Diplomacy & Crisis News

North Korea’s threat to their neighbors to the south, indeed much of the rest of the region, is often closely associated with their nuclear weapons program. If we’re lucky, some analyst will remind us that North Korea’s biological and chemical weapons program is far older, more complex, and expansive than the North Korean nuclear weapons arsenal.

But perhaps an even more significant—indeed, persistent and growing—threat to South Korea comes from North Korea’s immense artillery.

Specifically, North Korea's Koksan M-1989 170mm Self-Propelled Howitzer cannon is a serious threat to the safety of South Korea. With the world’s largest artillery network arrayed just across the border from South Korea, Western analysts had better start sounding the alarm about North Korea’s artillery far more than even Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program.

Understanding the Koksan

The M-1989 Koksan is an evolution of an earlier North Korean artillery model, the M-1978. The Koksan features a 170mm gun-mounted on a tracked chassis, enhancing both the maneuverability and operability of the weapon system across the hilly and overall rough Korean terrain. The gun itself features a gigantic 8-meter barrel, which holds a record as one of the longest barrels of any self-propelled artillery system in the world.

Standard ammunition shells for the Koksan can reach as far as 25 miles away. North Korea’s Koksan, however, can fire rockets as well as conventional artillery shells. These rockets can reach 37 miles away.

One of the key drawbacks to this system is its relative slow rate of fire. It can only launch one to two rounds every five minutes due to the large size and complexity of the ammunition involved. Of course, this weakness is surmounted by the fact that North Korea has a layered network of heavy artillery systems deployed to make up for the slow rate of fire of systems like the Koksan. Further, the M-1989 carries 12 rounds of ammunition onboard.

Like so much North Korean weapons technology, the M-1989 Koksan is based on old Soviet technology from the Cold War. Notably, the Soviet-made ATS-59 artillery tractor forms the basis of the Koksan. Although, the Koksan modified the old Soviet system to better handle the weight and recoil of the Koksan’s massive 170mm gun.

Some have even speculated that the Koksan was inspired by much older Soviet systems from the 1950s, with others going as far to say that Pyongyang may have adapted the system from old German Wehrmacht artillery, as North Korea did with when they copied the old Wehrmacht 17cm Kanone 18.

Another downside to the M-1989 is its open configuration, which makes the system vulnerable to direct attacks. Most artillery systems in use in the world have some level of protection for the system itself and the crew manning it. But that is not the case for North Korea’s M-1989.

What would one expect from a regime, such as North Korea, that holds one of the world’s lowest rankings in terms of human rights?

The M-1989 Koksan Combat History

The Koksan has seen combat in different hotspots around the world, notably by the Islamic Republic of Iran in its bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s. North Korea’s Koksan provided long-range bombardment for the Iranians, who were fighting to stop Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi Army from conquering Iran. 

Iran used this system for counter-battery fire at extremely long ranges, placing it well beyond the reach of enemy artillery, giving the Iranian military an advantage over the otherwise more advanced Iraqi Army.

Interestingly, as part of their close association, the Koksan has been deployed to Russia for use in their war against neighboring Ukraine. The unique 170mm caliber of the Koksan presents logistical challenges for Russia, since the weapon does not align with standard Russian artillery calibers, meaning that North Korea must supply large quantities of specialized ammunition for the Koksans in Russia.

Then again, that works to the favor of the North Koreans, who make gobs of money off selling the M-1989 Koksan and its special ammunition to Russia as well as get to perfect their defense industrial base.

South Korea Needs to Be Prepared for the Koksan

The M-1989 Koksan and its unique capabilities prove that the North Korean artillery threat to the South is real. At a moment’s notice, these systems could be activated and used to decimate major South Korean cities. The loss of life would be catastrophic. 

Despite some of its weaknesses, this is probably one of North Korea’s most important weapons—and the South Koreans had better quickly develop countermeasures for this system before it’s too late. 

Brandon J. Weichert, a Senior National Security Editor at The National Interest as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for the National Interest, and a contributor at Popular Mechanics, consults regularly with various government institutions and private organizations on geopolitical issues. Weichert’s writings have appeared in multiple publications, including the Washington Times, National Review, The American Spectator, MSN, the Asia Times, and countless others. His books include Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, Biohacked: China’s Race to Control Life, and The Shadow War: Iran’s Quest for Supremacy. His newest book, A Disaster of Our Own Making: How the West Lost Ukraine is available for purchase wherever books are sold. He can be followed via Twitter @WeTheBrandon.

Last month, the People's Republic of China appeared to have leapfrogged the United States in military aviation technology, as a previously undisclosed aircraft recently made its maiden flight. The aircraft in question has been described as a "next-generation" or "sixth-generation" fighter. Though no official designation is known, military analysts have dubbed it the J-36.

"BIG: China's next-generation (6th-gen) fighter jet made its first flight today," the open-source military hardware analyst Clash Report wrote on X on December 26, while sharing images of the large tail-less aircraft.

A video, recorded near the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation's (CAC's) headquarters in Chengdu, Sichuan province, and shared online showed the three-engine aircraft being trailed by the fifth-generation Chengdu J-20 Mighty Dragon stealth fighter.

