Month: July 2024

If anything positive can be said to have resulted from this week’s NATO summit in Washington, it is that it occasioned a series of thoughtful critiques from the few remaining citadels of dissent within the U.S. foreign policy community.  

The Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft published a symposium, “to reflect on the past and future of the alliance.” The scholar and author Anatol Lieven who convened the symposium writes, 

NATO likes to describe itself as “the most successful alliance in history”…. What is too often forgotten, however, is that war was prevented not just by NATO solidarity, but also by NATO caution. Successive U.S. administrations—fully backed by their European allies—rejected calls for aggressive policies aimed at “rolling back” Soviet power in Eastern Europe.

A statement published on Monday by the American Committee for US–Russia Accord (which I co-authored with the editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel) expressed the wish that NATO might use the opportunity of this week’s summit “to take a cold-eyed look at itself; at its record; and at its mission—and begin the hard work of self-evaluation.”  

And yet another statement issued by a constellation of foreign policy experts warned against another round of expansion: “Admitting Ukraine would reduce the security of the United States and NATO Allies, at considerable risk to all.” 

Yet, as far as NATO was concerned: Message delivered, message ignored. This week’s summit showed that NATO is bound and determined to continue on as though the alliance operates in a world shaped by its successes—manifesting a blind insistence that the alliance is not only necessary but has been right all along. 

NATO’s principal institutional prerogative at this point is not the defeat of Russia nor the collective defense of the West—whatever that means. It is its own survival—and as such, in Washington the alliance kept busy inventing ever-more reasons to justify its relevance, and ultimately its very existence.

The chief justification revolves, naturally, around the war in Ukraine. And for some months, little by little, American and European officials and government-funded strategists have been laying the groundwork for what has come to be known as Ukraine’s “Bridge to NATO.”

In late June, James O’Brien, a protege of the late secretary of state Madeleine Albright now serving as assistant secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs (the office from which Victoria Nuland managed to do so much damage), told reporters that he saw the NATO summit as “an opportunity to note that Ukraine is integrating fully into the Western structures that its government and its people have said they want.” O’Brien went on to say that he expects the U.S. and EU member states to offer “a clear bridge laid out for Ukraine to join NATO. That includes a number of commitments for reforms by Ukraine as well as for continued engagement from the West.”

Around the time O’Brien was laying out this roadmap to another round of NATO expansion, RAND Corporation policy researcher Ann Marie Daley said, “Regardless of whether the war ends with Ukraine in control of its 1991 borders or Kyiv settles for something short of that, troops from NATO nations will need to be stationed on Ukrainian soil to provide the time, space, and security necessary to complete the bridge into NATO.” 

And indeed, a draft of the communique the alliance plans to release obtained by CNN shows that these plans will be codified in short order.

Yet does it not seem as though the people who say and write these sorts of things are whistling past the graveyard? The war is lost, Ukraine is ruined for at least a generation, and Russia and the West are inching closer and closer to direct, possibly nuclear, confrontation—yet the answer, as always with these people, is more NATO.

In fact the very opposite is true—peace and stability in eastern Europe will come with the recognition that NATO’s plan to expand to Ukraine lies at the heart of the current crisis. Recall that just shy of a month ago, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin laid out several conditions—including Ukrainian neutrality—that would, in his words, “immediately” bring about a ceasefire and the start of negotiations. An “irreversible” pledge of (or “bridge” to) NATO membership for Ukraine drives a stake through the heart of any peace settlement acceptable to Moscow. 

But perhaps that’s the point.

The post NATO’s Bridge to Nowhere appeared first on The American Conservative.

President Joe Biden Thursday delivered his first press conference in eight months to conclude the NATO summit at Washington, DC.

Biden faced questions from the press regarding his capacity and intention to continue as president, following calls from some high-profile Democrats for him to step down following a June 27 debate performance widely regarded as disastrous.

