In Geopolitics This Week
Kazakhstan Working to Build Framework To Tackle Regional Water Issues, Guinean Special Forces Stage a Coup, The Unlikelihood of a Military Victory From ‘Over the Horizon,’ and other stories.
Monday, September 6th
Kazakhstan Working to Build Framework To Tackle Regional Water Issues
The legacy left behind by the Soviet Union in Central Asia remains in evidence to this day. In particular, the region still experiences a shortage of water that is directly related to the many dams and irrigation projects undertaken by the Soviet Union. Soviet authorities constructed dams and manipulated river flow in an attempt to develop massive irrigation systems for specialised industries. Many of these undertakings have led to widespread desertification and a drastic reduction in the availability of water in the Aral Sea.
Independence from the Soviet Union has not brought water security to the countries of Central Asia, and water continues to heavily influence regional geopolitics. Diplomatic efforts to avoid a repeat of the “water wars” between upstream Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and downstream Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, have gone some way toward preventing outright conflict over water between certain actors, but nonetheless water remains an ever-present catalyst for a potential conflict.
Kazakhstan has been the most fervent advocate for a diplomatic solution to regional water woes. The country has worked hard to salvage the deteriorating situation in the Aral Sea, and the Kazakhstani government is interested in protecting its ecosystem to boost development in eco-tourism and other sectors. During a recent summit held on August 6th, President Tokayev proposed the creation of a regional working group of ministers which would conduct dialogue in pursuit of mutually beneficial solutions. This proposed consortium would “coordinate the interests of all countries in the region in the fields of hydropower, irrigation and ecology.”
Read more about this story here.
Guinean Special Forces Stage a Coup
Guinean special forces have seized power in the country via a military coup, arresting the president, dissolving the country’s constitution and imposing a strict curfew. Members of the coup made promises to change the political makeup of the country following the imposition of a curfew which will last "until further notice." The special operations forces responsible for the coup also announced a meeting of cabinet ministers and other top officials, threatening them with a warning that “any refusal to attend will be considered a rebellion.”
Guinea is a major producer of bauxite: a primary ore used in the production of aluminium. The country produced roughly 77.8 million tons of bauxite in 2020, representing 21.8% of the global supply. Therefore, the production and export of bauxite from Guinea serves a critical part of the global supply of the widely-applied aluminium. Given that China is the largest trade partner to Guinea, and more specifically that China’s aluminium industry is heavily dependent on Guinean bauxite exports, unrest in Guinea has the potential to severely disrupt Chinese access to a critical resource.
Whatever the motivations of the actors behind the coup, the international response by leading powers has largely taken the shape of condemnation. The US State Department said the coup could "limit" Washington's ability to support Guinea. Moscow strongly condemned the attempt at unconstitutional change, as did Beijing. In the region, the African Union (AU) also condemned the takeover and demanded the liberation of Guinean President Condé. But for China in particular the coup will be a considerable challenge to overcome, and a serious test to the country’s ability to protect its overseas interests.
Read more about this story here.
Tuesday, September 7th
Germany Pushes for an EU Intervention Force
Fourteen EU member states have so far committed to a joint proposal aimed at creating a rapid deployment force of roughly 5,000 soldiers. The new force is expected to initially be comprised of an army and a naval component, with the future integration of air force and support units also a part of the discussions. The force is aimed as the first European "entry force," available for an "immediate, short-term mission scenario," and is said to be largely shaped similarly to NATO's "Spearhead." While the project is ambitious, it faces opposition from Eastern and South-eastern EU member states which enjoy strategic partnerships with Washington.
Berlin is looking to mobilise political will within the EU following NATO’s disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Germany’s Minister of Defence, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, has stated that the lack of military capabilities among EU member states has directly led to an inability to act in the face of the sudden withdrawal of the US. The German initiative aims to form a unit of 5,000 soldiers, possibly rising to a size of up to 20,000, with a final decision expected to be made in November. During a recent meeting of the EU's Defence Ministers, Kramp-Karrenbauer said that the "sober truth" about Afghanistan is that Europe was incapable of influencing the US decision to withdraw.
Germany is taking a more active role in fostering something of an EU-wide “strategic compass” which attempts to incorporate the varying interests of EU member states into a more comprehensive strategic outlook. The main question going forward for the EU, at least according to the German Minister of Defence, concerns the Union's foreign and military policies, and the way in which capabilities can be employed collectively in an effective manner. Berlin is now working to gain support for the upcoming round of discussions, so the proposed intervention force may yet see changes.
Read more about this story here.