China's Fifth-Gen Leap Forward

Beijing typically holds its cards close to its chest, but in November offered a flight demonstration of its fifth-generation Mighty Dragon at the 15th China International Aviation and Aerospace Exhibition in Zhuhai (aka Airshow China) and unveiled the two-seat variant, the J-20S. That latter is the only twin-seat fifth-gen fighter currently in service.

In addition, the Chinese Ministry of National Defense released teaser images on social media of the Shenyang J-35A, its carrier-based fifth-generation fighter, in advance of the airshow. The twin-engine, all-weather, stealth fighter aircraft on social media took part in a brief aerial performance. It was a short debut for the highly-anticipated fighter, and the demonstration certainly left the audience (and analysts) wanting to see more.

With both the J-20 and the J-35, China has become only the second country after the United States to operate two distinct stealth fighters.

The J-36: What We Know

The appearance of the J-36 would suggest China has made a great leap forward with its military aviation program.

The fact that the video was purportedly recorded near CAC's HQ seems to narrow down the maker. Yet, the capabilities and even function of the aircraft are simply unknown.

As The Diplomat reported, "The leadup to the J-36's emergence holds uncanny similarities to the emergence of the J-20, nearly 14 years ago to the day, showing that history does indeed rhyme. Both were preceded by significant periods of credible rumors and increasingly granular predictions by the Chinese language PLA watching community," adding, "Some have remarked that the date for the J-36's maiden flight might seek to commemorate the December 26 birthday of Mao Zedong, the founder of the People's Republic of China."

Though other milestones indeed occurred on that day, it must be noted that if the aircraft were to be met with disaster such as a crash, it wouldn't be a good day for it to occur. That could put into question whether this was in fact the maiden flight of the J-36 or perhaps simply its first public flight.

The Sixth-Generation Race is Well Underway

The United States Air Force has acknowledged that it has conducted test flights of its Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) manned fighter, one component of the sixth-generation system of systems that could also include unmanned drones that serve as loyal wingmen. However, earlier this year, the U.S. Air Force had suggested it would press pause on the NGAD due to cost concerns and fears the technology could be outdated too quickly.

Even as the Air Force has taken a breather, the U.S. Navy's F/A-XX program is now reported to be moving forward.

There are multiple other six-gen programs in the works – including the Global Air Combat Programme (GACP), a joint partnership between the UK, Italy, and Japan; and the Franco-German-Spanish Future Air Combat System (FACS).

Russia's PAK DP – sometimes described as the MiG-41 – is also believed to be in the works, but as previously reportedly by Stavros Atlamazoglou for The National Interest, "skepticism surrounds the project due to past failures like the Su-57 Felon and T-14 Armata tank, both plagued by production and operational issues."

China may be on track to overtake Russia in aircraft design, which should be seen as a worry for Washington as well as its Indo-Pacific allies.

"The successful flight of China's 6th-gen fighter jet represents a new chapter in the global arms race," Army Recognition reported. "As other nations scramble to develop their own next-generation aircraft, the competition for air superiority is poised to intensify."

Meanwhile, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has claimed drones are the future when he suggested on social media only "idiots" are building manned fighters like the F-35. He may not be wrong, but it does appear that the military aviation world is still thinking about manned fighters right now.

Author Experience and Expertise: Peter Suciu

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image: Weibo / Creative Commons.

Ded Moroz, Russia's version of Father Christmas, generally delivers presents to children on New Year's rather than Christmas – and the Kremlin actually may have received its best gift from Uralvagonzavod. The producer of Russia's T-90M and T-72B3M main battle tanks (MBTs) announced last week that it delivered new batches of the vehicles to start the New Year.

"According to tradition, the tank builders decorated the vehicles from each batch in a New Year's style: a Russian flag was installed on the T-90M Proryv, and a New Year's tree was installed on the 'seventy-two'. Calendars with children's drawings dedicated to the upcoming 90th anniversary of the Uralvagonzavod trade union organization were also included in the tanks," the Russian state-owned conglomerate stated.

The firm further claimed that "production increased from month to month," while last November saw significant output of vehicles."

Upgraded Models

Uralvagonzavod further announced that the latest batch of MBTs have been upgraded based on experiences learned in the ongoing fighting in Ukraine. In total, more than one hundred "changes were made" to the tanks, and each has been outfitted with anti-drone nets, and equipped with "rubber-reinforced protection" – which were previously reported to be mats that cover the gaps between the turret and hulls.

The effectiveness of the mats has been questioned, but both sides have taken desperate measures to add protection from the first-person view (FPV) drones. However, the head of Uralvagonzavod has praised the modifications.

"A tank from early 2022 and a tank from late 2024 are, one might say, two different combat vehicles. For example, if we talk about the protection system, it did not anticipate many of the challenges that we faced literally from the first days of the Second Military Operation," explained General Director of JSC Concern Uralvagonzavod Alexander Potapov. "The corresponding modifications were immediately adopted, the designers worked day and night, and the plant workers promptly made changes to the products that were already being assembled in the workshop. This painstaking and responsible work of the plant workers was recognized by the eighth state award – the Order 'For Labor Valor.'"