The president touted the summit as a success, underlining the alliance’s rallying around Ukraine in the face of Russia’s 2022, and characterized it as the latest in a series of policy victories for his administration. While underlining the size of the coalition he mustered to support Ukraine, he noted that there were limits on the escalatory capabilities he would give to Kiev, ruling out the use of American weapons for strikes into Russian territory. “If he could strike Moscow, strike the Kremlin, does that make sense? It doesn’t,” Biden said.

Among domestic wins, the president particularly highlighted strong inflation and jobs numbers for the second quarter.

“Guess what? Find me an economist who said we haven’t done well. What have we not done that did not work right now?” he said.

Throughout his prepared remarks and answers to the press, Biden addressed fears about his ability to continue as president, saying that he is still fully active. “Since my mistake at the debate, my schedule has been full-bore,” he said.

He also brushed off fears about his electability. “There are at five least presidents, or incumbent presidents, who have lower numbers than I have now,” he said.

“I think I’m the person best qualified to do the job,” he said.

The post Biden Delivers Defiant Message in Post–NATO Summit Presser appeared first on The American Conservative.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, speaking Thursday at the tenth BRICS Parliamentary Forum in St. Petersburg, indicated his openness to the creation of a BRICS Parliament. 

Present were guests from 18 countries, including non-BRICS CIS States. This is the first such forum since the UAE, Iran, Egypt, and Ethiopia joined the group in January.

“BRICS does not yet have its own parliamentary institution, however, I believe that the idea will definitely be implemented in the future,” Putin said.

Veneziano Vital do Rego, vice president of the Brazilian Senate, commented to Izvestia that the idea requires elaboration, but that it may be beneficial for discussing common initiatives.

This October, BRICS will host a major summit in the Russian city of Kazan, which Chinese leader Xi Jinping is expected to attend. 

The post Putin: BRICS Parliament Possible In Future appeared first on The American Conservative.

In a dramatic turn of events, two grenades were discovered at Honolulu’s Daniel K. Inouye International Airport, prompting a swift evacuation and significant disruptions. The incident has raised serious concerns about airport security and the potential for terrorist activities on American soil.

The discovery occurred early Tuesday morning when airport security personnel identified the explosives during a routine baggage screening. The grenades were found in the luggage of a passenger who has since been detained for questioning. The swift response by airport authorities averted a potential catastrophe, but the incident has left many travelers shaken and frustrated by the ensuing chaos.

Two inert grenades were discovered in a passenger’s carry-on luggage by TSA agents at Hawaii’s Hilo International Airport causing the airport to be briefly evacuated. https://t.co/K7E6yDIZZx pic.twitter.com/L6Qd6qTkPl

— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) July 10, 2024

Upon the discovery, law enforcement officials quickly evacuated the airport, causing widespread panic among passengers and staff. Bomb disposal units were dispatched to the scene to safely remove and neutralize the threat. Flights were delayed, and thousands of passengers were left stranded as authorities secured the premises and conducted a thorough investigation.

The incident underscores the ongoing challenges faced by airport security in detecting and preventing potential threats. Despite rigorous screening procedures, the presence of such dangerous items in a passenger’s luggage raises questions about the effectiveness of current security measures. This breach highlights the need for constant vigilance and potential improvements in screening technologies and protocols.

Hawaii Airport Forced to Evacuate After Two Grenades Found in Man’s Carry-On Luggage, TSA Agents in Pittsburgh Stops Another Man Carrying Two Grenades

READ: https://t.co/TfPQgF7GZ8 pic.twitter.com/Qqf4TEmzQz

— The Gateway Pundit (@gatewaypundit) July 11, 2024

Republican lawmakers have seized on the incident to call for increased scrutiny and enhanced security measures at airports nationwide. They argue that the discovery of grenades at a major international airport is a stark reminder of the ever-present threat of terrorism and the need for robust national security policies. These calls for action come amid broader debates about border security and the importance of safeguarding American infrastructure.

In the wake of the evacuation, travelers expressed their frustration with the delays and the lack of clear communication from airport officials. Many passengers were left in the dark about the reasons for the evacuation and the status of their flights, leading to confusion and anxiety. This incident has sparked a debate about how airports handle emergency situations and communicate with the public during crises.

