements.

    Strategic Continuity

    Trump’s leadership style has often been described as transactional, business-oriented, and self-promoting. He frequently projects himself as a master negotiator and dealmaker, but many of his actions suggest otherwise. His tendency to prematurely claim success and take credit has often weakened his own negotiating position, whether in the context of Ukraine, North Korea, Iran, or South Asia. For instance, Trump repeatedly announced breakthroughs in negotiations between Russia and Ukraine that never materialized, thereby weakening his credibility and diminishing his effectiveness as a serious diplomatic actor.

    While Trump’s erratic rhetoric may generate headlines, it is critical not to exaggerate its impact on this deeply rooted relationship. His habitual tendency to seek the spotlight and amplify his personal role in global diplomacy often lacked substantive backing or long-term vision.

    In the case of India and Pakistan, Trump’s attempt to “hyphenate” the relationship—suggesting he could broker a deal between both nations—ignored the decades-long efforts by previous U.S. administrations to de-hyphenate the ties and treat each relationship on its own strategic merits. His statement that “they’ve been fighting for 1,500 years” reveals a superficial understanding of South Asian geopolitics and history. Such remarks reflect a lack of diplomatic nuance and strategic depth.

    In contrast, previous U.S. presidents devoted sustained efforts toward cultivating strategic trust with India—especially in light of their fraught Cold War history and the lingering presence of anti-American sentiment within Indian political and intellectual circles. During this era, American foreign policy toward India embodied a form of strategic altruism, emphasizing long-term engagement grounded in mutual respect rather than immediate concessions or gains. Successive administrations—Republican and Democratic alike, including Trump’s own during his first term—recognized the importance of winning India’s trust, acknowledging its historic skepticism of U.S. intentions and its adherence to a non-aligned foreign policy stance.

    These efforts bore fruit in the form of landmark agreements and growing strategic alignment across a broad spectrum of areas, including defense cooperation, civil nuclear energy, high technology, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and counterterrorism. Recent developments—including the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET), the U.S.–India Major Defense Partnership Framework (2025–2035), the COMPACT Initiative, and collaborations through platforms like INDUS-X and the Artemis Accords—have deepened cooperation. These engagements signify that the India–U.S. partnership is now an essential component of the 21st-century global security and economic architecture.

    the India–U.S. partnership rests on far more stable and enduring foundations: bipartisan consensus within the U.S. strategic establishment, shared democratic values, converging geopolitical interests, and institutional mechanisms that safeguard continuity and progress.

    While Trump’s erratic rhetoric may generate headlines, it is critical not to exaggerate its impact on this deeply rooted relationship. His habitual tendency to seek the spotlight and amplify his personal role in global diplomacy often lacked substantive backing or long-term vision.  Even his relationship with Elon Musk—once a vocal ally who contributed nearly $300 million to pro-Trump political efforts during the 2024 campaign—has deteriorated into public conflict, highlighting the unpredictability of Trump’s leadership style. In stark contrast, the India–U.S. partnership rests on far more stable and enduring foundations: bipartisan consensus within the U.S. strategic establishment, shared democratic values, converging geopolitical interests, and institutional mechanisms that safeguard continuity and progress.

    West Asia dynamics: No Indian shift

    Moreover, recent U.S. gestures toward Pakistan—including inviting Pakistan’s Army Chief to U.S. Army Day celebrations, public praise for its leadership, the release of funds for upgrading the F-16 fleet—and support in securing IMF bailout packages—should be analysed through the lens of broader strategic imperatives, particularly concerning Iran. Amid escalating tensions with Tehran and recent Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets by its close ally Israel, Washington may be positioning itself for potential regional contingencies and wider escalation. In this context, logistical access to Pakistani military bases—notably Noor Khan Airbase, and other facilities which, according to senior analyst Imtiaz Gul, is already under partial U.S. operational control—could become critical. Pakistan has a history of facilitating U.S. military operations, such as during the War on Terror. Given its proximity to Iran, Pakistan is strategically well-placed to support U.S. initiatives in the region.

    The U.S. may also seek to ensure that Pakistan remains aligned with Western objectives should Israel act unilaterally against Iran. Therefore, recent goodwill gestures by the U.S. toward Pakistan should be interpreted not as a shift away from India, as some within the Indian strategic establishment might fear, but as part of a calculated strategy to secure regional flexibility amid evolving geopolitical uncertainties in West Asia.

    Ultimately, the strength and resilience of the India–U.S. relationship derive from its firm institutional foundation and shared strategic vision. It is largely insulated from the whims of transient political figures. Despite periodic turbulence, the partnership has demonstrated remarkable continuity and adaptability. Key U.S. national security documents—including the Indo‑Pacific Strategy and the National Security Strategy—consistently describe India as a “major defense partner” and an indispensable actor in the effort to balance China’s regional ambitions. These structural commitments ensure that the bilateral relationship remains on a trajectory of deepening cooperation. As articulated in the 2022 U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy, India is seen as a “like-minded partner and leader in South Asia and the Indian Ocean, active in and connected to Southeast Asia,” and a “driving force of the Quad and a net security provider in the region.”

    Conclusion

    Today, the India–U.S. relationship stands as a beacon of mutual trust, strategic alignment, and forward-looking engagement. Decades of deliberate diplomacy, institutional investment, and cultural linkage have given rise to one of the most promising partnerships of the 21st century. While figures like President Trump may generate momentary uncertainty, they lack the capacity to derail the deep-rooted and multidimensional nature of this partnership. The future of India–U.S. relations remains bright, anchored in shared democratic ideals, strategic complementarity, and a common vision for a free, open, and inclusive Indo-Pacific.

    Feature Image credit: news18.com

    Image of  President Bush and PM Manmohan Singh: wikipedia India-United States Civil Nuclear Deal.

  • If This Is What Israel Does, Then Israel Shouldn’t Exist

    If This Is What Israel Does, Then Israel Shouldn’t Exist

    The world and the UN watch helplessly as Israel executes the worst human rights crimes and genocide through killing, enforced famine, and wanton slaughter of innocent civilians, women, and children of Gaza. This is not war but an explicit slaughter no less than what the Nazis carried out in World War 2. Gaza has seen the largest number of journalists and aid workers killed in history, the largest number of children killed n history, and more bombs dropped in a small piece of land than in all of World War 2. Caitlin Johnstone raises a very pertinent question — How can a genocidal and apartheid  state be allowed to exist?

     

    Gaza’s youngest social media influencer has been killed by Israeli forces after touching tens of thousands of lives with her stories of survival in the besieged Palestinian territory. Her name was Yaqeen Hammad. She was 11 years old.

    Israeli forces fired upon starving civilians in Gaza on Tuesday when they rushed inside a facility holding aid, reportedly killing three and wounding dozens more. The facility was operated by the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, the latest US-Israeli scheme to bypass normal UN aid distribution and lure Gaza’s population into specific concentrated locations.

