WWIII  ICBM

What we know about the 'experimental' ballistic missile Russia fired at Ukraine

Ukraine's air force said on Thursday that Russia launched an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which are designed to deliver nuclear warheads, at targets in the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. But US officials said they believed the strike was carried out using an "experimental" medium-range ballistic missile. Here's what we know so far.


Issued on: 21/11/2024 - 
By: NEWS WIRES

In this photo provided by the Ukrainian Emergency Services on November 21, 2024, rescue workers put out a fire of a building which was heavily damaged by a Russian strike on Dnipro, Ukraine. © Ukrainian Emergency Service via AP

Russia on Thursday fired an innovative missile at Ukraine in a clear warning of its capabilities as tensions surge, officials from Western governments said, even as they pushed back against Ukrainian claims of an even more widescale action by Moscow.

Ukraine said on Thursday Russia had launched against its territory an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) designed to carry nuclear warheads.

But while warning that such a step would mark a major escalation, Ukraine's European allies did not confirm Kyiv's initial assessments that such a weapon had been fired.

A US official, who asked not to be named, said Russia's strike on Ukraine was not an ICBM, but an "experimental" medium-range ballistic missile.

In an address to the nation late Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed that Russia had used a new, experimental "hypersonic" medium range non-nuclear ballistic missile named "Oreshnik" ("Hazel") in the attack on Dnipro.

What was fired?

Analysts and now the United States have pushed back on the initial claims from Kyiv that Moscow had launched the nuclear-capable ICBM as part of a barrage towards the central city of Dnipro.

Read moreUS approval for Ukraine long-range missile strikes into Russia is a slim lifeline for Kyiv

Using such a missile at such short range would be a hugely profligate use of valuable resources. "My take is that one must be sceptical and cautious," wrote weapons expert Pavel Podvig, director of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project.

While not naming the missile used or giving technical specifications, the US official said Russia "likely possesses only a handful of these experimental missiles."

"Ukraine has withstood countless attacks from Russia, including from missiles with significantly larger warheads than this weapon," the official said.

In London, a spokesman for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters Russia's strike on Ukraine was a "ballistic missile" with "a range of several thousand kilometres", the first time Moscow had used such a weapon in the war.

What is the context?

Tension has been building between Moscow and Kyiv's allies in the West since Ukrainian forces struck Russian territory with Western-supplied long-range weapons on Tuesday after getting the green light from Washington.

US President Joe Biden gave Ukraine the go-ahead to fire the missiles into Russian territory for the first time while Washington will soon provide Ukraine with antipersonnel land mines to shore up its defences against Russian forces.

Biden is moving to boost Ukraine's war effort in the final two months of his administration, before Donald Trump, who has repeatedly promised to end the war quickly, takes power in January.

"The United States will continue to surge security assistance to Ukraine to strengthen capabilities, including air defence, and put Ukraine in the best possible position on the battlefield," the official said.

In London, the British government spokesman said: "It is another example of reckless behaviour from Russia, which only serves to strengthen our resolve in terms of standing by Ukraine for as long as it takes."
What message is Moscow seeking to send?

Despite the initial confusion on the nature of the missile fired, it is clear that the strike on Dnipro was unusual and aimed at sparking the maximum attention from Kyiv and its allies.

"We are really on something unprecedented, and it is much more a political act than a military act. The cost-effectiveness ratio of the attack is zero," says Heloise Fayet, a researcher at the French Institute of International Relations (IFRI).

"This change of scale is significant," she said, adding this was "the first use by the Russians on the battlefield of a missile with a range greater than 2,000 kilometres."

But the use of this missile "will not change the situation significantly on the operational level. They obviously have very few and they are expensive."

Local authorities said an infrastructure facility was hit in Dnipro and two civilians were wounded.

For Nick Brown, of British defence analysis organisation Janes, "this is really about sending an escalatory message or warning, an expensive and potentially dangerous way for Russia to rattle its sabre."

According to the US official: "Russia may be seeking to use this capability to try to intimidate Ukraine and its supporters... but it will not be a game changer in this conflict," the US official said.

(AFP)

Putin says Moscow 'has right' to hit states whose weapons Ukraine uses to strike Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a televised message Thursday that Moscow has the right to strike the military targets of countries who have supplied weapons to Ukraine to hit Russia. Putin's statements came after Russia launched a new intermediate-range missile at the Ukrainian city of Dnipro in response to Kyiv's long-range missile attacks earlier this week.


