ICJ Orders Israel to Prevent Genocide in Gaza, Does Not Request Ceasefire
ICJ Orders Israel to Prevent Genocide in Gaza, Does Not Request Ceasefire
ICJ Makes First Ruling in Genocide Case
How China Views the War in Gaza
The ‘Gallant Plan’
US vs. Russia in Drone Innovation
Ukraine Forces Low on Ammo as US Aid Falters
Ukraine Downs Russian Military Cargo Plane
How America and Russia See Each Other
“Hold, Build, and Strike” A Ukrainian Plan for 2024
ICJ Makes First Ruling in Genocide Case
The World Court on Friday ordered Israel to take action to prevent acts of genocide as it wages war against Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip, but it stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire. In the ruling, 15 of the 17 judges on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) panel voted for emergency measures which covered most of what South Africa asked for, with the notable exception of ordering a halt to Israeli military action in Gaza.
"The state of Israel shall...take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of the Genocide convention," the court said. Israel must report back to it on what steps it was taking in a month's time, it said.
The court did not rule at this stage on the core of the case brought by South Africa - whether genocide has occurred in Gaza. But it recognized the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from acts of genocide.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-gaza-genocide-case-at-un-international-court-of-justice-icj/
How China Views the War in Gaza
Since the October 7 terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel, China has positioned itself as an advocate for peace, calling for an immediate cease-fire and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. China criticized the U.S. support for Israel and hosted foreign ministers from Arab states, signaling alignment with non-Western countries. However, China has been reluctant to assume a substantive role in the conflict, emphasizing humanitarian concerns and advocating for a political settlement with a two-state solution. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Foreign Minister Wang Yi expressed support for a permanent cease-fire and the need to prevent the conflict from escalating.
China has engaged diplomatically with both Israeli and Palestinian officials, adopting a warmer tone with the Palestinian Authority, emphasizing China's standing with the Palestinian people. At the United Nations, China and the U.S. have vetoed resolutions related to the Israel-Hamas war, reflecting divergent positions.
While China expanded its diplomatic footprint in the Middle East, it has not sought a leading role in the Gaza conflict. China released a five-point position paper calling for a cease-fire, protection of civilians, and international efforts, with a notable absence of an offer to mediate between Israel and Palestine. State-owned media narratives depict the U.S. as a driver of instability in the Middle East, criticizing its support for Israel.
Chinese social media discussions reflect a lack of sympathy for Israel's security rights, with criticisms of U.S. interventions in the Middle East. Antisemitic conspiracy theories have circulated on Chinese social media, although extreme views represent a fraction of the discourse. The Chinese public seems relatively detached from the crisis, with a low priority for peace in the Middle East in public opinion polls.
Despite presenting itself as a diplomatic power broker, China's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict remains nominal, with a focus on aligning with non-Western countries and avoiding direct involvement.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/chinese-narratives-on-the-israel-hamas-war/
The ‘Gallant Plan’
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant recently presented a post-war plan for Gaza, marking a significant policy shift as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had previously avoided outlining such a plan. Gallant's proposal envisions Hamas losing political and military control in Gaza, with Israel maintaining security control, a multinational force overseeing day-to-day operations, and Egypt and Israel monitoring Gaza's southern border. The plan rules out civilian settlements in Gaza and aims for local Palestinian governance.
However, the plan faces internal divisions in Israel, particularly regarding the withdrawal from most of Gaza. Some ministers advocate for annexation and settlements, creating a power struggle within Israel's political and military elite. Netanyahu, fearing harm to his political objectives, has resisted publishing a post-war plan, aligning with his coalition's far-right allies. The Biden administration has pressured Netanyahu to clarify his stance, emphasizing conditional support for Israel's war and a post-war vision without expulsions, annexations, or occupations.
This article by RUSI suggests that Gallant's plan is more political posturing than a viable vision for Gaza's future. It aims to showcase moderation internationally while navigating internal political dynamics. The Biden administration and Israel's far-right government are unlikely to endorse the plan, highlighting its limited prospects for implementation. Gallant's proposal appears more as a strategic move within Israel's political landscape than a comprehensive vision for post-war Gaza.
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/gaza-false-allure-gallant-plan
US vs. Russia in Drone Innovation
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in military operations during Russia's invasion of Ukraine has sparked widespread debate. While Ukrainian innovation has received praise, the effectiveness of Russia's approach to AI has been overlooked. Both Ukrainian and Russian forces have utilized AI for decision-making and data analysis from various sources, including drones, satellites, and ground-based systems. However, their approaches differ.