    A new report from the Associated Press confirms that Israeli forces have been using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza as a matter of policy. This is actually using human shields in the very real sense of deliberately forcing civilians between yourself and potential enemy fire, not in the fake sense of being somewhere near civilians as per the made-up “human shields” narrative that Israel uses to blame its daily massacres on Hamas.

    A survey of Jewish Israelis conducted by an Israeli polling firm has found that 82 percent of respondents support the total ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and 47 percent believe Israeli forces should kill every man, woman and child in every city they capture there.

    Haaretz reports on the poll’s findings:

    “Sixty-five percent said they believed in the existence of a modern-day incarnation of Amalek, the Israelite biblical enemy whom God commanded to wipe out in Deuteronomy 25:19. Among those believers, 93 percent said the commandment to erase Amalek’s memory remains relevant today’.

    Haaretz.com

    These are just a few reports from the past few days, on top of all the other staggeringly evil things that Israel has been doing this whole time.

    If this is Israel, then Israel should not exist. If what we are seeing in Gaza is what it means for Israel to exist, then it shouldn’t.

    People scream bloody murder when you say this, but it shouldn’t be a controversial position. I’m not saying Jews shouldn’t exist, I’m saying a genocidal apartheid state should not exist. A state is an artificial construct of the human mind, held together by human actions. If the actions we are witnessing in Gaza are the product of the artificial construct of the Israeli state, then that artificial construct should be dismantled, and those actions should cease.

    I would say this about any other man-made construct that is doing the things Israel is doing. If some scientists built a robot that spends all day every day massacring children, then I would say the robot should be unmade. If you drew a Star of David on the robot’s head, it wouldn’t suddenly make me an evil antisemite to say that the child-murdering robot should be dismantled.

    Dismantling the apartheid state of Israel would mean granting everyone citizenship and equal rights, allowing right of return, denazifying apartheid culture, paying extensive reparations, and righting the wrongs of the past. You could still call what remains “Israel” if you wanted to, but it would be nothing like the state that presently exists under that name.

    Would this upset the feelings of some Jewish people? Yes. Would it inconvenience the lives of some Jewish people? Certainly. But that would be infinitely preferable to the daily massacres, genocidal atrocities and reckless regional warmongering we are witnessing from the state of Israel. Advocating the end of this genocidal state doesn’t make someone a monster, advocating its continuation does. The only way to believe otherwise is to take it as a given that Palestinian lives are worth less than Jewish feelings.

    Israel is currently presenting nonstop arguments for its own cessation. Every video that comes out showing Israelis acting in monstrous ways and innocent Palestinians being murdered, tortured and abused in the most horrific ways imaginable is an argument for which there is no verbal counter-argument. Every day that goes by, the genocidal apartheid state of Israel is proving to the world that it should not exist.

    Feature Image Credit:Israel using starvation as means of war to drive people out of Gaza: Head of Rights monitor  aa.com.tr

    Image in article: 11-year old Yaqeen Hammad – independent.co.uk

  • Study Abroad Surge: Why More Indian Students are Choosing Foreign Universities over Domestic Education

    Study Abroad Surge: Why More Indian Students are Choosing Foreign Universities over Domestic Education

    For decades, our education sector has been underfunded and has had restrictions; millions of brilliant minds have left the country to pursue quality education.

    Introduction

     The number of Indian students moving abroad for higher education has increased significantly in the past decade, and the number of students studying overseas reached over 1.3 million by 2024. The most popular countries are the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia, and Germany, and each has different study options, worldwide recognition, and post-study work authorisations.

    This holds true despite the plethora of premier Indian institutions such as the IITs, IIMs, and AIIMS, as it mirrors the increased demand for international qualifications, load-bearing or multidisciplinary education, and better career opportunities. This migration has several implications. Economically, we export the skills and capacities of our family units by sending many overseas for education. Meanwhile, the information and remittances of returnees from the diaspora can have a beneficial impact on India’s economy.

    However, the ongoing “brain drain” could cripple India’s knowledge pool, particularly in sensitive areas like healthcare, research, and technology. This drain also pushes Indian institutions to upgrade infrastructure, curricula, and global competition. There is only so much national gain in overseas exposure; the actual long-term national problem is how to value, sell, and buy global aspirations and hold on to skilled talent at home.

    Quality, Opportunities and Global Exposure

    Indian students are now opting to study in foreign universities because of the quality of education, the global accreditation they provide, and the fact that they will be exposed to different cultures and lifestyles. Universities in countries like the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany offer top-class education, have state-of-the-art research facilities, and provide students with experience and learning that is more in line with what is required in the industries of today.

    Many Indian students go for niche fields such as artificial intelligence, space policy, and international law where Indian colleges and universities do not have much infrastructure or faculties to provide proper guidance. For example, in the case of medical students, many students opt for foreign countries such as Russia, Ukraine, and the Philippines to do MBBS as the cost is relatively less, there is less competition like the NEET exam in India, and the chances of getting a medical seat are much easier.

    Career Prospects and Immigration Incentives

    The global labour market, especially the STEM and healthcare sectors, attracts Indian students who further look to get a post-study visa, and many may eventually immigrate to a foreign country. Moreover, countries such as Canada and Australia are actively seeking skilled immigrants from other countries; thus, there is a high demand for foreign students. Students are attracted by the opportunities to earn high salaries, develop their careers, and gain international exposure, which are typically difficult to find in India due to a lack of research funds, local political classes, and a disconnect between studies and market requirements.

    In addition, many of the best Indian students may not even want to work in India because they have suffered through the Indian education system and do not wish to experience the same issues when working. Consequently, they prefer to work in foreign countries. Despite having world-class institutions such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Indian Institute of Management (IIM), and the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Indian students prefer going abroad for higher education.

    National Education Policy (NEP)

    The National Education Policy 2020 is important for India, as it aims to make our education system global and imbibe an indigenous knowledge system that can benefit the local economy. India has taken different approaches by globalising through international collaborations, dual degree programs, and student exchanges, whereby Indian students can study abroad for a semester, and vice versa.

    The policy also discusses increasing research and innovation by increasing funding, providing more autonomy to educational institutions, and becoming more interdisciplinary. India is considered to be underdeveloped in these areas. However, it is unclear whether this is the right time to introduce these initiatives and whether it is sufficient. For decades, our education sector has been underfunded and has had restrictions; millions of brilliant minds have left the country to pursue quality education.

    The NEP aims to reverse this situation. But, unless the policy is implemented with a difference; unless the policy is implemented in all regions, taking into account all socio-economic groups, the reforms will be too late. Education should have been the fundamental building block of our nation post-independence, but we left it as a lesser priority. NEP 2020 may bring hope, but the change will depend on our political will and weeding out vested interests to provide quality education to every Indian, while also being global at the same time, which is important.

    Characteristics Traditional NEP 2020
    Structure Traditional Academic learning and Teaching New updated academic structure that differentiates curricular and extracurricular activities
    Phases 2 Phases 4 Phases
    Age Group Between 6 and 18 years Between 3 and 18 years
    Duration Complete 12 years of schooling 15 years (3 years for pre-schooling and 12 years for complete schooling)
    Focus To pass the knowledge from the previous generation to the next. Universal access to school education for all at all levels

    Comparison of traditional education policy and NEP 2020.