Issued on: 21/11/2024 
By: FRANCE 24
Video by:  Vedika BAHL

01:59

Russian President Vladimir Putin records a televised address in Moscow, Russia on November 21, 2024. © Vyacheslav Prokofyev, AP


Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Thursday that Moscow has tested a new intermediate-range missile in a strike on Ukraine, and he warned that it could use the weapon against countries that have allowed Kyiv to use their missiles to strike Russia.

The Russian strike on the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro on Thursday came in response to Ukrainian strikes on Russian soil this week that used longer-range US and British missiles, Putin said during a nationwide TV address.

Following Putin's nationwide address, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called for a strong response from world leaders to Russia's use of a new generation hypersonic missile, saying it was a major step up in the "scale and brutality" of the war.

"The world must react. Right now there is no strong reaction from the world," Zelensky said in a statement published on Telegram, adding: "This is an obvious and serious increase in the scale and brutality of this war."


Putin declared that Russia would issue advance warnings if it launches more strikes with such missile against Ukraine to allow civilians to evacuate to safety. And he warned that US air defense systems wouldn’t be capable of intercepting Russian missiles.

Putin said the attack on Dnipro struck a missile factory a new missile called "Oreshnik," a Russian word meaning "hazel."

"We believe that we have the right to use our weapons against military facilities of the countries that allow to use their weapons against our facilities," he said. "And in case of escalation of aggressive actions, we will respond resolutely in a mirror way."

No, these videos don't show Putin's reaction to Biden giving Ukraine long-range missiles

05:01





Putin's announcement came hours after Ukraine claimed that Russia launched an intercontinental ballistic missile overnight at the central Ukrainian city of Dnipro. But American officials said an initial US assessment indicated the strike was carried out with an intermediate-range ballistic missile.

Two people were wounded in the attack, and an industrial facility and a rehabilitation center for people with disabilities were damaged, according to local officials.

The attack comes during a week of escalating tensions, as the US eased restrictions on Ukraine's use of American-made longer-range missiles inside Russia and Putin lowered the threshold for launching nuclear weapons.

The Ukrainian air force said in a statement that the Dnipro attack was launched from Russia’s Astrakhan region, on the Caspian Sea.

"Today, our crazy neighbour once again showed what he really is," Zelensky said hours before Putin's address. "And how afraid he is."

Earlier this week, the Biden administration authorised Ukraine to use US-supplied, longer-range missiles to strike deeper inside Russia – a move that drew an angry response from Moscow.

Days later, Ukraine fired several of the missiles into Russia, according to the Kremlin. The same day, Putin signed a new doctrine that allows for a potential nuclear response even to a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power.

Read moreUS approval for Ukraine long-range missile strikes into Russia is a slim lifeline for Kyiv

The doctrine is formulated broadly to avoid a firm commitment to use nuclear weapons. In response, Western countries, including the US, said Russia has used irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and behavior throughout the war to intimidate Ukraine and other nations.

They have also expressed dismay at the deployment of thousands of North Korean troops to Russia to fight against Ukraine.

Also Thursday, Russia also struck Zelensky’s home city of Kryvyi Rih, wounding 26 people, said the head of regional administration, Serhii Lysak. The missile strike caused damage to an administrative building, at least five multistory residential buildings, and civilian vehicles.

The Russian Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said in a statement that its air defense systems shot down two British-made Storm Shadow missiles, six HIMARS rockets, and 67 drones.

The statement didn’t say when or where the Storm Shadows were shot down or what they were targeting. Russia earlier reported downing some of the missiles over the illegally annexed Crimean Peninsula.

Ukraine war escalates as NATO braces for Trump-brokered deal: on Putin's terms?

43:55

More than 1,000 days into war, Russia has the upper hand, with its larger army advancing in Donetsk and Ukrainian civilians suffering from relentless drone and missile strikes.

Analysts and observers say that the loosening of restrictions on Ukraine's use of Western missiles is unlikely to change the the course of the war, but it puts the Russian army in a more vulnerable position and could complicate the logistics that are crucial in warfare.

Putin has also warned that the move would mean that Russia and NATO are at war.

"It is an important move and it pulls against, undermines the narrative that Putin had been trying to establish that it was fine for Russia to rain down Iranian drones and North Korean missiles on Ukraine but a reckless escalation for Ukraine to use Western-supplied weapons at legitimate targets in Russia," said Peter Ricketts, a former UK national security adviser who now sits in the House of Lords.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP and AP)

Russia’s missile ‘warning’ to Ukraine and West: what we know



By AFP
November 21, 2024

The nature of the the missile remains unclear - Copyright COME BACK ALIVE/AFP -
Didier LAURAS

Russia on Thursday fired an experimental missile at Ukraine in a clear warning of its capabilities, officials from Western governments said, even as they pushed back against Ukrainian claims of a more provocative action by Moscow.