Production Fails to Keep Pace With Losses

The Russian-based Uralvagonzavod did not announce how many respective T-72 and T-90s were delivered in the recent batches, but military analysts have questioned whether the production of new tanks can replace those lost on the battlefield.

According to a June 2024 report from the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), 13 batches of T-90Ms had been delivered by that point.

"Reports from the Russian defence sector and think tanks suggest that company-sized batches of between 11–15 tanks are being delivered," IISS explained, putting the number "as high as 267 if all batches included 15 tanks." Obviously, additional batches have been delivered since that report was written, but if we conservatively round up the number to 300 T-90s, it still seems unlikely the production can keep pace with the current rate of attrition.

The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) wrote earlier this month, "Ukrainian forces reportedly destroyed or damaged over 3,000 Russian tanks and almost 9,000 armored vehicles in 2024 as Russia continues to accrue vehicle losses that are likely unsustainable in the medium-term."

ISW added, "Russia's current armored vehicle and tank production rates indicate that such losses will likely be prohibitive over the longer term, particularly as Russia continues to dip into its Soviet-era stocks."

Those stockpiles are being depleted, while the antiquated tanks – notably the T-62s and earlier models – have shown to be ill-suited to the modern battlefield.

Thus, the latest batch of new MBTs should be seen as a much anticipated and appreciated gift to start the New Year, but whether a couple of dozen tanks (if even that many) will make enough of a difference for the Russians in 2025.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

The next two United States Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers – both of the Flight III – have officially been given names. USS Intrepid (DDG-145) and USS Robert Kerrey (DDG-146) will be respectively the 95th and 96th vessels of the class of destroyers, and both will be built at Huntington Ingalls Industries' Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Mississippi.

In August 2023 the service announced it would acquire the next nine Flight III warships with the costs spread across fiscal years 2023 to 2027. In addition, the contracts with Ingalls Shipbuilding, for six of the vessels, and three for General Dynamics' Bath Iron Works, could be expanded as the Navy sees fit.

The Backbone of the U.S. Navy's Surface Fleet

According to the U.S. Navy, each Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has been "built around the Aegis Combat System," and the vessels continue to be "the backbone of the U.S. Navy's surface fleet providing protection to America around the globe."

The Arleigh Burke class was developed at the tail end of the Cold War to replace the aging Charles F. Adams-class destroyers. Each of the guided-missile warships in the class has an overall length of 500 to 510 feet and a displacement that ranges from 8,230 to 9,700 tons.

The destroyers can operate independently or as part of Carrier Strike Groups, Surface Action Groups, and Expeditionary Strike Groups. As multi-mission surface combatants, the warships are capable of conducting Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW). The DDG 51 Flight III upgrade was designed to be centered on the AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) system that provides vastly increased capability over Flight IIA ships. The AMDR has enabled Flight III ships to simultaneously perform AAW and BMD, which satisfies the U.S. Navy’s critical need for an enhanced surface combatant Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) capability.

The New USS Intrepid

Last Friday, Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro officially named DDG-145 the future USS Intrepid while aboard the retired Essex-class aircraft carrier that shares its namesake. Preserved as the Intrepid Museum in New York City, the former carrier (CV/CVA/CVS-11) is just one of four maintained as a floating museum ship.

"It is deeply meaningful to stand aboard USS Intrepid – the fourth vessel to bear the name, and whose proud legacy continues to inspire and remind so many visitors of the courage, resilience and sacrifice that define the U.S. Navy – and it is with profound respect that we also look to the future of our Navy from these decks," said Secretary Del Toro. "It is my pleasure to announce that the fifth vessel named Intrepid will be an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, DDG 145, USS Intrepid, in honor of her past namesakes and the courageous service of all our Sailors globally from the South China Sea to the Red Sea."

The future Arleigh Burke-class destroyer will be the fifth U.S. Navy vessel to bear the name.

The first was an armed ketch that was actually captured by Commodore Stephen Decatur during his mission against the Barbary pirates in North Africa to destroy the captured USS Philadelphia. Originally named Mastico, Decatur and his men took control of the ketch in December 1803, and renamed her Intrepid. She was employed as a fire ship in Tripoli harbor in September 1804 but exploded either prematurely or perhaps to stop a boarding party. Thirteen U.S. sailors were killed. An admiring Admiral Horatio Nelson of the Royal Navy described the feat as "the most bold and daring act of the age."

The second was an experimental steamship, while the third was a receiving and barracks ship. The most famous former USS Intrepid is the famed aircraft carrier.

Her keel was laid down just six days before the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, and upon completion, she immediately headed to the Pacific where she was greeted by a baptism of fire when she took part in the invasion of the Marshall Islands in January 1944. By the end of the war, USS Intrepid suffered a total of four kamikaze attacks as well as a torpedo strike, yet she survived.

The carrier remained in service until 1973, taking part in combat operations during the war in Vietnam, and recovering several NASA space capsules.

"We know this namesake ship will serve our Navy and our nation proudly as the former USS Intrepid did and continues to do, and we couldn't be more thrilled that it begins its proverbial journey today at the Intrepid Museum," said Intrepid Museum President Susan Marenoff-Zausner. "For all of its missions, the entire Museum team wishes the ships and its crew safety and success."