    Bringing back talent home

    India has provided many prestigious scholarships in academic education. They include the Inlaks Scholarship, Commonwealth Scholarship, Chevening Awards, Fulbright-Nehru Fellowships, and Rhodes Scholarship. This enables beneficiaries to study at the world’s best institutions, as well as imbibe leadership and global values.

    To encourage their return and contribution to nation-building, India can introduce a policy where recipients of such scholarships who come back and work in academia, research, or public service may get benefits such as fast-track jobs, grants for research, tax incentives, and the like. This helps not only in cutting down the brain drain but also in ensuring that the knowledge and expertise gained from the world’s best institutions are applied in the country.

    Conclusion

    The retention of talent and India’s education deficit can only be addressed by a strategy that aligns education with foreign policy. While the new education policy opens its door to internationalisation, India lacks a comprehensive agreement on the mobility of students between it and other countries like the EU. Furthermore, the Ministry of Education and the MEA are not in complete alignment.

    For instance, the UK and Australia use educational diplomacy to attract Indian students. Private universities overseas are preparing for the new wave of Indian students by attracting them with extensive marketing, making agreements with Indian agencies, and in the case of a couple of universities, setting up shops in Gujarat and Hyderabad to allow Indian students to acquire foreign degrees without leaving the country.

    Nonetheless, the Indian government’s reaction to the exodus has been more reactive than proactive. The administration has taken measures, including expanding scholarships, making international collaborations easier, and starting the Study in India program, but they are typically small scale. The rise in the outflow is an indication of the government’s failure to provide sufficient quality seats, research opportunities, and a curriculum that emphasises employment. If India does not make a significant investment and collaborates with other ministries, it risks becoming a feeder nation rather than a scientific hub. A proactive education-foreign policy interface is required to retain talent and deepen India’s global academic influence.

     

  • Kashmir at a Crossroads: Pahalgam Terror Attack Amid Democratic Gains

    Kashmir at a Crossroads: Pahalgam Terror Attack Amid Democratic Gains

    The recent deadly terror attack on April 22 in Phalgham, near the Baisaran Valley, in which 26 innocent people were killed and more than a dozen others injured, has served as a stark reminder that external threats—particularly Pakistan-backed terrorism—remain a grave challenge to the region’s hard-won stability.

    Jammu and Kashmir is witnessing a remarkable and unprecedented political shift. In a development that would have seemed unimaginable a few years ago, many separatist groups, historically associated with anti-India activities, have abandoned their secessionist stance and re-entered the democratic mainstream. This transformation is not sudden—it reflects years of sustained government outreach, targeted policy reforms, and a persistent invitation to dialogue. Together, these efforts have fostered an environment of relative peace, reshaping public sentiment and political engagement across the valley. However, the recent deadly terror attack on April 22 in Phalgham, near the Baisaran Valley, in which 26 innocent people were killed and more than a dozen others injured, has served as a stark reminder that external threats—particularly Pakistan-backed terrorism—remain a grave challenge to the region’s hard-won stability.

    In a significant turn of events in April 2024, key factions of the Hurriyat Conference, such as the J&K Tahreeqi Isteqlal and J&K Tahreek-l-Istiqamat, publicly renounced separatism and embraced the democratic process. Their decision marks a critical shift in the political discourse of the region, challenging long-standing narratives of alienation and conflict. Union Home Minister Amit Shah hailed this move, declaring, “Under the Modi government, separatism is breathing its last, and the triumph of unity is echoing across Kashmir.” The reintegration of these groups into the democratic fold indicates the success of New Delhi’s long-term outreach and governance initiatives, as well as the strengthening of its position on the global stage regarding Jammu & Kashmir.

    the candidacy of individuals such as Sayar Ahmad Reshi (Kulgam), Aijaz Ahmad Mir (Zainapora), Talat Majeed (Pulwama), Mohammad Sikandar Malik (Bandipora), and Farooq Ahmad Genie (Beerwah) sent a powerful message—both domestically and internationally—of a growing trust in democratic processes and a shift away from violence.

    The 2024 Assembly elections further illustrated this transformation. Over 25 former militants, separatists, and members of the banned Jamaat-e-Islami contested as independent candidates. Although none of them secured a win, the candidacy of individuals such as Sayar Ahmad Reshi (Kulgam), Aijaz Ahmad Mir (Zainapora), Talat Majeed (Pulwama), Mohammad Sikandar Malik (Bandipora), and Farooq Ahmad Genie (Beerwah) sent a powerful message—both domestically and internationally—of a growing trust in democratic processes and a shift away from violence.

    Central to this transformation is the 2019 abrogation of Article 370. While Article 370 did not cause terrorism, it fostered a psychological and political sense of separateness. Its existence reinforced a feeling of isolation, suggesting that Jammu and Kashmir was distinct from the rest of India and that its political destiny remained unsettled, thereby encouraging subnational identity and sentiments of exclusion. Local political elites often exploited this narrative of exclusivity and exceptionalism for their political objectives, constantly telling people that Jammu and Kashmir had a “special relationship” with the Union of India, having its own constitution, flag, and national anthem. This exacerbated the sense of alienation and fueled anti-India sentiment.

    Article 370 served as a protective shield for corrupt politicians and bureaucrats from central investigation agencies, as it limited the powers of these agencies, allowing corruption to flourish unabatedly. On the global stage, Article 370 was utilised as a geostrategic tool against India.

    Moreover, domestically, the real benefits of Article 370 never reached the common people. Instead, it supported the interests of a few influential political families, such as the likes of the Muftis and the Abdullahs, etc., while the ordinary citizen continued to face hardship and underdevelopment. Additionally, Article 370 served as a protective shield for corrupt politicians and bureaucrats from central investigation agencies, as it limited the powers of these agencies, allowing corruption to flourish unabatedly. On the global stage, Article 370 was utilised as a geostrategic tool against India. References to Jammu & Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status and its separate flag and constitution created a misleading impression internationally—that it was some foreign territory under Indian occupation. Many significant powers often utilised this narrative to exert pressure on India and further their geopolitical objectives.

    Since its removal, the region has witnessed measurable progress. Terrorist incidents have plummeted by 81%—from 228 in 2018 to just 43 in 2023. Civilian and security force casualties have similarly declined. Stone pelting, once a near-daily occurrence, has disappeared entirely, with 2,654 such incidents in 2010 dropping to zero by 2023. Hartals and forced shutdowns have become a thing of the past. Educational outcomes have also improved. The number of colleges has risen from 94 to 147. Prestigious institutions such as IIT, IIM, and AIIMS have been established. Medical colleges increased from four to eleven, and the region now boasts 15 nursing colleges. Medical seat availability has grown from 500 to over 1,300.

    The region’s Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) has more than doubled—from ₹1 lakh crore in 2014–15 to ₹2.27 lakh crore in 2022–23. In tourism, a record 2.36 crore visitors arrived in 2024, including over 65,000 foreign tourists.