The Unlikelihood of a Military Victory From ‘Over the Horizon’
In a military conflict, it is often assumed that the most likely winner is the one which is capable of continually amassing superior strength at the place and time of a battle, thereby overcoming the capabilities or the will of its foe. But even with that being the case, the combatant that resides in close geographic proximity to the place of battle commands an advantage over a foe which must return its soldiers and matériel across vast distances. In such a situation, the power conducting operations from a distance can only boast of a presence sporadically.
These over-the-horizon operations — military operations which involve long-range weapons systems used to project power into a distant land — have difficulty accomplishing political goals where enemy combatants have a permanent military presence. Such was the case with the United States in Afghanistan for reasons of politics and geography.
Geography imposed severe logistical stresses on the US' over-the-horizon air campaign in Afghanistan. The vast distances limited the operational time of aircraft over mission areas, meaning airborne operations had a ‘come-and-go’ character. US overreliance on naval assets to deliver hard power meant that operations in Afghanistan were well beyond the combat range of most carrier-based F/A-18E/F Super Hornet aircraft. This logistical burden could hardly apply to the Taliban, who were able to come and go across rugged terrain at little cost.
Politically too the costs of conducting a military campaign in Afghanistan kept growing as the years went by. With little ability to control the flow of fighters pouring into Afghanistan across the border with Pakistan, the US had to pay an increasingly high political price to domestic and international partners in order to gain the access required to conduct air operations. The diplomatic challenges of securing access to Pakistani airspace proved difficult throughout the course of the war, and have over time contributed to a geopolitical realignment in the form of a deepening of ties between Islamabad and Beijing. Following the withdrawal, it is difficult to see the US conducting operations as freely as the country once did in the region, demonstrating the enduring costs incurred by Washington in the region.
Read more about this story here.
Wednesday, September 8th
US Aims to Cut Operational Cost of the F-35 in Half
The United States Air Force is exploring ways it can lower the costs associated with building, flying, and maintaining the advanced F-35 fighter aircraft. In a bid to avoid potential runaway costs associated with operating and maintaining what is considered the most technologically capable fighter aircraft in the world, the top general of the Air Force has proposed legislation that would see the number of F-35s the Defense Department can buy limited. The condition for further purchases would be checked by affordability quotas for operating the jet.
A recent defence policy bill approved by the House Armed Services Committee would see the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps expected to meet “cost per tail per year” targets, which measure the average cost of flying, maintaining, and upgrading the F-35 jet. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown said he stands in support of the proposed cost limitations, and went on to say that it is a “focus” for the Air Force to explore sustainable ways to keep the F-35 program fully operational. The Air Force plans to buy a total of 1,763 F-35A models throughout the lifetime of the program.
Continually running the F-35 program over its lifecycle — from flying the aircraft in missions to maintenance and upgrade — cost the US Air Force roughly $8 million per F-35 in 2020. But with this latest proposal, those costs would have to come down to below $5 million per aircraft annually. The wording of the initiative is aimed at inducing cooperation between Lockheed Martin and the Defense Department, applying pressure to make clear the necessity of cutting operating costs if the program is to be upheld throughout its intended lifecycle.
Read more about this story here.
The Taliban Boast of Complete Control Over Afghanistan
The Taliban have announced that they have seized the last province which still remained outside their control. While much of the rest of the country fell swiftly into Taliban hands over the course of the last month, the valley of Panjshir just north of Kabul remained under the control of resistance groups.
The Taliban announcement seemed to confirm reports that anti-Taliban fighters led by Amrullah Saleh have surrendered, which would largely conclude the Taliban’s campaign of wresting back control over all of Afghanistan. Amrullah Saleh is the son of the Mujahideen fighter Ahmad Shah Massoud, who famously fought the Soviets during the Soviet-Afghan War with support from the US.
The resistance always faced a formidable challenge: they were caught landlocked in the valley with no airfield and few means of supply. The area north of Panjshir is a mountainous region with few roads, and with the surrounding areas all in the control of the Taliban, it was only a matter of time before the valley fell without US support. According to reports, thousands of Taliban soldiers charged into eight districts of Panjshir province under the cover of night, and secured the surrender of resistance leaders.
Read more about this story here.
Thursday, September 9th
China Plans Ambitious Hydropower Plant on the Brahmaputra River
The most recent iteration of China’s Five-Year Plan was approved by the National People’s Congress earlier this year and this 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025) focuses on economic and social development. The importance of renewable energies has been elevated in importance in this latest plan, and this has generated a debate about the way China plans to curb its greenhouse emissions.
In particular, the inclusion in the plans of a hydropower plant at the upper stream of the Brahmaputra River has triggered speculation that China may soon begin undertaking massive hydropower projects in Tibet. The Brahmaputra River begins as Yarlung Tsangpo on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, and flows through Arunachal Pradesh in India, then into Bangladesh as the Jamuna River, before emptying into the Bay of Bengal.