Ukraine initially accused Russia of firing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) in combat for the first time in history.

But a US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Russia had not fired an ICBM but rather an “experimental” medium-range ballistic missile.

In an address late Thursday, President Vladimir Putin confirmed Russia had used a new, experimental “hypersonic” medium-range ballistic missile named “Oreshnik” (“Hazel”) in an attack on Dnipro.

In what analysts said was intended as a warning to the countries arming Ukraine, the Russian leader hinted the missile was capable of unleashing a nuclear payload.



– What was fired?



Analysts and the United States pushed back against Kyiv’s initial claims that Moscow had launched a nuclear-capable ICBM as part of a barrage towards the central city of Dnipro.

As their name suggests, intercontinental ballistic missiles are capable of striking one continent from another, with a range of at least 5,500 kilometres (3,400 miles).

Intermediate-range missiles by contrast typically have a reach of between 3,000 and 5,500 kilometres — still long enough to make good on Putin’s threat of striking the West.

In his speech, the Kremlin leader said Russia had tested one of its “newest intermediate-range missile systems in combat conditions. In this case, a ballistic missile with a non-nuclear hypersonic configuration.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov said Moscow had informed Washington of the missile’s launch half an hour before it was fired through an automatic nuclear de-escalation hotline, in remarks cited in state media.

While not naming the missile used or giving technical specifications, the US official said Russia “likely possesses only a handful of these experimental missiles”.

“Ukraine has withstood countless attacks from Russia, including from missiles with significantly larger warheads than this weapon,” the official said.

In London, a spokesman for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters that Russia’s strike on Ukraine was a “ballistic missile” with “a range of several thousand kilometres”, the first time Moscow had used such a weapon in the war.



– What is the context?



Tension has been building between Moscow and Kyiv’s allies in the West since Ukrainian forces struck Russian territory with Western-supplied long-range weapons on Tuesday after getting the green light from Washington.

US President Joe Biden gave Ukraine the go-ahead to fire the missiles into Russian territory for the first time while Washington will soon provide Ukraine with antipersonnel land mines to shore up its defences against Russian forces.

On Tuesday, Putin signed a decree lowering the threshold for using nuclear weapons, a move Western powers condemned as “irresponsible”.

Biden is moving to boost Ukraine’s war effort in the final two months of his administration, before Donald Trump, who has repeatedly promised to end the war quickly, takes power in January.

“The United States will continue to surge security assistance to Ukraine to strengthen capabilities, including air defence, and put Ukraine in the best possible position on the battlefield,” the official said.

In London, the British government spokesman said of the Russian strike: “It is another example of reckless behaviour from Russia, which only serves to strengthen our resolve in terms of standing by Ukraine for as long as it takes.”

NATO spokesperson Farah Dakhlallah said Russia’s use of the missile would “neither change the course of the conflict nor deter” the US-led defence alliance from backing Kyiv.



– What message is Moscow seeking to send?



Despite the initial confusion about the nature of the missile fired, it is clear the strike on Dnipro was unusual and aimed at grabbing the attention of Kyiv and its allies.

“We are really on something unprecedented, and it is much more a political act than a military act. The cost-effectiveness ratio of the attack is zero,” said Heloise Fayet, a researcher at the French Institute of International Relations.

“This change of scale is significant,” she said, adding this was “the first use by the Russians on the battlefield of a missile with a range greater than 2,000 kilometres”.

But she said the use of this missile would “not change the situation significantly on the operational level. They obviously have very few and they are expensive.”

Local authorities said an infrastructure facility was hit in Dnipro and two civilians were wounded.

For Nick Brown of British defence analysis organisation Janes, using the missile was “really about sending an escalatory message or warning, an expensive and potentially dangerous way for Russia to rattle its sabre.”

According to the US official: “Russia may be seeking to use this capability to try to intimidate Ukraine and its supporters… but it will not be a game changer in this conflict.”

Putin hints at strikes on West in ‘global’ Ukraine war

By AFP
November 21, 2024


The attack on Kyiv is the latest in an uptick in escalating strikes on Ukrainian cities, mainly in the south of the war-battered country - Copyright POOL/AFP NICOLAS TUCAT
Florent VERGNES

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that the conflict in Ukraine had characteristics of a “global” war and did not rule out strikes on Western countries.