    Economically, Jammu and Kashmir is undergoing a boom. Investments surged from ₹297 crore in 2019–20 to ₹2,153 crore in 2022–23, with another ₹6,000 crore in the pipeline. The region’s Gross State Domestic Product (GSDP) has more than doubled—from ₹1 lakh crore in 2014–15 to ₹2.27 lakh crore in 2022–23. In tourism, a record 2.36 crore visitors arrived in 2024, including over 65,000 foreign tourists. Global events like the G20 Tourism Working Group meeting and the Legends League Cricket (LLC) have put Jammu and Kashmir on the international map. Infrastructure development is progressing rapidly. Mega projects such as the USBRL Tunnel 50, Z-Morh Tunnel, and the iconic Chenab Rail Bridge—the highest in the world—are transforming connectivity. The Vande Bharat train now connects Katra with Srinagar. Symbolising civic normalcy, the Muharram procession returned to Srinagar in 2024 after a 34-year ban.

    However, the recent Pahalgam terror attack is a stark reminder that Pakistan continues to act as the primary external disruptor of peace and progress in Jammu & Kashmir. Despite the undeniable local yearning for peace and development, Pakistan’s strategic objective to “bleed India with a thousand cuts” remains unchanged. Its support for terrorism and infiltration undermines the region’s stability.

    Pakistan’s proxy war not only attempts to destabilise India but also hampers the development trajectory of Jammu & Kashmir, which had been flourishing in education, infrastructure, and economic growth.

    The attack, which targeted civilians and spread fear among tourists, has had immediate consequences: many tourists have cancelled bookings, impacting the Valley’s booming tourism sector. It reflects how Pakistan’s proxy war not only attempts to destabilise India but also hampers the development trajectory of Jammu & Kashmir, which had been flourishing in education, infrastructure, and economic growth.

    While local recruitment into militancy has declined and radicalisation has significantly reduced, Pakistan’s designs persist. Security agencies have reported the presence of 35–40 foreign terrorists operating in small groups in the Jammu division, with recent attacks in Reasi, Kathua, and Kishtwar proving that infiltration is now affecting eight out of ten districts. New Delhi must now recalibrate its approach. While the ecosystem-based strategy addressing governance, development, and security has yielded positive outcomes, the Pakistan problem requires a distinct strategic lens. Counterterrorism efforts must be intensified, international diplomacy must expose Pakistan’s continued support for terror, and internal resilience must be strengthened to protect gains made post-Article 370.

    In conclusion, nearly six years after the abrogation of Article 370, Jammu & Kashmir has indeed embarked on a transformative journey. But the road ahead must account for persistent external threats. The people of the region overwhelmingly desire peace, progress, and integration—but Pakistan’s continued interference demands a more robust, strategic, and multidimensional response.

  • The End of War in Ukraine: A Tough Road Ahead

    The End of War in Ukraine: A Tough Road Ahead

    The war, which began when NATO leaders dismissed Russia’s demand for security guarantees from the West, was intended as a way for Russia to reclaim its power and prestige on the global stage while strengthening its security in the region. Neither of these objectives has been achieved, nor will they be with Ukraine’s defeat. The war quickly escalated into a proxy conflict between Moscow and the collective West, with significant losses on both sides.

    Given that President Putin has recently signed an order to draft 160,000 additional soldiers with the goal of “finishing off” the Ukrainian resistance, the Russia-Ukraine war is far from a definitive resolution. Nonetheless, it is never too early to begin considering the options for a successful post-war settlement and the potential to transform the US-advocated ceasefire (if it ever materializes) into a lasting peace.

     

    Unfortunately, neither side of the conflict has presented anything even remotely resembling a plan for a sustainable, acceptable post-war settlement. The war, which began when NATO leaders dismissed Russia’s demand for security guarantees from the West, was intended as a way for Russia to reclaim its power and prestige on the global stage while strengthening its security in the region. Neither of these objectives has been achieved, nor will they be with Ukraine’s defeat. The war quickly escalated into a proxy conflict between Moscow and the collective West, with significant losses on both sides. Russia’s international security situation is now worse than it was before the war began, and this will remain the case for some time, regardless of what happens in Ukraine.

    Ukraine, in fact, is fighting a losing battle. Its leaders are sacrificing the country in the midst of a geopolitical rivalry involving Russia, Europe, and the USA. If Ukraine accepts a Trump-mediated deal with Russia, it will lose four regions occupied by Russian forces since 2022, agree to the annexation of Crimea, and abandon any hopes of NATO membership in the future. If Ukraine is defeated on the battlefield, it will lose its independence and be forced to submit to what Russian leaders refer to as demilitarization and denazification—essentially, a regime change and the reconstitution of Ukrainian governance.

    With no realistic prospect of pushing Russian forces out of the country and with the increasing likelihood of an exploitative “resources plus infrastructure” deal imposed by Washington, Ukraine risks losing not only its state sovereignty but any semblance of international agency. If Ukraine’s role in a post-war settlement, as envisioned in the Saudi negotiations, is reduced to either a Russian-occupied territory or a de facto resource colony of the United States, such a “settlement” would merely serve as an interlude between two wars, offering no lasting resolution to the conflict.

    As the Kremlin proposes placing Ukraine under external governance and the White House demands control over all of Ukraine’s natural resource income for several years—along with a perpetual share of that revenue—the process of transforming Ukraine into a non-self-governing territory accelerates. However, Russia also faces setbacks. Despite Putin’s efforts to halt NATO’s expansion and push the alliance back to its 1997 military posture, NATO has grown closer to Russia’s borders, with formerly neutral Sweden and Finland joining the alliance in direct response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Trump’s previous alignment with Putin prompted EU leaders to agree to a substantial €800 billion increase in defence spending, while French President Macron proposed extending France’s nuclear deterrent to protect all of Europe from potential Russian threats. This may lead to France positioning its nuclear-capable jets in Poland or Estonia, and its ballistic-missile submarines in the Baltic Sea. The British nuclear deterrent is already committed to NATO policy, and it is not unimaginable that some or all of the UK’s nuclear submarines could be deployed closer to Russia’s borders. A UK contribution to a European nuclear umbrella, along with the creation of a low-yield variant of existing nuclear capabilities, would further erode Russia’s already fragile security.

    Putin’s proposal for the external governance of Ukraine reveals Russia’s deep vulnerabilities, which the full occupation of Ukraine would soon expose. A collapse of Ukrainian statehood and the need to occupy the entire country would require Russia to maintain an occupation force of several hundred thousand troops, while also assuming responsibility for law enforcement, security, state administration, essential services, and more. Rebuilding Ukraine’s devastated southeast would cost billions of dollars, and efforts to restore the entire former Ukrainian nation are simply beyond Russia’s capacity. Meanwhile, the guerrilla warfare that the Ukrainians will inevitably intensify in response to Russia’s territorial expansion will further drain the occupiers’ resources.