While the investigation is still ongoing, initial reports suggest that the passenger with the grenades may not have intended to carry out an attack. However, the presence of such dangerous items in a civilian setting is deeply troubling and underscores the potential for severe consequences. Authorities are now focused on understanding how the grenades made it through initial security checks and whether there was any malicious intent.

The incident at Honolulu’s airport is a stark reminder of the persistent threats faced by the nation and the importance of maintaining stringent security protocols. As the investigation continues, it is likely that more details will emerge about the circumstances surrounding the discovery. In the meantime, the incident serves as a wake-up call for both security agencies and the public to remain vigilant and proactive in the face of potential dangers.

As America grapples with this latest security scare, the incident at Daniel K. Inouye International Airport will undoubtedly fuel ongoing discussions about national security, airport safety, and the measures needed to protect citizens from harm. The Republican push for stronger security policies may gain momentum as a result, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach to safeguarding the nation.

The post Chaos at Hawaii Airport: Grenade Discovery Forces Evacuation appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

The official document published Wednesday for the ongoing NATO summit in Washington makes no mention of a path to membership for Georgia, which has appeared in all official NATO summit declarations since 2008. 

Georgia’s omission in several key places appears deliberate. For instance, paragraph 31, which is about the Black Sea, makes no mention of Georgia, nor does paragraph 28, which discusses NATO partners like Bosnia and Moldova. Georgia is only mentioned once in the document, in paragraph 17, and there the mention merely asks for “Russia to withdraw all of its forces from the Republic of Moldova and Georgia,” a reference to the Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria and South Ossetia.

While potential Georgian and Ukrainian membership were formerly viewed as going hand-in-hand, this year’s omission of Georgian accession to NATO is sharply contrasted with language stating that Ukraine is “on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.”

This omission of Georgian membership may reflect the changing politics and alignment of the Caucasian nation, which has recently sought to position itself between Russia and the West. In May, the Georgian Parliament overrode a presidential veto to pass a law, based on the U.S.’s FARA, aimed at limiting foreign influence. The passing of this “Foreign Agents Law” provoked significant backlash from the EU, which announced Tuesday that it had stopped Georgia’s planned accession to the EU.

The post NATO Summit’s Declaration Omits Georgian Membership Path appeared first on The American Conservative.

NATO published a declaration Wednesday aimed against Chinese trade with Russia. The declaration was approved by the 32 leaders of the countries in NATO, who are gathered in Washington DC for the summit on the occasion of the alliance’s 75th anniversary. 

The statement, which called China a “decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine,” accused the PRC of “large-scale support for Russia’s defense industrial base” for allowing the shipment into Russia of weapons components as part of the trade between the two countries.

The statement also included the demand that China “cease all material and political support to Russia’s war effort.”

“We remain open to constructive engagement with the PRC, including to build reciprocal transparency with the view of safeguarding the Alliance’s security interests,” the statement read.

The declaration reflects a recent shift in NATO’s concerns beyond the Atlantic toward Asia-Pacific affairs. Beijing has not responded to the statement.

The post NATO Dubs China ‘Decisive Enabler’ Of Russia appeared first on The American Conservative.

In another display of partisan theatrics, Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently found herself at the center of controversy during a hearing where she attempted to abruptly end the session without allowing all committee members to ask questions. This behavior underscores a broader issue with Waters’ approach to leadership and her penchant for dismissing opposition voices.

Waters, often dubbed “Mad Maxine” by her critics, displayed her usual combative demeanor when Rep. Lance Gooden (R-TX) challenged her attempt to close the hearing prematurely. Despite his repeated requests for a “parliamentary inquiry,” Waters reluctantly and sarcastically allowed Gooden his five minutes of questioning, highlighting her unwillingness to engage in fair and open discourse.