The Kremlin strongman spoke out after a day of frayed nerves, with Russia test-firing a new generation intermediate-range missile at Ukraine — which Putin hinted was capable of unleashing a nuclear payload.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky branded the strike a major ramping up of the “scale and brutality” of the war by a “crazy neighbour”, while Kyiv’s main backer the United States said that Russia was to blame for escalating the conflict “at every turn”.

Intermediate-range missiles typically have a reach of up to 5,500 kilometres (3,400 miles) — enough to make good on Putin’s threat of striking the West.

In a defiant address to the nation, Russia’s president railed at Ukraine’s allies granting permission for Kyiv to use Western-supplied weapons to strike targets on Russian territory, warning of retaliation.

In recent days Ukraine has fired US and UK-supplied missiles at Russian territory for the first time, escalating already sky-high tensions in the brutal nearly three-year-long conflict.

“We consider ourselves entitled to use our weapons against the military facilities of those countries that allow their weapons to be used against our facilities,” Putin said.

He said the US-sent Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) and British Storm Shadow payloads were shot down by Moscow’s air defences, adding: “The goals that the enemy obviously set were not achieved”.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov did however say Moscow informed Washington of the missile’s launch half an hour before it was fired through an automatic nuclear de-escalation hotline, in remarks cited in state media.

He earlier said Russia was doing everything to avoid an atomic conflict, having updated its nuclear doctrine this week.

White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that Washington saw no need to modify the United States’ own nuclear posture in response.



– ‘Reckless behaviour’ –



Ukraine had earlier accused Russia of firing an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) for the first time in history — a claim later downplayed by Washington.

The Ukrainian air force said Moscow had launched the missile as part of a barrage towards Dnipro, where local authorities said an infrastructure facility was hit and two civilians were wounded.

Putin said that Russia had carried out “testing in combat conditions of one of the newest Russian… missile systems” named “Oreshnik”.

Criticising the global response to the strike — “final proof that Russia definitely does not want peace” — Zelensky warned that other countries could become targets for Putin too.

“It is necessary to urge Russia to a true peace, which is possible only through force,” the Ukrainian leader said in his evening address.

“Otherwise, there will be relentless Russian strikes, threats and destabilisation, and not only against Ukraine.”

The attack on Dnipro comes just days after several foreign embassies shuttered temporarily in the Ukrainian capital, citing the threat of a large-scale strike.

“It is another example of reckless behaviour from Russia,” a spokesman for British Prime Minister Keir Starmer told reporters.

The spokesman for UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, Stephane Dujarric, said the new missile’s deployment was “another concerning and worrying development,” warning the war was “going in the wrong direction”.

Yet a US official played down the threat, saying on condition of anonymity that Russia “likely possesses only a handful of these” experimental missiles.



– UK ‘directly involved’ –



The head of the Dnipropetrovsk region where the city of Dnipro is located said the Russian aerial bombardment damaged a rehabilitation centre and several homes, as well as an industrial enterprise.

“Two people were wounded — a 57-year-old man was treated on the scene and a 42-year-old woman was hospitalised,” said the official, Sergiy Lysak.

Russia and Ukraine have escalated their use of long-range missiles in recent days since Washington gave Kyiv permission to use its ATACMS against military targets inside Russia — a long-standing Ukrainian request.

British media meanwhile reported on Wednesday that Kyiv had launched UK-supplied Storm Shadow missiles at targets in Russia after being given the green light from London.

With ranges of 300 and 250 kilometres respectively, both missile systems’ reach is far dwarfed by the experimental intermediate-range system fired by Russia.

Russia’s envoy to London on Thursday said that meant Britain was “now directly involved” in the Ukraine war, with Andrei Kelin telling Sky News “this firing cannot happen” without UK and NATO support.

But the White House’s Jean-Pierre countered that it was Russia who was behind the rising tensions, pointing to the reported deployment of thousands of North Korean troops to help Moscow fight off a Ukrainian offensive in Russia’s border Kursk region.

“The escalation at every turn is coming from Russia,” Jean-Pierre said, adding that the United States had warned Moscow against involving “another country in another part of the world” — referring to Pyongyang.



– Kyiv in retreat –



The defence ministry in Moscow said Thursday its air-defence systems had downed two Storm Shadows, without saying whether they had come down on Russian territory or in occupied Ukraine.