    The end of the war would mark a slowdown in the military-industrial complex that has driven Russia’s economic growth in recent years. Additionally, the ongoing militarization of society, the rise of nationalist totalitarianism, and the enormous costs of occupying the “new territories” highlight the Pyrrhic nature of Russia’s supposed “victory.”

    Despite the Kremlin’s bravado, Russia’s economy and society have been significantly weakened by the war. With the key interest rate at 21 percent, annual inflation at 10 percent, dwindling welfare fund reserves, and an estimated 0.5 to 0.8 million casualties (killed and wounded) on the battlefield, it’s unclear how much longer Putin can stave off economic decline and maintain reluctant public support for his administration. The end of the war would mark a slowdown in the military-industrial complex that has driven Russia’s economic growth in recent years. Additionally, the ongoing militarization of society, the rise of nationalist totalitarianism, and the enormous costs of occupying the “new territories” highlight the Pyrrhic nature of Russia’s supposed “victory.” The best possible settlement from Russia’s perspective—leaving a rump Ukraine that is independent, self-sufficient, and friendly—is simply out of reach. The remaining options will only delay the inevitable second round of hostilities.

    Finally, the Western proposals for post-war settlements are either unsustainable or outright counterproductive. This is perplexing, given that the war has cost Europe dearly, and it should be in the EU’s interest to see it end as soon as possible. While predictions of seeing the Russian economy in tatters have not materialized, Europe now faces an imminent financial crisis. With the EU economy growing by less than 1 percent in 2024, while Russia’s economy grows 4.5 times faster, it’s time for those like President Macron of France—who advocate continuing the war with extensive European military and financial support—to reconsider their stance.

    However, this is not happening. Instead, EU leaders are urging Russia to agree to an “immediate and unconditional ceasefire on equal terms, with full implementation,” under the threat of new sanctions and the redoubling of Europe’s support for Ukraine.

    This approach is counterproductive and likely to strengthen Russia’s resolve. Beyond the fact that continued support for Ukraine’s war effort will further strain the already fragile budgets of the supporting states, insisting that Ukraine fight to the bitter end is both practically and morally indefensible. At the same time, abandoning Ukraine to face Russia alone could lead to the collapse of Ukrainian statehood. In either case, the collective West loses.

    A negotiated settlement, as proposed by President Trump, is a lesser evil under the current circumstances. Yes, it’s a suboptimal solution that could embolden Putin, harm Ukraine, deepen the divide between Russia and Europe, and create new challenges for international security.

    Yet, the preservation of Ukrainian statehood would be ensured. Death and destruction would cease. Europe’s economy would recover, and the global economy would see a boost. The risk of nuclear war in Europe would fade away. The need for European citizens to stockpile 72 hours’ worth of supplies, as per the European Commission’s recent guidance, might become less of a priority for the already-intimidated European citizens.

    European leaders should consider working alongside Trump, Putin, and Zelensky to craft a balanced, negotiated solution that accounts for the interests of all sides. Even if everyone must make sacrifices, it is better than losing everything. 

    While any path out of this war will be difficult, the strategy of threatening Russia with harsher sanctions, forming “coalitions of the willing,” and creating EU nuclear-armed forces will not make it any easier. Instead, European leaders should consider working alongside Trump, Putin, and Zelensky to craft a balanced, negotiated solution that accounts for the interests of all sides. Even if everyone must make sacrifices, it is better than losing everything.

    Feature Image Credit: www.pbs.org

  • Trump and Musk, Canada, Panama and Greenland, an old Story

    Trump and Musk, Canada, Panama and Greenland, an old Story

    Re-elected President Donald Trump has mentioned a possible annexation of the Panama Canal, Canada and Greenland. A crazy project that already appeared on a map, imagined in 1941 by a follower of the technocratic movement. However, it was the French branch of this movement that invented the transhumanism dear to Elon Musk, whose grandfather was responsible for the Canadian branch of the technocratic movement.

    When the technocratic movement considered annexing Greenland, it recalled that it is located on the North American continental shelf and based its decision on the importance of its natural resources. It holds precious rare earth minerals [4], as well as uranium, billions of barrels of oil and vast reserves of natural gas, previously inaccessible but increasingly less so.

    The post-World War II world map, drawn by Maurice Gomberg in 1941. The United States extends from Canada to the Panama Canal and includes Greenland.

    The statements of the re-elected US President Donald Trump, before his inauguration, announcing that he intended to buy Greenland (which he had already compared in 2019 to a “big real estate deal”) and to annex both Canada and the Panama Canal have stunned us. No Western leader had made such statements since the Second World War. The US ruling class instead saw it as a “new frontier”, that is to say, new territories where their country could continue its advance.

    The Danish government, on which Greenland depends, has indicated that it is not for sale, that it is an “autonomous territory” owned only by the Greenlanders. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz called for “the principle of the inviolability of borders to apply to all countries… whether it is a very small one, or a very powerful one.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot commented: “There is no doubt that the European Union would not allow other nations of the world to attack its sovereign borders.” British Foreign Secretary David Lamy said Donald Trump “raises concerns about Russia and China in the Arctic, which concern the national economic security” of the United States. These are “legitimate issues.” Finally, for Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, these statements are “more of a message intended” to “other great powers rather than hostile claims against these countries. These are two territories where in recent years we have seen increasing activism by China. »

    Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who was elected as Pierre Trudeau’s son and therefore as a defender of national independence, turned out to be nothing more than a follower of Washington. He therefore had nothing to say about what seems obvious: by joining the United States, his country would have nothing to lose that it has not already lost and everything else to gain. So he resigned.

    Concerning the Panama Canal, Donald Trump had insinuated that it was operated by the Chinese army. Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino responded: “The canal is not controlled, directly or indirectly, by China, the European Community, the United States or any other power. As a Panamanian, I firmly reject any expression that distorts this reality.”

    We will explain here that these ideas of annexation are not new, but date back to the 1929 crisis, and that they correspond to a coherent ideological corpus defended, until last week, by the only multi-billionaire Elon Musk whom we knew rather as an admirer of the Serbian engineer Nicolas Tesla and as a follower of transhumanism.

    During the “Great Depression”, that is to say the Wall Street crisis and the economic storm that followed, all the American and European elites considered that capitalism, in its then form, was definitively dead. Joseph Stalin proposed the Soviet model as the only answer to the crisis, while Benito Mussolini (former representative of Lenin in Italy) proposed, on the contrary, fascism. But in the United States, a third solution was proposed: technocracy.

    Criticizing the traditional reading of supply and demand, the economist Thorstein Veblen was interested in the motivations of buyers. He showed that the man who can afford leisure actually does so to reinforce his social superiority, and must therefore show it. Leisure is therefore not a form of laziness, but “expresses the unproductive consumption of time”. Consequently, in many situations, contrary to popular belief, “The more the price of a good increases, the more its consumption also increases” (Veblen’s paradox). It is therefore not prices, but group behavior and individual motivations that dictate the economy.

    Thorstein Veblen’s iconoclastic thinking gave birth, among others, to Howard Scott’s technocratic movement. He imagined that power should be given neither to capitalists nor to proletarians, but to technicians.