Watching Maxine Waters adjust that busted ass Temu hair helmet is funny as haaill pic.twitter.com/NFbdKUwyd3

— It’s Tiff (@TiffMoodNukes) July 10, 2024

This incident is not isolated. Waters has a history of inflammatory rhetoric and divisive behavior. Her recent claims on MSNBC about right-wing militias supposedly preparing for violence if Donald Trump loses the upcoming election were criticized as fearmongering and lacking substantial evidence. Waters’ alarmist statements reflect a pattern of using exaggerated threats to distract from her own party’s shortcomings and failures.

The irony is palpable when considering Waters’ past remarks during the George Floyd protests. She infamously urged protesters to “get more confrontational” if then-officer Derek Chauvin was acquitted, a stance that arguably incited more violence rather than promoting peace. This double standard in condemning potential right-wing violence while excusing or even encouraging left-wing unrest is a glaring example of her hypocritical approach to political discourse.

Maxine Waters tried to overturn the 2016 election when she claimed President Trump stole it.

She told people not to accept the results & she instructed them to attack republicans at restaurants, grocery stores or wherever they are seen

Who agrees she should’ve been arrested? pic.twitter.com/kNgUsonS4Y

— M-Û-R-Č-H (@TheEXECUTlONER_) July 10, 2024

Waters’ recent actions also highlight her disregard for procedural norms and respect for her colleagues. Her abrupt attempt to end the hearing before all questions were addressed not only disrespects the committee process but also silences important voices in the discussion. This approach is symptomatic of a broader issue within the Democratic leadership, which often prioritizes partisan gains over genuine bipartisan dialogue.

Moreover, her behavior during the hearing and her continued use of divisive rhetoric suggest a disconnection from the pressing issues that truly matter to the American people. Instead of focusing on substantial policy debates or addressing critical concerns like economic recovery and national security, Waters and her allies seem more interested in political grandstanding and scoring cheap points against their opponents.

As Republicans prepare to take control of key committees, there is hope that a shift towards more constructive and inclusive governance will occur. Leaders like Patrick McHenry are set to bring a renewed focus on accountability and transparency, countering the opaque and often contentious style exhibited by Waters and her colleagues.

In conclusion, Maxine Waters’ recent actions during the committee hearing and her continued use of alarmist rhetoric reflect a broader issue of partisan politics overshadowing substantive leadership. It is imperative for the health of our democracy that leaders prioritize unity, respect procedural norms, and engage in genuine dialogue to address the nation’s challenges effectively.

The post Maxine Waters’ Latest Antics Reflect Her Disconnected Leadership appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Hollywood actor George Clooney has once again stepped into the political arena, this time launching a tirade against former President Donald Trump while lavishing praise on President Joe Biden. In a recent interview, Clooney criticized Trump and his supporters, calling them “dangerous” while painting Biden as a figure of decency and integrity. This blatant display of Hollywood hypocrisy has sparked outrage among conservatives and Trump supporters.

Clooney’s comments came during an interview ahead of the Oscars, where he took the opportunity to voice his political opinions rather than focus on the upcoming awards. He accused Trump of creating division and spreading lies, labeling the former president a threat to American democracy. Clooney’s harsh rhetoric against Trump is nothing new, but his timing and the platform he chose have amplified the backlash.

This is George Clooney’s house on Lake Como in Italy. This is what several decades of Republican tax breaks bought him.

Rich pricks with options like this need to shut the entire fuck up immediately. pic.twitter.com/nkCH0UA4dF

— serenity now (@MissesDread) July 10, 2024

While slamming Trump, Clooney showered Biden with praise, describing him as a leader who restored dignity to the White House. He claimed that Biden’s presidency represents a return to normalcy and decency, conveniently ignoring the numerous crises and blunders that have plagued the current administration. From the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan to the ongoing border crisis, Biden’s tenure has been far from smooth, yet Clooney remains unwavering in his support.

This double standard is typical of Hollywood elites, who often use their platforms to promote liberal agendas while dismissing or demonizing conservative viewpoints. Clooney’s comments reflect a broader trend in the entertainment industry, where attacking Trump and his supporters has become a fashionable way to signal virtue and align with the left-leaning establishment.