The missile escalation is coming at a critical moment on the ground for Ukraine, as its defences buckle under Russian pressure across the sprawling front line.

Russia claimed deeper advances in the war-battered Donetsk region, announcing on Thursday that its forces had captured another village close to Kurakhove, closing in on the town after months of steady advances.

Moscow’s defence ministry said Russian forces had taken the small village of Dalne, five kilometres (three miles) south of Kurakhove.

Lysak, the governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region, said that 26 people had been wounded in another strike on the town of Kryvyi Rig, where Zelensky was born.

Op-Ed: Escalation or desperation? Russia fires ballistic missile at Ukraine


By  Paul Wallis
DIGITAL JOURNAL
November 22, 2024

Ukraine has long demanded authorization to use the US-made ATACMS missile against targets inside Russia - Copyright DoD/AFP John Hamilton

According to Ukraine, Russia fired the first ICBM ever used in warfare at the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. Two people were injured by the conventional warhead.

The missile was part of a barrage of various types of missiles including hypersonic missiles. Other sources say it was an intermediate-range ballistic missile, which is a sort of scaled-down ICBM with a shorter range.

The attack comes after the US approved the use of long-range ATACMS missiles by Ukraine for strikes inside Russia.

The attack also came with a lot of rhetoric attached. Russia has now “updated” its nuclear doctrine to state that any non-nuclear power acting in partnership with a nuclear power is to be considered a “joint attack”.

This is more or less standard Russian dogma, emphasizing its nuclear capabilities. There is no comparison between an ATACMS missile and any sort of nuclear weapon.

Russia’s military situation in Ukraine is now such a total failure that rhetoric makes far more headlines than actual military achievements. Most of their “advances” in Donetsk are minuscule, taking back what they claim to be their own territory.

In an additional escalation, this time a real one, North Korean troops and weapons are said to be operating in Russia. Various sources state these troops are operating in the Kursk region and taking significant casualties. They don’t seem to be particularly combat-effective.

Despite claims by the incoming Trump administration, this situation is likely to be difficult to defuse. Russia is trying to save face. Its military has taken a severe beating for nearly three years.

Ukraine won’t back down. Ukraine has nothing to gain from a pseudo-peace which may simply turn into another attack after the Russian military has regrown itself. A lasting peace is beyond US capabilities to deliver.

The big loser in a failed peace deal would be the US. America would simply look weak and naïve, and in many ways simply stupid. It would also look as though the US was trying to save Russia, which is the exact opposite of saving face for Putin.

The highly skeptical rest of the world wouldn’t be impressed. It’s the wrong message to send to this planet’s other 8 billion people. Trump has a unique ability to damage America’s reputation and credibility in a few sentences. He spent most of his first term annoying America’s allies making baseless statements about them.

He’s not seen as a “strong leader” outside the US. He’s seen as a highly personally compromised figurehead at best and chronically incompetent on average. He certainly can’t even pretend to lead the rest of the world social media propaganda notwithstanding.

That’s a big shift in the wrong direction. America was in fact a leader of the free world. Under Trump, it’s likely to be purely antagonistic and entirely insular, with no trust.

Add to this self-inflicted mess the various other messages about tariffs, deportations, and democracy in general, and the US could lose just about all of the goodwill of the last century in a month or so.

The winner would be China. In comparison to a tariff-addled, backward-looking, fact-ignoring America and a crippled Russia, China can only look good.

Nothing can save Russia from the consequences of this idiotic self-inflicted war. Europe is rearming. China can pull the plug whenever it wants. It’s game over in so many ways.

America can only be “great” by enforcing a just and permanent peace.

Let’s see who the vertebrates are in this scenario.

___________________________________________________

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.

Inside the South Korean weapons factory that could supply Kyiv

By AFP
November 21, 2024

South Korean engineers work on a 120mm self-propelled mortar at the Hanwha Aerospace factory in Changwon - Copyright AFP JUNG YEON-JE
Kang Jin-kyu

At the outskirts of a South Korean industrial city, workers at a sprawling weapons factory were conducting final-stage testing for a newly built surface-to-air defence system that could, eventually, head to Ukraine.

Longstanding domestic policy bars Seoul from sending weapons into active conflict zones, but ever since its spy agency accused the nuclear-armed North last month of sending thousands of soldiers to help Moscow fight Kyiv, South Korea has warned it might change course.

If so, likely top of the list for Ukraine would be the “Cheongung” — or Sky Arrow — air defence system, a domestically-produced Iron Dome-style interception shield that AFP saw Thursday during an exclusive tour of the Hanwha Aerospace factory in the southern city of Changwon.