    This movement was exported to France around polytechnicians, notably the esoteric novelist Raymond Abellio (who founded the sect of which François Mitterrand was a member until his death) and Jean Coutrot, the inventor of transhumanism. Little by little, this movement would have engendered in the occult circles of Philippe Pétain’s regime a secret society, the Synarchy.

    Coutrot’s transhumanism foreshadows Elon Musk’s transhumanism. For Coutrot, it was about using technology to go beyond humanism. For Elon Musk, it is more about using technology to change man.

    This movement of ‘technocracy’ is based on a dominant challenge to the functioning of democracies. It professes not to engage in politics and to find technical solutions to all problems.

    Given this lineage, we understand that any reference to technocracy in France is discredited from the start. However, this movement is based on a dominant challenge to the functioning of democracies. It professes not to engage in politics and to find technical solutions to all problems. Whether we like it or not, it is present in the United States in the belief that it is technical progress that will solve everything.

    The fact remains that the technocratic movement, relying on statistical knowledge from the interwar period, was convinced that the North American continent constituted a unit in terms of mineral resources and industries.

    Joshua Haldeman

    The head of the Canadian branch of the movement, chiropractor Joshua Haldeman, was arrested during the Second World War because he defended neutrality towards Nazi Germany. He was indeed pro-Hitler and anti-Semitic [1]. After the war, he settled in South Africa, seduced by its apartheid regime. His grandson is none other than Elon Musk.

    It should be noted that the multi-billionaire’s position within the Trump administration is increasingly contested from within. Thus Steve Bannon was able to declare to Corriere della Sera: “Elon Musk will not have full access to the White House, he will be like any other person. He is really an evil guy, a very bad guy. I made it a personal thing to fire this guy. Before, because he put money in, I was ready to tolerate it, I am no longer ready to tolerate it.” [2].

    Elon Musk

    Maurice Goldberg envisaged a division of the world by civilizations. The United States would have been expanded to include all of North America, from Canada to the Panama Canal, and to many Pacific and Atlantic islands, including the Antilles, Greenland and Ireland.

    Some members of the technocratic movement gave great importance to the post-World War II world map drawn up in 1941 by an anonymous author signing under the pseudonym Maurice Gomberg. However, he envisaged a division of the world by civilizations. The United States would have been expanded to include all of North America, from Canada to the Panama Canal, and to many Pacific and Atlantic islands, including the Antilles, Greenland and Ireland. Like the French Synarchy, this map has been widely discussed in conspiracy circles. However, according to historian Thomas Morarti, quoted by the Irish press [3], this map resonated with President Franklin D. Roosevelt during his “Four Freedoms speech” (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want, and freedom from fear) on January 6, 1941. Along the same lines, in 1946, President Harry Truman proposed that US troops not evacuate Greenland, which they had liberated from the Nazis, but buy it for $100 million.

    In 1951, Denmark authorized the establishment of two large US and NATO military bases in Greenland, at Sondreström and Thule. Elements of the US anti-ballistic system have since been installed there. The treaty authorizing these bases was co-signed by Greenland in 2004, that is, after it had acquired its autonomous status.

    In 1968, a US strategic bomber, which was taking part in a routine operation in the context of the Cold War, accidentally crashed near Thule, contaminating the region with a cloud of enriched uranium. It was learned in 1995 that the Danish government had tacitly authorized the United States, in violation of Danish law, to store nuclear weapons on its soil.

    The purchase of Greenland could, therefore, easily take place without money. All that would be required would be for the Pentagon to ensure the protection of Denmark, thus freeing it from a financial burden.

    Donald Trump Jr. and his team “on vacation” in Greenland.

    Giving reality to what seemed to be just empty talk, Donald Trump Jr., the son of the re-elected president, went on vacation to Greenland. Of course, on board a family plane and surrounded by a group of advisors. He did not meet, officially at least, with any political leader. During this trip, the NGO Patriot Polling conducted a survey. The majority of respondents (57.3%) approved of the idea of joining the United States, while 37.4% were against it. Of those surveyed, 5.3% remained undecided. Following the publication of these results, Múte B. Egede gave a press conference in Copenhagen that even if he had not spoken with the Trumps, he was open to “discussions on what unites us. We are ready to discuss. Cooperation is a question of dialogue. Cooperation means that you will work to find solutions.”

    When the technocratic movement considered annexing Greenland, it recalled that it is located on the North American continental shelf and based its decision on the importance of its natural resources. It holds precious rare earth minerals [4], as well as uranium, billions of barrels of oil and vast reserves of natural gas, previously inaccessible but increasingly less so. Rare earths are now almost exclusively available to China. However, they have become essential for high technology, particularly for Tesla cars. These natural reserves are not exploited due to the traditional opposition of the indigenous populations, the Inuit (88% of the population).

    Today, Greenland is above all a strategic issue. It would allow the United States to control the Northern Sea Route, which is now navigable. Since this is currently controlled by Russia and China, a change in the island’s ownership would transform the geopolitical equation. That is why Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, commented: “The Arctic is a zone of our national interests, our strategic interests. We want to preserve the climate of peace and stability in the Arctic zone. We are watching the rather spectacular development of the situation very closely, but so far, thank God, only at the level of statements.”

    References to the technocratic movement may have nothing to do with Musk and Trump, but they should be kept in mind as events unfold.

     

    Translated from French by Roger Lagasse’

     

    References:

    [1] The International Conspiracy to Establish a World Dictatorship & The Menace to South Africa, Joshua Haldeman. Cité dans «The World According to Elon Musk’s Grandfather», Jill Lepore, The New Yorker, September 19, 2023.

    [3] «United mates of America», Tom Prendeville, Irish Mirror.

    [4] Greenland is only mentioned once in the Technocracy Study Course. Rare earths were ignored at the time.

     

    This article was published earlier in Voltairenet.org
    and is republished under Creative Commons (license CC-BY-NC-ND)

    Feature Image Credit: nypost.com

  • Guerrilla Air Defence: Strategy of the Underdog

    Guerrilla Air Defence: Strategy of the Underdog

    Guerrilla air defence is a testament to human ingenuity in asymmetrical warfare. Irregular forces can challenge even the most sophisticated air powers by adapting low-cost solutions, decentralised tactics, innovative technologies, and asymmetrical strategies.

    In the modern era of warfare, air superiority has become a cornerstone of military strategy. Nations with advanced air forces often dominate battlefields, leveraging precision-guided munitions, reconnaissance drones, and stealth technology. However, guerrilla forces, lacking comparable resources, have developed innovative air defence strategies to counter such overwhelming air dominance. Guerrilla air defence embodies the ingenuity of the underdog, employing asymmetric tactics and exploiting weaknesses in advanced air forces.

    Guerrilla Air Defence

    Guerrilla air defence refers to the methods and tactics employed by ground forces, mainly non-state actors or irregular forces, to counter the overwhelming aerial superiority of state militaries. In modern conflicts, air dominance often plays a pivotal role in determining outcomes, and ground forces must innovate to level the battlefield. These tactics range from using man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) to employing deception, leveraging urban terrain, and deploying counter-drone measures.                                  