HOLY CR*P.

Remember George Clooney held a fundraiser for Biden where Biden had to be led off stage by Obama after he froze?

Then KJP responded and said the video was a “cheap fake” and “manipulated”

Now George Clooney is admitting that Biden was the same man at that fundraiser… pic.twitter.com/ld0TeEQQ7x

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) July 10, 2024

The backlash to Clooney’s remarks has been swift. Trump supporters and conservative commentators have called out the actor for his hypocrisy and ignorance. They argue that Hollywood celebrities like Clooney are out of touch with the average American and use their influence to push political narratives that do not resonate with the majority of the populace. The disdain for Trump among Hollywood elites is seen as a reflection of their detachment from the real issues facing the country.

In contrast to Clooney’s portrayal of Biden as a paragon of virtue, many Americans are grappling with the real consequences of his policies. Rising inflation, surging gas prices, and a chaotic foreign policy have cast a shadow over Biden’s presidency. Yet, Hollywood continues to paint a rosy picture, glossing over these significant challenges in favor of a partisan narrative.

Clooney’s remarks also highlight the ongoing divide between the coasts and the heartland. While celebrities and media figures in Los Angeles and New York may celebrate Biden’s presidency, many in middle America feel abandoned and misunderstood by an administration that seems more focused on appeasing progressive activists than addressing their concerns.

As the 2024 election approaches, the political rhetoric from Hollywood is likely to intensify. Celebrities like Clooney will continue to use their platforms to influence public opinion, often without regard for the complexities and realities of the issues at hand. However, their attempts to sway the electorate may have the opposite effect, galvanizing conservative voters who are tired of being lectured by out-of-touch elites.

In the end, Clooney’s attack on Trump and his praise for Biden serve as a reminder of the deep ideological divide in America. While Hollywood may cheer for Biden, millions of Americans remain skeptical of his leadership and wary of the liberal narratives promoted by celebrities. The real test will come at the ballot box, where voters will have the final say on the direction of the country.

The post George Clooney’s Hollywood Hypocrisy: Actor Attacks Trump While Praising Biden appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

George Clooney, matinee idol and Democrat megadonor, has taken a turn at opinion-writing. In a Wednesday New York Times essay, he hailed President Joe Biden as a “hero” who “saved democracy in 2020.” But the actor has turned on the incumbent Democratic president. Per Clooney, to save democracy, Biden needs to bow out so party elites can hand pick his replacement—Democratic primary voters be damned.

And Clooney is not alone. For the last two weeks, a slow drip of prominent Democrats have called on Biden to withdraw from the race, such as Reps. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Seth Moulton (D-MA), Angie Craig (D-MN), and Jerry Nadler (D-NY). Others who once denied Biden had any cognitive difficulties seem to be warming to the idea.

But Biden replacement theory isn’t just causing panic among Democrats. Republicans have also been sent scrambling to prepare contingencies lest Democrats actually go through with removing the incumbent president from the ballot.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) told The American Conservative that, since returning to Washington, the Senate GOP conference has spent a considerable amount of time speculating “about who would replace him and how Dems could elbow out Kamala.”

Johnson says he’s bought into Biden replacement theory for quite some time. “I’ve been saying I doubt Biden will be their nominee since Summer 2023,” Johnson told TAC. 

Johnson isn’t alone. “Democrats are belatedly admitting what Americans have seen for years: Joe Biden is not fit to be president, and his sadly confused state is an embarrassment to the nation,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) told TAC.

Just north of the Capitol complex, the Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project also had early premonitions that Democrats would attempt to ditch Biden. Four months ago, Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell and his team began researching how state statutes limited Democrats’ ability to replace Biden as the nominee. 

“If the Biden family decides that President Biden will not run for re-election, the mechanisms for replacing him on ballots vary by state,” read an Oversight Project memo circulated prior to the debate obtained by NOTUS. “There is the potential for pre-election litigation in some states that would make the process difficult and perhaps unsuccessful.”