As the melody of Beethoven’s Fur Elise played on repeat over the in-house speaker, veteran welders worked on huge cylinders that will become part of the inceptor system, which is defensive in nature — although Hanwha also produces an attack-focused variant.

“The Cheongung system can be thought of as similar to the US Patriot missile system,” said senior manager Jung Sung-young at Hanwha Aerospace, South Korea’s largest defence contractor.

Ukraine is reliant on Western air defence systems, particularly Patriots, to protect itself from Russian missile barrages — and has been calling for more deliveries.

Washington said in June it would prioritise deliveries to Kyiv, ahead of other countries that have placed orders.

But were South Korea, which remains technically at war with the nuclear-armed North and has maintained production of weaponry long ignored by Western arms industries, to get involved, it could potentially make a huge difference, experts say.

“As a divided nation, we have systematically established and implemented standards at the national level, from the development of these weapon systems to quality control,” said Jung.

“The quality, capability and manufacturing supply chain of our products is sufficiently competitive compared to those of other countries,” he added.

Whether — or how — South Korea decides to help Ukraine directly depends on “the level of North Korean involvement”, President Yoon Suk Yeol said earlier this month, adding Seoul was “not ruling out the possibility of providing weapons.”

If South Korea were to supply arms, the initial batch would be defensive in nature, Yoon said.



– Combat ready –



To fend off the steady barrage of missiles that have targeted Ukraine’s energy infrastructure and civilian areas, Kyiv urgently needs more air defences, Han Kwon-hee of the Korea Association of Defence Industry told AFP.

“Counteroffensives require stability in the rear zones, which is why Kyiv has also conducted drone attacks within Russia, including Moscow,” Han explained.

“They will help Ukraine hold off Russia’s offensives by intercepting drones and missiles flying deep into their territory,” he said — a huge boost for Kyiv, alongside the recent US move to let it use long-range American missiles against targets inside Russia.

The South has remained combat-ready since its 1950-53 war with the North ended in a truce, and while Hanwha Aerospace, South Korea’s largest defence contractor, was once seen by analysts as retrograde for its focus on land weapons, it is now in high demand.

AFP saw a wide range of weaponry moving along assembly lines at the company’s sprawling Changwon factory, from infantry armoured vehicles to surface-to-air missile systems designed to intercept incoming missiles.

The heightened geopolitical tensions in Europe have heavily benefited the South Korean company, which saw its on-year operating profit soar over 450 percent in the latest quarter to $343.3 million.

It has signed major arms deals with countries such as Poland and Romania, including the export of K9 Howitzers and Chunmoo missile systems.



– Weapons exports –



Seoul has long harboured ambitions to join the ranks of the world’s top arms exporters — aiming to be the fourth-largest, behind the US, Russia and France — something that is now possible, industry research indicates.

It has already sold 155mm artillery shells to Washington — but with a “final user” agreement in place meaning the United States would be the military that uses the munitions.

Experts have said this allows the United States to then provide their own shells to Kyiv.

Hanwha’s other weapons offer that could shift the balance of war in Ukraine is its Chunmoo guided missile system, experts said.

“With a maximum range of 290 km (180 miles), Chunmoo can strike targets in Pyongyang if launched from the border area in the South,” said Choi Gi-il, professor of military studies at Sangji University.

“What Ukraine urgently needs to turn the war in its favour are offensive weapons like Chunmoo missiles and K9 howitzers, capable of inflicting significant damage on the enemy,” Choi added.

“If North Korea’s direct involvement in the war escalates, (Seoul) may consider sending lethal weapons, in addition to defensive ones.”

Nationalist raves galvanise traumatised Ukrainian youth


By AFP

November 21, 2024

The mix of party and military reflects the split reality of young Ukrainians - Copyright AFP Andrej ISAKOVIC
Barbara WOJAZER

At a rave in a former silk factory in Kyiv, Bogdana Lukyanchuk was out partying for the first time since her father was killed fighting Russian forces in eastern Ukraine.

The party raised funds for the Third Assault Brigade, a controversial unit which has gained countrywide name recognition thanks to its military feats and marketing.

“I knew it was a charity event with people that I respected, so I could come and let my emotions run wild for just a day,” Lukyanchuk said, showing a photo of her dad with a broken heart emoji on her phone screensaver.

“There is still life in Ukraine. Life pulsates. Blood pulsates,” the 23-year-old said, shouting over the loud bass.