India is particularly concerned about Chinese hydropower intentions, as the Brahmaputra River accounts for almost 30 percent of all its freshwater resources. As China extends its influence further into Asia, there are fears, especially in New Delhi, that the region downstream from China’s hydropower projects could one day see the Brahmaputra River used as a weapon against them. The central fear in this regard is that China could choose to control the water flow of the river via its hydropower stations. These fears have led to the Indian authorities taking countermeasures, namely by contracting their own projects to mitigate the adverse effect of Chinese dam projects upstream.
Read more about this story here.
Russia’s Northern Fleet Boosts Command and Control Capabilities
Early last month, Russia’s Northern Fleet participated in a large-scale naval exercise around the north-eastern Atlantic. The naval exercises were intended to test the use of the highly-capable Tsirkon 3M22 hypersonic cruise missile system within a new command and control structure for the Northern Fleet. The officially reported results of the combination of the two advanced systems working in tandem demonstrate an exponential increase in Russia’s maritime strike capabilities.
The missiles were launched as part of the exercise from the cruiser Marshal Ustinov, the frigate Admiral of the Fleet Kasatonov, and the nuclear submarine Orel. Providing data to the launch vehicles were Tu-142 reconnaissance and anti-submarine aircraft, coordinating in real-time to launch a precise hypersonic strike toward a designated at a distance of up to a hundred kilometres. According to Russian military sources, the new automated command and control structure tested was able to identify critical targets and decide the manner of engagement for payload delivery. Experts view the introduction of this automated system as a significant boost to the firepower, target acquisition, and lethality of Russia’s naval forces.
When Russia first announced its hypersonic program, many US officials promptly dismissed the stated capabilities of the system as outlandish. But now, US military officials are increasingly sounding the alarm about the vulnerabilities that such weapon systems expose. The head of US Strategic Command, Admiral Charles Richard, admitted that the current ground-based and space-based sensor system that the US relies on “may not be capable of detecting and tracking these missiles.” He went on to stress that Russia is now a “leading country in the world in hypersonic technologies.” The integration of hypersonic weapons systems within an automated command and control system considerably boosts Russia’s naval capabilities.
Read more about this story here.
Friday, September 10th
Serbia In Talks to Buy Missiles From Israel
Serbia is modernizing its outdated defence equipment, most of which is old technology inherited from Yugoslavia. Serbia’s military modernization drive comes at a time when its defence industry is growing and undergoing transformations of its own. Serbia’s defence industry consists of roughly 200 companies and research institutes, and generates over €500 million a year as it produces all kinds of weapons, except for high-end armaments. For more sophisticated weaponry, Serbia is turning to Israel as it seeks to secure a purchase of SPIKE missiles.
Serbia increasingly purchases arms from a variety of partners. Serbia has recently chosen to purchase drones from China, the Mistral air-defence system from France, as well as MIG-29 fighter jets from Russia. On top of this diverse set of partners, the United States has consistently been one of the largest military donors in Serbia since 2018. The political alignment of the countries Serbia sources its advanced weaponry from appears to make no difference to Belgrade.
The SPIKE missile is an anti-armour missile offering tactical precision for air, ground and sea operations. Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has said that Belgrade intends to expand military relations further via the purchase of such weapons from Israel. But despite their capabilities, equipment such as these SPIKE missiles in Serbian hands are likelier to be instruments of a political powerplay rather than conventional military operations.
Read more about this story here.
The United States Undergoing Major Supply Chain Regulation
The US is embarking on a drastic supply chain regulation effort the likes of which has not transpired since the Cold War. Earlier this year, the Biden administration issued Executive Order 14017, under which four key areas of industry are placed under increased regulatory scrutiny: semiconductor manufacturing and advanced packaging; large capacity batteries; critical minerals; and pharmaceutical ingredients. The reasons are cited to be the geopolitical risks stemming from Chinese access to strategic goods.
The state supported investment evident in the semiconductor industry of China is now being mirrored by similar investments in the US. At the same time, trade restrictions aimed at limiting China’s advanced semiconductor capabilities now on the table. China needs ongoing access to US technology to continue to build up their industry, but the US now sees its supply chains as incompatible with China. The restrictions are also spreading to Chinese energy technology as well, with US analysts looking to exploit chokepoints where China relies on foreign technology.
There is an imbalance of power between China and the US semiconductor chip ecosystems. The US has a dominant influence over equipment and design software, which China is ill prepared to match, nor can Beijing effectively retaliate without inflicting significant damage on Chinese firms. While China does have significant investments in rare earths and chip assembly, and Beijing could disrupt the foreign chip market somewhat by cutting off its supply, it would likely not be enough to dissuade the US and its allies, who are already replacing Chinese capacity.
Read more about this story here.