Ukrainian and Western AI prioritize fast identification, tracking, and targeting, focusing on the left side of the observe, orient, decide, and act loop. In contrast, Russia aims to automate the entire kill chain, emphasizing precision targeting with loitering munitions, command and control, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. Russia's approach is more aggressive, driven by military and volunteer-driven AI use, while the United States adopts a cautious and responsible strategy, albeit under-resourced.
Russia's military efforts in Ukraine leverage a thriving ecosystem of funding, manufacturing, and the opportunistic deployment of commercial technologies. Volunteer efforts play a significant role, using commercial off-the-shelf technologies to develop and supply equipment to the front. Russia's Ministry of Defense showcases AI-enabled drones, with volunteer groups claiming capabilities like autonomous decision-making and target recognition.
In contrast, the United States focuses on methodically addressing technology acquisition and data integration challenges. Russia's swift and ruthless approach contrasts with the deliberate and careful strategy of the U.S. Department of Defense, which prioritizes assurance and adherence to ethical AI principles. The U.S. strategy involves testing and hardening systems for adversarial actions, but its limitations include a lack of infrastructure, methodologies, resources, and personnel for comprehensive AI assurance.
While Russia tests commercial systems in live military operations, violating ethical AI principles, the United States upholds rigorous testing standards and regulatory bodies. However, the U.S. faces challenges in balancing assurance considerations with the urgency to deploy AI-enabled systems. The war in Ukraine drives innovation on both sides, but the U.S. must navigate the complexities of a large bureaucracy and infrastructure, urging leadership, resources, and infrastructure for AI assurance.
The Russo-Ukrainian war accelerates the integration of AI into drone warfare, with both sides adopting dangerous technologies. The U.S. emphasizes augmenting human warfighters rather than replacing them, adopting a measured and thoughtful approach. Urgent efforts are needed to ensure AI assurance, reflecting a commitment to technological superiority while upholding democratic values.
https://warontherocks.com/2024/01/how-the-west-can-match-russia-in-drone-innovation/
Ukraine Forces Low on Ammo as US Aid Falters
NATO has announced plans to increase its stockpile of artillery ammunition, addressing concerns about shortages faced by Ukrainian troops battling against Russia. The Pentagon acknowledged that Ukrainian soldiers lack the necessary ammunition supplies, putting them at a disadvantage. Ukraine's ammunition challenge, particularly in artillery ammo, has intensified over the past few months, with Russia now outgunning Ukrainian forces. While Ukraine fired up to 7,000 rounds a day last summer compared to Russia's 5,000, the situation has reversed, with Ukraine now firing 2,000 rounds and Russia nearly 10,000 shells. The shift in favor of Moscow is attributed to increased domestic production and the influx of North Korean weaponry.
In response, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg announced new contracts worth $1.2 billion to purchase around 220,000 155mm artillery shells, a crucial ammunition type for Ukraine. Stoltenberg emphasized the importance of refilling Allies' ammunition stocks to support Ukraine in its ongoing battle against Russia. Analysts note that the NATO contracts may contribute to both refilling stockpiles and aiding Ukraine, highlighting the significance of Western security assistance for Ukraine's defense. The situation underscores the importance of maintaining aid to prevent Russia from capturing more Ukrainian territory and bringing forward bases closer to NATO borders. The future of US security assistance to Ukraine remains uncertain due to funding delays by Congress.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukraine-looks-losing-battle-ammunition-190403980.html?guccounter=1
Ukraine Downs Russian Military Cargo Plane
A Russian Ilyushin Il-76 military transport plane crashed near Belgorod, with the Russian Defense Ministry claiming it carried 65 Ukrainian prisoners of war for an exchange. Russia accused Ukraine of deliberately shooting it down, resulting in 74 casualties. Ukrainian authorities neither confirmed nor denied responsibility but asserted the right to target Russian military planes in border regions. Videos showed the plane nosediving and exploding. Ukrainian President Zelenskiy called for an international investigation, expressing concern about Russian actions endangering prisoners.
https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-ii-76-crash-explainer-ukraine-pows/32791736.html
How America and Russia See Each Other
The U.S.-Russian relationship is influenced by powerful myths each country holds about the other. Russians see the United States as a hegemonic power with vassals rather than allies, hiding ruthless ambition behind appeals to liberal principles. Americans perceive Russia as an autocratic power led by a malicious, unaccountable leader who runs roughshod over citizens' desires. These myths shape their interactions and impact their roles in the war in Ukraine.