Howell told NOTUS that statutes in major swing states would make replacing Biden “extraordinarily difficult” for Democrats. Ironically, if Democrats follow through, it might be conservative organizations going to bat for Biden’s candidacy. In the Oversight Project memo, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin are listed as states where legal challenges might force Biden to remain atop the Democratic ticket. “We’ve zeroed in on a few states that we think are the best case,” Howell told NOTUS, though he refused to go further into detail.

For now, Republicans are in a holding pattern, unsure of who will square off against former President Donald Trump come November. They are preparing for several scenarios and candidates.

“If Biden has declined too much to run, win, and serve another term, he is unfit to protect America now—if he steps down from the Democrat ticket, he should also resign for the good of the country,” Lee told TAC. “I would not hold my breath waiting for him to do the right thing, however.”

On X, Senator Rick Scott (R-FL) suggested that, if Biden refuses to run, he should also resign the presidency. “The Stephanopoulos interview has made one thing clear: Joe Biden is completely unfit to serve as president for the next 6 months, much less the next 4 years,” Scott tweeted. “This is exactly what the 25th Amendment was meant for.”

If they help Democrats send Biden into an early retirement, the danger for Republicans is Harris gaining some of the advantages of incumbency before the election, not to mention a further shift leftward for the Democratic party writ large. For Democrats, handing the party over to Harris all but ensures she is the nominee—and she might not be the Democrat’s best shot at winning. Most Republicans seem to believe it’s Michelle Obama.

Johnson told TAC he thinks Harris will get the nod if Biden steps aside “unless they can convince Michelle Obama.” 

“Anyone the Dems crown will be heralded as the next Messiah by the media,” Johnson continued, “but I think Michelle Obama would be the most difficult to beat.”

“I think there’s two options. It’s either Kamala Harris or Michelle Obama,” Vivek Ramaswamy told TAC. “The reason I say that is they have an identity politics issue, they have a Kamala Harris problem. They only nominate her because she’s a black woman. If they don’t nominate her—they skip over her—they’re burned by that same identity politics problem, and it’s now a trap they created for themselves. And so I think Michelle Obama could represent their way out of it. The thing that going against them for that is that supposedly she doesn’t want to do it, but that assumes that her desires are relevant.”

But before anyone else runs, Biden has to agree to step aside. Johnson expects Biden to fight to the bitter end. “He sure sounds determined to [run],” he claimed. “Hard to believe he’ll be able to now that the media has turned on him.”

“It is impossible to say what will happen, with Biden digging in his heels even as the New York Times editorial board and more congressional Democrats ask him to get off the ticket,” Lee told TAC. “But their lack of viable candidates underscores how deeply unpopular leftist policies are: whether it’s Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, or even Michelle Obama, they would still represent the party of open borders, banana republic prosecutions, high crime, and unaffordable inflation.”

“Democrats are ideologically incapable of doing the one thing that could save them: running a candidate who actually wants to secure the border, rejects extreme abortion-up-to-birth, celebrates America’s history, and condemns the woke Hamas sympathizers in their party,” Lee continued. “That’s why Donald Trump is going to win in November, no matter who the Democrats pick to sell their failed policies.”

Johnson agrees. “Anyone they pick to replace Biden will promote the exact radical left ideology and policies that are destroying America,” the Wisconsin senator asserted.

Despite Biden’s apparent resolve to stay in the race, Ramaswamy told TAC, “I don’t think he’s the candidate.” Nor does he think it is terribly relevant: “He’s a puppet for propping up for the managerial class underneath him. And I think Republicans understand it’s the managerial class we’re running against.”

With the Democratic party in chaos, Ramaswamy fears Republicans are counting their chickens before they hatch. “There’s a real risk that we see a repetition of 2022—the red wave that never came,” Ramaswamy warned. 

“That new candidate will be in the honeymoon phase. The same attitude that a tortured prisoner has towards their liberator will be the attitude that much of the Democratic Party and even independents have towards whoever’s next,” he continued. “And so while they’re in the honeymoon phase, before the scrutiny phase, November comes around.”