    Historical Background

    Mujahideen firing a Stinger (Soviet-Afghan War 1979-89): Image Credit-wikimedia commons

    Vietcongs in action against US aircraft during Vietnam War 1965-1975 (Image – www.thearmorylife.com)

    The concept of guerrilla air defence emerged during the Cold War, as smaller forces sought ways to combat technologically superior opponents. Early examples include the North Vietnamese forces, with Soviet and Chinese support, employing a mix of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), anti-aircraft artillery (AAA), and man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) to counter American air supremacy. The infamous downing of U.S. planes over Hanoi—dubbed “SAM City”—highlighted the effectiveness of such strategies. During the Afghan-Soviet War (1979-1989), Afghan mujahideen famously utilised U.S.-supplied Stinger missiles to neutralise Soviet helicopters and jets, turning the tide in specific regions and undermining Soviet morale. These historical precedents set the stage for modern guerrilla air defence tactics, which blend ingenuity, adaptability, and external support.

     Principles of Guerilla Air Defence

    Mobility and Concealment: Mobility and concealment are fundamental to guerrilla air defence. Unlike conventional militaries that deploy fixed air defence installations, guerrilla forces rely on portable systems and improvised techniques to remain undetected. Camouflage, underground networks, and rapid movement are essential to avoid detection by aerial surveillance. Guerrilla fighters exploit natural and urban terrain to conceal their positions, using forests, mountains, and cityscapes as cover.

    Decentralisation: Unlike conventional forces, guerrillas rely on dispersed, mobile, small, independent cells. This limits the effectiveness of an enemy’s centralised air strikes and ensures survivability by reducing the risk of total system compromise if one group is detected.

    Exploiting Vulnerabilities: Guerrilla air defence capitalises on the inherent vulnerabilities of modern air power. Helicopters and battlefield air support aircraft often operate at low altitudes and are prime targets for guerrilla forces. Air forces operating in conflict zones usually follow predictable flight paths or schedules. Guerrilla forces use intelligence and reconnaissance to identify and exploit these patterns.

    Innovation, Improvisation and Resource Maximisation: Guerrillas rely on improvised systems, salvaged weaponry, and external aid to bolster their capabilities. Guerrilla air defence thrives on innovation, often repurposing civilian technologies or adapting outdated equipment. Guerrilla groups have been known to convert commercial drones into makeshift anti-aircraft platforms or deploy modified artillery to target aircraft. Using decoys and false signals to mislead enemy pilots and air defence systems is a common tactic.

    Psychological and Strategic Impact: The psychological effects of guerrilla air defence extend beyond physical damage to aircraft. Even a limited success rate in downing aircraft can significantly reduce the adversary’s willingness to conduct low-risk operations. Each successful engagement serves as a propaganda tool, showcasing the resilience and effectiveness of the underdog.

    Modern Techniques in Guerilla Air Defence

    Modern technology, the fighting environment, and new systems and platforms influence the evolution of newer techniques of guerrilla warfare.

    MANPADS: MANPADS have revolutionised guerrilla air defence due to their portability, ease of use, and effectiveness against low-flying aircraft. One of the most effective tools in guerrilla air defence is using MANPADS, such as the American-made FIM-92 Stinger or the Russian Igla systems. Small teams can carry these portable missile systems and target low-flying aircraft, including helicopters and drones. By utilising these weapons in ambushes or from concealed positions, ground forces can inflict significant damage on technologically superior adversaries, as demonstrated in Afghanistan during the 1980s and the recent Russia-Ukraine war.

    Innovations: While less mobile than MANPADS, AAA remains a staple of guerrilla air defence. Improvised mounts, hidden emplacements, and integration with civilian infrastructure enhance its effectiveness. Groups frequently modify heavy machine guns and anti-aircraft guns like the ZSU-23-4 Shilka. These systems are often mounted on trucks for mobility and used to target low-altitude threats. While less precise than missiles, their volume of fire can pose a substantial threat to helicopters and low-flying planes.

    Urban Environment: Urban environments provide an advantage for the ground forces due to the dense infrastructure that limits aircraft manoeuvrability.  Ground fighters use rooftops, narrow streets, and underground networks to evade detection and launch surprise attacks. In Syria and Iraq, insurgents have used such strategies to counter aerial operations by state and coalition forces.

    Drones: Modern airpower—characterised by drones, advanced jets, and electronic warfare capabilities—poses unique challenges to ground forces. The proliferation of drones has forced forces to develop countermeasures, such as portable jammers, anti-drone rifles, and improvised kinetic solutions like nets or small arms fire.

    Passive Measures: Camouflage and deception remain critical in evading aerial surveillance. Ground forces must rely on natural cover, decoy installations, and rapid mobility to avoid detection. In the Vietnam War, the Viet Cong famously used tunnels and dense jungle foliage to counter U.S. air superiority.

    Implications of Guerilla Air Defence on Modern Warfare

    Guerrilla air defence has emerged as a critical factor in modern warfare, reshaping the dynamics of aerial supremacy and asymmetric conflict. While these strategies aim to counter technologically superior air forces, they carry profound implications for guerrilla groups and conventional militaries. By disrupting aerial operations and imposing costs on powerful adversaries, guerrilla air defence challenges traditional military doctrines and influences the broader landscape of modern conflict.

    Prolonging Conflicts and Increasing Costs: Guerrilla air defence strategies can effectively neutralise or deter low-altitude operations. This capability forces adversaries to adapt, often at significant financial and operational costs. For instance, deploying advanced countermeasures, rerouting flight paths, or relying on high-altitude bombers requires additional resources. As a result, conflicts involving guerrilla air defence tend to become protracted, straining the logistics and finances of all involved parties. The prolonged nature of such conflicts can also erode public and political support for military interventions. For example, the psychological and economic toll of losing expensive aircraft or personnel to guerrilla defences can influence domestic perceptions of the conflict’s viability.

    Evolving Air Warfare Tactics: Conventional militaries must adapt their air warfare strategies to counter guerrilla air defence. This evolution includes increased reliance on high-altitude operations, precision-guided munitions, and stealth technology. Modern air forces also invest heavily in countermeasures such as infrared jammers, flares, and electronic warfare systems to neutralise guerrilla threats. The rise of guerrilla air defence has also accelerated the development of unmanned aerial systems (UAS) for reconnaissance, surveillance, and strike missions. Being expendable and capable of operating in hostile environments, drones minimise the risks associated with manned operations. This shift represents a significant transformation in aerial warfare, emphasising technology over traditional pilot-led missions.

    Impact on Urban and Asymmetric Warfare: Urban environments provide natural concealment and mobility advantages for guerrilla fighters, making them ideal battlegrounds for deploying guerrilla air defence systems. By leveraging civilian infrastructure and the complexity of urban terrain, guerrilla forces can create no-fly zones or deny access to key air corridors. This trend has made urban warfare increasingly challenging for conventional militaries, which must balance operational objectives with minimising civilian casualties and collateral damage.