The Saturday night rave featured a combat drone simulator and merchandise from the Third Assault Brigade.

It was also attended by members of a linked nationalist youth group, Centuria.

The mix of party and military reflected the split reality of young Ukrainians, whose attempts to enjoy life are constantly marked by grief, air raid alerts and strikes.

It showed the efforts being made to galvanise young people exhausted by the war as the Russian invasion nears the three-year mark.



– ‘Gently involve young people’ –



Around 80 percent of Ukrainians have a close relative or friend who has been wounded by Russian forces, according to a survey from the Kyiv Institute of Sociology.

To process the violence against their country, some young Ukrainians find a sense of purpose and camaraderie in nationalist military organisations.

Lukyanchuk came to the rave with friends she met at workshops teaching civilians to handle rifles and use tourniquets, life-saving devices to staunch massive bleeding.

“There are conscious people here,” she said.

She worried that others were forgetting the war.

The patriotic fervour of the beginning of the war has subsided, leaving brigades short of funding and recruits.

In that struggle, the Third Assault Brigade, created by far-right politician Andriy Biletsky, has distinguished itself with its Instagrammable branding.

A neon orange logo in support of the brigade lit up the drone simulation room, which looked like a gamer’s den filled with teenagers slouched on a couch.

Some watched the drone flight simulator on a large computer screen, over which hung the white neon logo of Centuria.

Centuria says it “despises the modern cult of weakness” and aims to raise “strong and proud Ukrainians”.

The group boasts over 16,500 followers on Instagram, where it posts about a variety of events ranging from lectures to knife fights.

The blend of genres serves a purpose, said rave organiser Viktor Mazur.

“We gently involve young people. We don’t do it harshly with heavy propaganda but rather through entertainment, and that way we develop their loyalty,” the 29-year-old said.

Sofia Tabatska was surprised how quickly she worked out how to fly the drone under the guidance of an instructor.

“It’s like playing a computer game, like Grand Theft Auto,” said the 24-year-old.

“It would be nice if I could use it in some way in the future,” Tabatska said.

But she ruled out joining the army any time soon, describing herself as a pacifist.



– ‘Children of the war’ –



Marianna Tkalych, a psychologist, said some militarisation of Ukrainian society was inevitable following the Russian invasion.

But she believes the effect may not be lasting and the real test will come when the war ends and Ukraine’s political process, frozen by martial law, resumes.

The popularity of patriotic and militaristic organisations after the war, she said, will hinge on Ukraine’s capacity to deal with a traumatised generation.

“There will be some young people who have not found their purpose in any other sphere and who haven’t experienced normal life,” said Tkalych, who also heads the research platform Rating Lab.

“The generation growing up right now are children of the war.”

Fourteen-year-old Yury was just a toddler when Russian-backed forces launched a first armed aggression in eastern Ukraine in 2014.

He can hardly remember a life outside the conflict that escalated in 2022.

The teenager says he plans to enlist if the war is still ongoing when he turns 18.

He is already preparing with Centuria.

“I found myself there,” he said, mentioning classes on using assault rifles and fighting.

He said he thought his family would support his plans.

“My mum knows. I hope it will be okay.”

 

China Unveils a New Unmanned Warship, The "Killer Whale"

Via Chinese social media

Published Nov 10, 2024 6:25 PM by The Maritime Executive

 

 

An unusual trimaran drone ship was spotted at Guangzhou Shipyard earlier this year, and it has now made its first public appearance. On Friday, at the Zhuhai Airshow, the PLA Navy unveiled a new surface combatant called the "Killer Whale" - a miniature warship with an operating concept much like the U.S. Navy's Independence-class Littoral Combat Ship, but smaller and potentially without crew. 

According to Chinese media, the vessel has a length of 190 feet and displaces about 300-500 tonnes, with a maximum speed of 40 knots and a range of about 4,000 nautical miles. It is reportedly fitted to carry a wide array of weaponry - antiship missiles, antiaircraft missiles, torpedoes, and a drone helicopter on the rear deck. 

Its most notable feature might be the resuscitation of the "modular mission package" concept, which first entered full-scale service with the debut of the Littoral Combat Ship in the 2010s. The underlying concept was to field a multipurpose vessel that could carry "swappable" weapons packages for different missions - mine warfare, antisubmarine warfare and surface warfare. In practice, the U.S. Navy was not able to develop or operationalize the "swappable" concept aboard its two LCS classes, and each LCS vessel is now permanently fitted with specific equipment.