The future USS Intrepid's sponsor will be Betty Del Toro, wife of Secretary Del Toro and a "lifelong supporter of the Navy and a steadfast advocate for Sailors and Marines."

Meet the USS Robert Kerrey

On Saturday, Secretary Del Toro also named the future DDG-146, the USS Robert Kerrey – the first U.S. Navy vessel to be named for the former United States senator, Nebraska governor, and Medal of Honor recipient. A day earlier, Del Toro met with Kerrey in New York City and shared the news that the 96th vessel of the class would be named in his honor.

"My sincere thanks to President Biden, Secretary of the Navy Del Toro, and the United States Navy that gave me the opportunity to serve my country for three of the best years of my life," said Senator Kerrey. "I am very grateful for this recognition."

Senator Kerrey was awarded the Medal of Honor for service as a United States Navy SEAL in 1969. According to the service, on March 14 of that year, "he led his team on a mission to capture important Viet Cong political leaders who had set up a base of operations on an island in the bay of Nha Trang. The platoon scaled a 350-foot cliff and were descending from a ledge overlooking the enemy camp when a grenade exploded at Kerrey's feet, severely injuring his right leg and propelling him backward onto jagged rocks. Immobilized by his multiple wounds, Kerrey nonetheless continued directing his team in securing the enemy camp and finding an extraction site for helicopter evacuation."

Kerrey lost his lower leg during the action, and in 1970, became the first SEAL to receive the nation's highest decoration. He served as governor of the Cornhusker State from 1983 to 1987, and represented Nebraska as a U.S. senator from 1989 to 2001.

"One of the great privileges I have as Secretary of the Navy is to name ships, and it is my honor to name the future USS Robert Kerrey (DDG 146)," said Del Toro. "This will be the first Navy vessel named in his honor, and it is most appropriate we do so, for his actions in Vietnam and his continued service to this country well beyond his Naval service."

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer. He has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers, and websites with over 3,200 published pieces over a twenty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: Editor@nationalinterest.org.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

“What Happens In Vegas, Stays In Vegas.”—Official Las Vegas advertising slogan

It turns out that that slogan is not only applicable to more risqué and naughty nocturnal activities. Thanks to a totally awesome venue known as Battlefield Vegas, the truism also applies to the opportunity to rent and shoot antique firearms that are extremely difficult if not downright impossible to find anywhere else in the country (unless you’re filthy rich and can afford to actually purchase your own).

As luck would have it, during the final week of 2024, Yours Truly happened to be in “Sin City” to witness my beloved USC Trojans win the Las Vegas Bowl, so as one of my pre-Game Day activities, I decided to mosey on down to Battlefield Vegas and take advantage of the opportunity to shoot two antique, historically significant semiautomatic pistols: the Imperial German “Broomhandle” Mauser on the late 19th century and the WWII-era Type 14 8mm Japanese Nambu.

C96 “Broomhandle” 7.63 mm Mauser History & Specifications

Movie buffs will recognize the iconic “Broomhandle” Mauser as the template for the BlasTech DL-44 blaster that Han Solo uses in the Star Wars film franchise.

But this gun’s real-world history is even more remarkable. Patented in 1896 (hence the alphanumeric designation), it was the first military semiautomatic pistol to prove itself both rugged enough and reliable enough for field use. Moreover, it saved the life of none other than a young Winston Churchill during the Battle of Omdurman on September 2, 1898

Dimensions included a barrel length of 5.5 inches, an overall length of 12,3 inches, a weight of 2 pounds 8 ounces, a standard internal magazine capacity of 10 rounds, and firing an original 7.63x25mm Mauser (AKA .30 Mauser) cartridge.

Type 14 8mm Japanese Nambu History & Specifications

The Type 14 Nambu entered production in 1926, an updated version of the Type A Nambu pistol developed in 1902 by Lieutenant General Kijirō Nambu. It was designated the Type 14 because 1926 was the 14th year of the reign of Emperor Taisho (Yoshihito).

Interestingly, the Nambu wasn’t the *official* issue sidearm of the Imperial Japanese Army, as IJA officers were expected to purchase their own pistols.

The gun had such a poor reputation for reliability – due in part to weak magazine springs and weak striker springs – that at least two of my colleagues at The National Interest, Peter Suciu and Kyle Mizokami, include the Nambu on their all-time Worst Guns lists. Also, various test-fire sessions with the Nambu on YouTube are plagued with malfunctions.

As for the 8x22mm cartridge, it’s a rimless bottleneck cartridge with a diameter of  0.320 inch, generating a muzzle velocity of 1,030 feet per second and 242 foot-pounds of muzzle energy with a 102-grain bullet. These ballistics put the 8mm Nambu round roughly on par with the .380 ACP round (which has an 0.355 inch diameter).

Range Report and Shooting Impressions

Battlefield Vegas’s rental Nambu will cost you $25.00 USD for shooting five rounds and $40 for firing ten rounds; their rental C96 Mauser will cost you 29 and 40 bucks respectively for those same round counts. Now, that might sound excessive, even with the cost of more conventional handgun ammo being what it is nowadays. However, from a business standpoint, these prices make perfect sense; after all, these are antique firearms for which spare parts are extremely difficult to come by in case something breaks, so naturally Battlefield Vegas is going to want to maximize their profit margin for each shot fired. (I suppose you could call that “getting more buck for your bang” as opposed to vice versa.)