If Republicans are caught flat-footed, the end result could be disaster. “We’ve had complacency. We’ve lost in ’18, ’20, 2022, ’23,” Ramaswamy said. “We have to focus on what we stand for, and without that, I think we’re at risk of disappointment yet again.”

The post Republicans Prepare for a Biden Ouster appeared first on The American Conservative.

In a significant escalation, China’s military has been conducting rehearsals for assaults on U.S. stealth fighter bases using its advanced J-20 and J-35 stealth fighters. These exercises are a clear signal of Beijing’s intent to deter American intervention in the Taiwan Strait.

Satellite images and intelligence reports reveal that China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has deployed J-20 fighter jets to strategically significant locations, including Shigatse in Tibet, less than 150 kilometers from the Indian border. This deployment places the J-20s within striking distance of key Indian military bases, raising regional tensions significantly​.

China’s new “Submarine Sky Eye” technology could potentially render the entire US submarine fleet obsolete by making their stealth capabilities ineffective.https://t.co/JgvmYVvXv8

— William Huo (@wmhuo168) July 2, 2024

The Chengdu J-20, known as the “Mighty Dragon,” is China’s premier stealth fighter, equipped with advanced sensors and air-to-air missiles capable of targeting adversaries up to 300 kilometers away. This aircraft, introduced in 2017, symbolizes China’s growing aerial prowess and its ambition to rival U.S. air dominance​.

Moreover, the PLA is not only relying on the J-20. The Shenyang J-35, another stealth fighter variant, is also being integrated into China’s military strategy. The J-35, initially developed for naval operations, is now seeing potential deployment in land-based roles. This variant could be exported to allied nations like Pakistan, thereby amplifying China’s influence and strategic depth in the region​​.

–#IndianNavy’s indigenous stealth frigate INS Shivalik at Pearl Harbour, Hawaii to participate in world’s largest military exercise #RIMPAC24
-40 Warships
-3 Subs
-150 Aircraft
-14 nation’s land forces with 25K personnel

-World is getting ready for #China, is your country ready? pic.twitter.com/xsYaZP9OIl

— Insightful Geopolitics (@InsightGL) July 1, 2024

These maneuvers come amid heightened tensions over Taiwan. The PLA’s exercises simulate attacks on U.S. bases that house F-35 and F-22 fighters, showcasing China’s intent to neutralize U.S. air superiority quickly in the event of a conflict. The exercises are part of a broader strategy to intimidate Taiwan and deter U.S. support for the island nation​​.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has responded to these developments by upgrading its own capabilities. India has deployed French-built Rafale fighters and is enhancing its air defense systems, including the Russian-made S-400 missile system, which can track and potentially neutralize stealth fighters like the J-20. However, India’s efforts to develop its own indigenous stealth fighter, the AMCA, face significant challenges, potentially leaving it vulnerable in the face of increasing Chinese and Pakistani aerial capabilities.

China’s aggressive posture is not confined to the Indian border. The PLA has also been fortifying its positions across the South China Sea and near Taiwan, conducting large-scale naval and aerial drills. These exercises involve a mix of aircraft, warships, and ground assets, all aimed at encircling Taiwan and demonstrating the PLA’s ability to conduct multi-domain operations​​.

In response, the United States and its allies have been increasing their military presence in the region. Joint exercises with Japan, Australia, and South Korea are becoming more frequent, emphasizing interoperability and collective defense against potential Chinese aggression.The strategic implications of China’s military advancements are profound. By rapidly expanding its stealth fighter capabilities and integrating these assets into various theaters of operation, Beijing is not only preparing for potential conflicts but also signaling its readiness to challenge U.S. influence in the Asia-Pacific region. The PLA’s advancements underscore the urgent need for the U.S. and its allies to bolster their own military capabilities and maintain a robust presence in this increasingly volatile area.

The post China Rehearses Assaults on U.S. Stealth Fighter Bases: A Show of Force appeared first on The Conservative Brief.