The Russian myth of the United States portrays it as power-mad, under the control of a megalomaniacal elite. Liberal international order ideals are dismissed as smokescreens for American ambition. The enduring Soviet-era myth depicts the U.S. as seeking global dominance during the Cold War and seducing other nations with false rhetoric, creating an enduring mistrust of U.S. intentions.
Conversely, the American myth of Russia views it as an evil and ambitious tyranny, deeply rooted since the nineteenth century. Putin's leadership reinforces this perception, portraying him as the sole force behind Russia's actions. The U.S. struggles to interpret Russia's actions, often failing to recognize domestic political constraints and public opinion that shape Putin's decisions.
These myths create dangerous archetypes, entrenching simplistic views of each other. The U.S. imagines Russia as a malign autocracy, and Russia sees the U.S. as a rapacious hegemon. The myths are mutually reinforcing, contributing to a cycle of hardening preconceptions, particularly evident in the war in Ukraine.
Dispelling these myths is challenging, as both nations have reasons to nourish them. The Russian regime prefers the U.S. to believe in its hegemony and Putinism being one, while challenging the myth of Russia's unalloyed autocracy could disrupt its war effort. Recognizing these myths is crucial for sound strategy and diplomacy, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of each other's motivations and constraints.
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/myths-warp-how-america-sees-russia-and-vice-versa
“Hold, Build, and Strike” A Ukrainian Plan for 2024
Michael Kofman, Rob Lee and Dara Massicot put together an analysis highlighting the challenges facing Ukraine's military in the ongoing conflict with Russia and emphasizes the need for a new strategic vision. As of the winter of 2024, Ukraine's military is facing severe ammunition shortages, particularly in artillery, posing a significant challenge to its defensive capabilities. The report suggests that after months of intense fighting in 2023, Ukraine's offensive fell short of its objectives, resulting in a strategic stalemate.
Looking ahead, the analysis stresses the importance of a comprehensive strategy beyond short-term considerations. It outlines a three-fold approach: "hold, build, and strike." Holding involves preparing a well-fortified defense, consolidating and rationalizing the armed forces' equipment, and strengthening defenses through infrastructure like bunkers and tunnels. Building focuses on reconstituting force quality, addressing recruitment issues, and improving training programs. The strike element aims to degrade Russian advantages through long-range strikes, targeting bases, and critical infrastructure behind enemy lines.
The report highlights the necessity of addressing critical issues such as personnel quality, rotation, and effective training. It suggests that working closely with Western partners is crucial to enhancing Ukraine's capabilities, including increasing production of drones and counter-drone systems. The analysis emphasizes the importance of Western support in supplying essential equipment like armored vehicles, air defense systems, and mine-clearing equipment.
The strategic context for 2024 is deemed challenging, with Russia holding material and manpower advantages. However, the report argues that, with tailored Western support, Ukraine can withstand Russian forces in the short term and potentially regain the advantage for large-scale offensive operations in 2025.
The report critiques Ukraine's offensive in 2023, pointing out the lack of a decisive advantage in fires, an inability to scale force deployment effectively, and insufficient enablers to counter key Russian capabilities. It suggests that lessons from this missed opportunity should inform planning for future operations, emphasizing the need for technological innovation, improved training, and a strategy that adapts to evolving battlefield conditions.
Ultimately, the analysis underlines the critical decisions that need to be made in 2024, emphasizing the importance of a long-term strategy to achieve unity of effort and manage scarce resources effectively. It suggests that success for Ukraine depends on sustained Western support and making choices that could exhaust Russian forces and potentially shift the trajectory of the war by 2025.
So Israel has to provide for Palestinian security in Gaza, but the ones who "control" Gaza (Hamas) don't need to worry about their citizenry? I know it is a very broad overview; however, it sounds a bit ridiculous. That almost sounds like asking Russians to provide security for Ukrainians in occupied areas.... or China to provide for security and protection to Uyghurs. This makes no sense to me.
I would love to hear Preston talk to this guy: https://www.newsweek.com/israel-implemented-more-measures-prevent-civilian-casualties-any-other-nation-history-opinion-1865613. Article by John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at the Modern War Institute (MWI) at West Point. He served for 25 years as an infantry soldier, which included two combat tours in Iraq.