The shop’s Nambu specimen was the following mini-history:

“This Japanese pistol was brought back to the United States by a US Marine when World War 2 ended and is a genuine piece of world history.”

So then, how did these classic pistols shoot for me?

Well, naturally I had to purchase the 10-round options for each gun in order to do at least a semi-proper evaluation. The ammo for the 7.63mm Mauser was PPU (Prvi Partizan) 85-grain full metal jacket (FMJ), whilst the 8mm Nambu ammo was a generic (no manufacturing specs listed anywhere on the box) 106-grain FMJ.

I was provided a single B-27 silhouette target for both pistols. For both guns, I divvied the eval into five rounds of head shots at 7 yards and five rounds of torso shots at 25 yards, “When in Rome, do like a Roman,” as the saying goes, so for the 7-yard stage, I used the old-school one-handed pistol shooting stance that was universally taught to soldiers before the late great Col. Jeff Cooper revolutionized two-handed handgun shooting in the 1950s and 60s; at 25 yards, I reverted to my preferred two-handed Classic Weaver Stance.

Both pistols had tolerable ergonomics and trigger pulls, much better than might be expected of mil-spec pistols; the Type 14’s didn’t have excess slack or creep, whilst the C96’s pull felt rather surprisingly like that of a newer vintage traditional double-action (TDA) pistol . The Japanese gun had the cruder sights of the two, whilst the German gat had tangent sights that could hypothetically (and rather optimistically) be adjusted for accurate fire at hundreds of meters.

Both guns enabled me to connect on all of my head shots, although surprisingly the 8mm gave me the tighter groups. At 25 yards, the Nambu gave me one 10-ring hit (just shy of the tie-breaking X-ring), two low-right in the 9-wing, one low-right in the 8-ring…and one flier way off to the extreme right periphery of the 7-ring. The Mauser gave me the tighter group at the farther distance, printing high-right, with one round just barely clipping the 10-ring and the rest taking the 9-ring.

The “Broomhandle” gave me flawless reliability, whist, unsurprisingly, the Type 14 had a failure to feed at Round #8.

Overall, a fun though all-too-brief range session getting to shoot these two pieces of history. Many thanks/Vielen dank/Domo arigato gozaimasu, Battlefield Vegas!

Christian D. Orr is a Senior Defense Editor for National Security Journal (NSJ). He is a former Air Force Security Forces officer, Federal law enforcement officer, and private military contractor (with assignments worked in Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kosovo, Japan, Germany, and the Pentagon). Chris holds a B.A. in International Relations from the University of Southern California (USC) and an M.A. in Intelligence Studies (concentration in Terrorism Studies) from American Military University (AMU). He has also been published in The Daily Torch , The Journal of Intelligence and Cyber Security, and Simple Flying. Last but not least, he is a Companion of the Order of the Naval Order of the United States (NOUS). If you’d like to pick his brain further, you can ofttimes find him at the Old Virginia Tobacco Company (OVTC) lounge in Manassas, Virginia, partaking of fine stogies and good quality human camaraderie.

Image: Wikimedia Commons.

According to the International Energy Agency, China’s investment in manufacturing has increased by about 600 percent since 2005, and its share of value added in global manufacturing has almost tripled. As a result, China now generates one-third of global value added in manufacturing and has become the top trade partner of over 120 countries; trade to and from China makes up 45 percent of all dry bulk shipping and 30 percent of all container shipping.

China’s role is especially visible—but not limited to—products like solar panels, electric vehicles, and batteries—in addition to essential manufacturing inputs like steel and aluminum. Over 40 percent of all jobs in the world’s nuclear industry are now in China. This poses great and growing challenges for the United States and its allies, especially its economically advanced allies in Europe and Asia. Has China truly peaked, or does it still possess the resources and political structure to sustain its rise? Can the United States under a second Trump administration be counted on as a reliable ally for Japan? And what collective strategies might rival Beijing’s global economic reach?

On January 6, the Center for the National Interest hosted a virtual discussion on “Countering China’s Economic Might” with Mr. Tatsuya Terazawa, Chairman and CEO of the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan (IEEJ). Terazawa is the author of a recent article in The National Interest, “Five Ways to Counter China’s Economic Might.” Prior to his appointment as Chairman and CEO at IEEJ in 2021, he had a long and distinguished career in Japan’s government, including as Vice Minister for International Affairs in Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry and as Executive Secretary to former Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, in the wake of the massive 2011 earthquake and tsunami that devastated portions of eastern Japan. He holds a law degree from the University of Tokyo and an MBA from Harvard University.

Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of The National Interest, moderated the discussion.

Image: Prasit Rodphan / Shutterstock.com.

It should come as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention that President Joe Biden issued an order prohibiting the acquisition of Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel Corporation by Tokyo-based Nippon Steel Corporation. The corporate offices of both companies have “condemned” Mr. Biden’s decision. President-elect Trump has indicated that he would treat the transaction with similar scrutiny as well. The saga of this once-great steel giant can be traced through the twentieth century. The U.S. government, on multiple occasions, extended a life preserver to this iconic brand, which is synonymous with the American industrial revolution itself.