    Proliferation of Advanced Technology: The success of guerrilla air defence has spurred the proliferation of advanced yet accessible technologies. MANPADS, drones, and electronic warfare tools have become increasingly available on the black market or through state sponsorship. This diffusion of technology not only empowers guerrilla groups but also raises concerns about their use by terrorist organisations or non-state actors in unconventional warfare.

    Redefining Air Superiority: In traditional warfare, air superiority was synonymous with dominance over adversaries. However, guerrilla air defence challenges this notion by proving that even technologically inferior forces can contest airspace. This shift underscores the importance of integrating multi-domain strategies considering ground-based threats alongside aerial operations. For example, in conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War or the Ukraine-Russia war, guerrilla air defence has demonstrated that controlling the skies no longer guarantees uncontested dominance on the ground. The interplay between air and ground forces requires a more nuanced approach, blending technology with adaptable tactics.

    Strategic and Political Implications: Guerrilla air defence imposes strategic dilemmas on conventional forces, often compelling them to overextend resources or adopt more cautious operational postures. This dynamic can undermine the perceived effectiveness of powerful militaries, affecting their credibility and deterring future interventions. Politically, the effectiveness of guerrilla air defence can shift the balance of power in asymmetric conflicts. By contesting air supremacy, guerrilla forces gain leverage in negotiations or peace processes, demonstrating their resilience and capacity to endure prolonged engagements.

    Challenges and Limitations of Guerilla Air Defence

    Guerrilla air defence, while innovative and impactful in certain situations, faces numerous challenges and limitations. These obstacles stem from technological gaps, resource constraints, and the inherent asymmetry between irregular forces and advanced air power.

    Technological Disparity: One of the primary challenges guerrilla groups face is the vast technological gulf between them and conventional military forces. Modern air forces deploy fifth-generation stealth aircraft, precision-guided munitions, and advanced surveillance systems. In contrast, guerrilla forces often rely on outdated or improvised equipment. While tools like man-portable air defence systems (MANPADS) can neutralise low-flying aircraft, they are ineffective against high-altitude bombers or stealth fighters. Advanced countermeasures, such as infrared jammers and decoys, further diminish the impact of guerrilla tactics.

    Logistics and Maintenance: Air defence systems, even portable ones, require robust logistical support. Maintaining and deploying these systems necessitates technical expertise, spare parts, and a steady supply of ammunition. Guerrilla groups, often operating in resource-scarce environments, struggle to sustain such logistical chains. Over time, wear and tear render many systems inoperable, and acquiring replacements or repairs can be risky and costly.

    Detection and Targeting Vulnerabilities: The effectiveness of guerrilla air defence relies heavily on concealment and mobility. However, advancements in surveillance technology, such as drones, satellite imagery, and AI-powered analytics, make it increasingly challenging for guerrilla forces to remain hidden. Once detected, these forces become vulnerable to precision strikes or overwhelming aerial assaults, negating their defensive efforts.

    Dependence on External Support: Guerrilla groups often depend on external states or entities to access advanced air defence systems. This reliance introduces vulnerabilities, as shifts in international politics or interruptions in supply chains can leave these groups without critical resources. For example, a sudden embargo or the withdrawal of support from a sponsor state can cripple guerrilla air defence capabilities.

    Financial Constraints: Air defence is inherently resource-intensive. Procuring, transporting, and maintaining systems like MANPADS or drones requires significant financial investment. Guerrilla groups operating with limited funding must prioritise resources across multiple operational needs, often leaving air defence underfunded. Moreover, the cost-benefit ratio usually favours their adversaries; an advanced air force can deploy inexpensive countermeasures or overwhelm defences with superior numbers.

    Psychological and Operational Strain: Constant exposure to aerial bombardments and the awareness of technological inferiority take a toll on guerrilla fighters’ morale. The strain of operating under the persistent threat of airstrikes can lead to operational inefficiencies and diminished cohesion. Furthermore, the psychological impact of losing critical assets, such as an air defence unit or a valuable weapon system, can significantly affect a group’s strategic planning.

    Limited Strategic Impact: Guerrilla air defence is inherently reactive, designed to mitigate air superiority rather than achieve dominance. While it can disrupt operations and impose costs on adversaries, it rarely shifts the overall balance of power in a conflict. This limitation means that guerrilla air defence is more a delaying tactic than a decisive strategy.

    Conclusion

     Guerrilla air defence is a testament to human ingenuity in asymmetrical warfare. Irregular forces can challenge even the most sophisticated air powers by adapting low-cost solutions, decentralised tactics, innovative technologies, and asymmetrical strategies. Guerrilla air defence’s implications for modern warfare are far-reaching, influencing military strategy, technology development, and conflict outcomes. While it disrupts aerial operations and challenges conventional doctrines, guerrilla air defence also faces significant limitations, such as resource constraints and susceptibility to countermeasures. Nevertheless, its role in redefining the dynamics of air superiority and asymmetric warfare highlights its growing importance in the ever-evolving landscape of modern conflict.

    References:

    1. Boot, M. (2002). The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. Basic Books.
    2. Coll, S. (2004). Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden. Penguin Books.
    3. Jones, S. G. (2017). Waging Insurgent Warfare: Lessons from the Viet Cong to the Islamic State. Oxford University Press.
    4. Hura, M. et al. (2000). Interoperability: A Continuing Challenge in Coalition Air Operations. RAND Corporation.
    5. “Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-UAS)” (2021). Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
    6. Biddle, Stephen, and Jeffrey A. Friedman. “The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defence Policy.” Strategic Studies Institute, 2008.
    7. McInnes, Colin. “The Impact of Air Power on Insurgency and Guerrilla Warfare.” RUSI Journal, Vol. 134, No. 2 (1989): 47–53.
    8. Schulte, Paul. “Proliferation and the Revolution in Military Affairs.” Survival, Vol. 39, No. 1 (1997): 21–42.
    9.   Small Arms Survey. MANPADS: Combating the Threat to Global Aviation from Portable Air Defence Systems. Geneva: Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2011.
    10. RAND Corporation. The Air War in the Gulf: Assessing the Results. Santa Monica: RAND, 1993.
    11. Keegan, John. The Face of Battle. New York: Viking Press, 1976.
    12. Cordesman, Anthony H. The Changing Face of War: Lessons of Combat, from the Marne to Iraq. Washington, D.C.: CSIS Press, 2007.
    13. Grau, Lester W., and Michael A. Gress. The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2002.
    14. Beckett, Ian F.W. Modern Insurgencies and Counter-Insurgencies: Guerrillas and Their Opponents since 1750. London: Routledge, 2001.
    15. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). Study on the Proliferation of Small Arms and Light Weapons, Including MANPADS.
    16. U.S. Department of Defence. Counter-Insurgency Air Operations: Best Practices and Challenges.

     

    Feature Image Credit: www.reddit.com

    Image of US aircraft shot down by Vietnamese: https://en.topwar.ru