Yet by 2023, more than a century after it was founded, U.S. Steel sought to be acquired by another firm to save itself. Potential offers from other domestic steel companies were not as attractive, and potential antitrust issues were raised after extensive past consolidation in the industry. Enter Nippon, hailed by proponents of the deal as a savior that poses no national security threat because it is from Japan, an American ally. Nonetheless, Mr. Biden’s order explicitly details the perceived national security concerns raised by the merger. 

The financial reality remains, however, and U.S. Steel needs a solution. That white knight could come in the form of American private equity (PE), the competencies of which include takeover and turnaround. Certainly, the magnitude and complexity of such a proposal should not be underestimated. However, if carefully crafted, a PE transaction could achieve the outcomes of both keeping the company operating and maintaining domestic control, the desired goal of U.S. officials.

The proposition poses the question of why a PE firm would be financially motivated to engage in such a transaction. Tax benefits and policy measures have both been deployed previously to shore up American steel firms. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan reduced the business tax burden on U.S. Steel, enabling it to recover capital investment costs in a faster time frame. He also instituted a government policy on steel, providing a limited solution for the industry, which included surge protection and identification of unfair foreign trade practices. Critics argued that  U.S. Steel executives used cost savings for measures other than the viability of steel production.

Turning to the present situation, tax benefits would incentivize investment by a domestic PE firm or a group of them. They are more than capable of paying the quoted $14.9 billion (cash and debt) cost. The incoming Trump administration could work with Congress to develop a strategic investment credit. Similar to tax credits given to other industries to modernize production, these credits would motivate acquisition and subsequent transformation. In order for steel production to become viable and sustainable in the long term, a greater leap into the digital age will be required. A potential PE firm acquisition should not be viewed simply as a crutch to get to the next crisis of finance for U.S. Steel. It would have to be a restructuring of the operation done in conjunction with the workers who are the backbone of the industry. It could then be presented as a going private alternative to the shareholders for consideration. 

Financial firms have made profits all over the world. A U.S. Steel turnaround would be an opportunity to return goodwill to the domestic workforce while also making a return on investment. Incoming Trump administration officials have extensive experience in PE. They could usher in a new era for domestic steel. Every single industry is on the precipice of existential change pending the imminent integration of technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum computing. As steel develops a new incoming workforce, domestic technology training and capacity need to be part of the incipient strategy.

Only a bold approach can keep U.S. Steel under U.S. oversight. The resources of PE firms were not a comprehensive option in the 1980s or 1990s when steel continued to seek government solutions. Now, however, the U.S. private sector has the resources to solve an immediate predicament and can be motivated to find a longer-term pathway. Nippon is a globally trusted name and the fourth-largest producer of steel in the world. It will survive a potential break-up of this transaction. If U.S. Steel can be transformed into an updated, future entity, it can work with partners around the world like Nippon to mount a strong competitive advantage against the threat of Chinese state-owned steel.

Manisha Singh is Principal at Sunstone Strategy Group and former Assistant Secretary for Economic and Business Affairs at the U.S. Department of State.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

The twenty-first century will be defined by the great power competition between the United States and China. The winner of that competition will likely be the nation that dominates the tech sector. During his first term, President Donald Trump defeated Communist China’s effort to control the global 5G market by installing Huawei as essentially the world’s sole telecommunications provider. 

Huawei did not take its loss lying down. The company took advantage of four years of Biden administration weakness to reconstitute as an Artificial Intelligence (AI) enterprise. Now, like it attempted to do with 5G, China seeks to make the rest of the world reliant on Huawei’s AI technology. As the great Yogi Berra once said, “It’s Déjà Vu all over again.”

President-elect Trump is about to take office again with a plan for an unprecedented era of American economic prosperity. But on its way out the door, the Biden administration is trying to hamstring Trump while giving Communist China a gift in the form of the Interim Final Rule on “Export Control Framework for AI Diffusion.” This proposed rule would create a global export control regime on AI and related hardware that has been on the market for years. This regime would restrict free commerce by preventing U.S. companies from freely selling mainstream AI hardware and software to American partners and allies abroad.

The consequence of the rule will be that Huawei fills the AI supplier void. China would thereby control the market for the most important technology of this century. Huawei would have the global monopoly it wanted for 5G in the more important AI sector.

The hardware and software that power AI and are targeted by Biden’s rule-making are at the heart of the transition in computing from a CPU-based model to a GPU-based model. This transition is designed to speed up the work of computers while reducing costs, such as those for energy. It is an area where we still lead China.

Instead of controlling “frontier AI,” the most advanced AI applications, the new Biden rules would allow frontier AI to be developed and sold unchecked by Chinese companies such as Huawei. American technology firms, with vastly diminished global markets, would be relegated to second-tier status. If U.S. companies are prevented by their government from meeting the demand for AI hardware and software, then Chinese companies will step in to meet this demand. There is little doubt that China will subsidize these firms and support their sales efforts diplomatically.

In addition to hobbling cutting-edge American technology companies, the new rule would exacerbate the worst elements of the outgoing administration’s Green New Deal and the so-called Inflation Reduction Act by allowing bureaucrats to pick winners and losers among U.S. companies. The next big breakthrough in tech will not be decided by the free market but rather by an unelected bureaucrat in Washington who claims to “know better” if Biden’s rule is allowed to stand.

In November, the American people decisively rejected an era of American weakness and chose President-elect Trump to reassert American economic might. The Biden administration is attempting a last-minute sabotage of President Trump’s second term by preventing American companies from leading and winning the race for AI and modern computing. This Biden endeavor must be rejected.

Robert C. O’Brien served as the twenty-seventh U.S. National Security Advisor under President Trump from 2019-2021.

Image: Shutterstock.com. 

In a historic moment for Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum has become the country’s first female president. She inherits a landscape filled with challenges, ranging from emboldened criminal organizations to strained relations with Mexico’s top trading partner, the United States. Sheinbaum’s national security strategy, which contrasts sharply with that of her predecessor, focuses on reviving bilateral cooperation while navigating the complex demands of Donald Trump’s incoming administration.

The tone of the bilateral relationship was set early in Sheinbaum’s first call with President-elect Donald Trump. Trump announced that Sheinbaum agreed to stop the flow of migrants to the United States and to close the U.S. southern border. Sheinbaum clarified that her country’s position is to build bridges between governments, not shut down borders. Despite their differing accounts of the call, Mexico has expressed a willingness to address pressing issues on the bilateral agenda, including migration and drug trafficking.

Yet, the future of U.S.-Mexico relations looks grim. President-elect Donald Trump has proposed a possible renegotiation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the imposition of a 25 percent blanket tariff on all Mexican imports if Claudia Sheinbaum’s government fails to reduce the flow of fentanyl, organized crime, and migrants to the southern border of the United States. Despite the challenges, Sheinbaum’s proposed security strategy offers a glimmer of hope for the strengthening of bilateral relations. With her apparent understanding of the interconnectedness of migration, security, and trade, she has unveiled a bold national security plan that prioritizes combatting transnational criminal organizations. Unlike former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s (AMLO) controversial “hugs, not bullets” strategy, which focused on addressing the root causes of violence over direct confrontation, Sheinbaum’s approach emphasizes investigation and intelligence gathering, inter-agency coordination, and targeting high-profile criminals in the country’s six most violent states. 

Central to this effort is Omar García Harfuch, Mexico’s new Secretary of Security and Civilian Protection. García Harfuch is a seasoned police officer who previously served as Sheinbaum’s police chief during her tenure as mayor of Mexico City and is credited for reducing the homicide rate in the nation’s capital by half. He is no stranger to the dangers of his work, having survived an assassination attempt by the Jalisco Nueva Generación Cartel in 2020. At a time when AMLO’s government turned its back on the U.S., García Harfuch collaborated closely with U.S. security agencies at the local level. His appointment by President Sheinbaum was well received by U.S. agencies, who are cautiously optimistic that bilateral security cooperation will be revamped under his leadership.

For U.S.-Mexico relations, the stakes couldn’t be higher. President Sheinbaum understands what lies ahead for the future of Mexico’s relationship with its top trading partner if her government fails to combat organized crime effectively. The incoming Trump administration has made it clear that failure to address the fentanyl crisis—which claimed over 100,000 American lives in 2022—will carry severe economic and political consequences for Mexico.

In recent weeks, Secretary Garcia Harfuch announced that over a ton of fentanyl pills were seized in Mexico, the largest in the country’s history. Sheinbaum’s security cabinet continues to double down on efforts in the battle-scarred state of Sinaloa, a move that signals a willingness to disrupt the operations of the Sinaloa and Jalisco Nueva Generación cartels, the primary suppliers of fentanyl to the United States. President Sheinbaum may not have traveled to Mar-a-Lago to meet with Trump, but her government has taken concrete actions to demonstrate its commitment to meeting U.S. demands.

However, it will be a difficult task to accomplish as bilateral security cooperation declined under AMLO’s presidency. From the outset of his administration (2018–2024), AMLO held a deep distrust of U.S. security agencies, calling for an end to the Merida Initiative, which sought to dismantle criminal organizations, strengthen Mexico’s rule of law, modernize the border, and help violence-ridden communities. Despite its shortcomings, the Merida Initiative was a blueprint for bilateral security cooperation that established an understanding of the shared objectives and challenges both countries faced. 

In 2021, the U.S. and Mexico laid out a strategy to restore faith in security cooperation efforts with the creation of the Bicentennial Framework for Security, Public Health, and Safe Communities. While offering a long-term vision for security cooperation, it lacks clear metrics to measure its success. Trump and Sheinbaum will have to determine whether the Bicentennial Framework will continue to guide security objectives going forward or whether a new plan will be needed. 

The two nations must first reestablish mutual trust between their respective security agencies. Events that occurred under AMLO’s government, like the arrest of former Secretary of National Defense Salvador Cienfuegos by DEA agents at Los Angeles International Airport and the detention and subsequent release of Ovidio Guzman, the son of notorious kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, marked major blows for bilateral security efforts. The tremendous show of force that the Sinaloa Cartel carried out after Ovidio’s arrest in Sinaloa proved evident that certain areas of Mexico are completely overtaken by criminal organizations powerful enough to challenge Mexican security forces.

The fallout from AMLO’s policies remains evident. He consistently argued that no country, particularly the United States, could intervene in Mexico’s internal affairs nor infringe on its sovereignty. What AMLO failed to understand is that the United States will go to great lengths to protect its national security interests, whether through joint actions with Mexico or, if needed, unilaterally. The strange series of events that led to the arrest of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, one of the founders of the Sinaloa Cartel, and Joaquin Guzman Lopez (another of “El Chapo’s” sons) in Texas earlier this year is evidence of the latter. The same will hold true under the incoming administration, which has threatened to designate Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations and touted the possibility of intervening militarily in Mexico.

In his final month in office, and after the governing party’s landslide victory in Mexico’s June elections, AMLO’s constitutional reform to place the National Guard under the Ministry of Defense (Sedena) complicated prospects for U.S.-Mexico security collaboration. Historically, Mexico’s military has been wary of working with U.S. counterparts, a stance that could impede joint efforts under Sheinbaum’s leadership.

Much hinges on the direction in which Sheinbaum takes her government. President-elect Trump’s threat of placing a 25 percent tariff on Mexican imports depends in large part on the ability of Sheinbaum’s security strategy to produce immediate results. By prioritizing collaboration and demonstrating a firm resolve against organized crime, her administration has an opportunity to reset the tone of U.S.-Mexico relations. The looming possibility of tariffs, mass deportations of undocumented migrants, and the upcoming USMCA 2026 review process will test the bilateral relationship. For now, both countries remain at a crossroads, with their leaders tasked with navigating one of the most consequential partnerships in the world. 

However, Sheinbaum’s security plan offers a cautiously optimistic path for improving bilateral security cooperation and restoring peace to Mexico. The coming years will reveal whether U.S.-Mexico relations will be a continuation of past struggles or a positive turning point for the two nations. 

Lila Abed is the Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute Director. She previously served as a correspondent for NTN24 and as a Public Policy Advisor at Covington & Burling.

Image: Israel Gutierrez / Shutterstock.com. 

As tensions between Washington and Beijing continue to mount, the race to produce the world’s first-ever sixth-generation aircraft is in full throttle. At the tail end of 2024, new images surfaced the internet depicting a Chinese-made stealthy, high-performance next-gen combat aircraft. While detailed information regarding the plane remains very limited, its overall design parallels what experts have already deduced about Beijing’s future aerial aspirations.

In videos published on social media outlets, the mysterious aircraft is seen flying alongside a Chengdu J-20S fighter jet. According to a War Zone report on the matter, the presence of the fifth-generation fighter suggests that this flight likely took place near the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation factory airfield. The aircraft’s tailless configuration has particularly stunned aviation buffs, as this design can significantly reduce the platform’s radar signature. The U.S. has also prioritized this structure as deploying airframes that are more difficult to detect is essential in the current threat climate.

As summed up by The War Zone, the mysterious Chinese aircraft features several advanced traits in addition to its tailless design: “It has a modified delta wing with chine lines extending all the way to the nose area, while its central fuselage section, at least the bottom of it, is loosely reminiscent of the J-20.” Additionally, the airframe appears to be designed with five trailing edge control surfaces per wing, including split flaps close to the wingtips. While no other information surrounding the aircraft has been divulged, Beijing’s progress toward achieving sixth-generation technology is worrisome.

China has been striving to introduce the world’s first-ever sixth-generation bomber for years. Its upcoming H-20 “Xi’an” bomber coincides with the PRC’s growing emphasis on nuclear deterrence and long-range offensive capabilities. In addition to stealth, experts believe that China’s new bomber could possess a range of more than 8,500 kilometers, which would allow Beijing to reach well into Japan, the Philippines and even the U.S. territory of Guam if not stopped. If a full-blown war between Washington and Beijing were to unfold, the H-20 could give the PLAAF the ability to strike U.S. bombers on the tarmac before they could take off. A 2018 Pentagon assessment also detailed how the development of a refuelable bomber would pose even greater risks for the United States. The PLAAF could “expand long-range offensive bomber capability beyond the second island chain” if a refuelable bomber were introduced to service. American analysts also believe that the H-20 will feature an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.

While these specs and abilities are alarming, China is not the only nation working on next-generation aerial material. The U.S. Air Force’s Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program is being developed to counter China’s advancing abilities in the skies. The upcoming sixth-gen program is referred to as a “family of systems,” consisting of sixth-generation fighter jets and Collaborative Combat Vehicles (UAVs) that will accompany them. Considering the progress Beijing appears to be making on the sixth-gen front, the timely introduction of NGAD is essential.

Maya Carlin, National Security Writer with The National Interest, is an analyst with the Center for Security Policy and a former Anna Sobol Levy Fellow at IDC Herzliya in Israel. She has by-lines in many publications, including The National Interest, Jerusalem Post, and Times of Israel. You can follow her on Twitter: @MayaCarlin. Carlin has over 1,000 articles published over the last several years on various defense issues.