According to local media, the new Killer Whale's mission sets include surveillance patrols, surface warfare, anti-submarine operations, and air defense missions. It can be reconfigured for "sea battlefield environment surveys and rescue in distress," making it an "all-around warrior."

Though designed by CSSC's autonomous vessel specialists and designated as unmanned, the new USV also has a prominent wraparound bridge deck for human watchstanders. Naval analysts have noted that it bears a striking resemblance to Indonesia's manned Klewang-class fast attack craft: The carbon fiber Klewang-class is longer, narrower, and has less range and payload, but has a comparable top speed and a superficially similar appearance. 

Illustrations and scale models of the Killer Whale's design have appeared at Chinese defense trade shows over the past two years under the program name "JARI-USV-A." Open-source intelligence analysts first spotted the full-size prototype in satellite imagery at CSSC Guangzhou Shipyard last month.

 

Cybersecurity: Ghosts in the Machine

CyberOwl/HFW Report: Maritime industry pays an average ransom of $3 million in cyberattacks.

Published Nov 8, 2024 4:03 PM by Sean M. Holt

 

(Article originally published in Sept/Oct 2024 edition.)

"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting."
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War
 

In the dead of night, a fully laden LNG tanker quietly navigates the narrow channel of a strategic U.S. port. Suddenly, the ship's GPS blinks and alarms, showing the vessel miles off course. The crew has no idea their instruments have fallen prey to a sophisticated spoofing attack—where false GPS signals are broadcast to deceive a ship's navigation system into believing it's in a different location. 

Without their knowledge, the tanker was silently steered off track, headed toward critical infrastructure.

Hours earlier, a shoreside vendor had completed what appeared to be routine maintenance, leaving behind a smartphone in the engine control room—a harmless oversight, or so it seemed. Unbeknownst to the crew, that phone was a Trojan horse, silently infiltrating the ship's systems despite the air gap designed to safeguard critical functions. 

As the crew struggled to regain control, the malware awoke, crippling the ship's electrical network, communications and emergency uninterrupted battery supply. The vessel, making way while not under command, drifted helplessly toward catastrophe. 

Do you think this is fiction? Hardly.

GPS Spoofing

In the dark waters off Crimea, the battleground has undeniably gone digital, truly evoking the "ghosts in the machine" scenario. This battleground embodies fifth- and sixth-generation warfare where cyber operations, electronic warfare and disinformation blur the lines between physical and virtual combat. 

AIS (Automatic Identification System) broadcasts vessels' positions via GPS inputs, but GPS spoofing manipulates this data, creating navigational confusion. Jamming, on the other hand, blocks signals altogether, leaving vessels without critical navigation and communication capabilities. These tactics could lead to catastrophic accidents in high-traffic areas like the Black Sea. In one incident, spoofed signals traced a "Z" across the sea near Crimea. It was unclear if it was the symbol for Russia's war efforts or the mark of Zorro, but it was disruptive.

In May 2023, a mass spoofing event off Crimea caused ships to appear far from their true locations. The Center for Advanced Defense Studies documented over 10,000 spoofing incidents between 2017 and 2019, demonstrating a correlation between Putin's movements and GPS spoofing incidents near Crimea. Such tactics are deployed to shield high-value targets from GPS-guided weapons, complicating the use of drones, missiles and other advanced precision systems.

In June and July 2021, NATO warships like the HMS Defender and USS Ross were spoofed near Crimea, underscoring Russia's use of electronic warfare to disrupt maritime operations and global shipping lanes. 

Just days before this article was published, the Ukrainian Navy launched an operation to combat Russian GPS spoofing, destroying an idle gas platform off Crimea. Russian forces were purportedly using the platform to broadcast GPS interference, which Ukraine claimed threatened civilian navigation. "The occupiers used this location for GPS spoofing to endanger civilian navigation. We cannot allow this," said Ukrainian Navy spokesman Dmytro Pletenchuk. 

The attack came just hours after Russian personnel and equipment were spotted on the platform.

On October 1, the Panama-flagged oil tanker M/V Cordelia Moon survived a major explosion. The attack, claimed by Yemen's Houthi rebels, involved eight ballistic and winged missiles, a drone and an uncrewed surface boat (videos of both attacks are online). A missile northwest of Hodeidah also hit a Liberia-flagged bulker. 

These incidents, along with the Ukrainian strike on a Russian GPS spoofing platform, underscore how low-tech, unmanned vessels, along with electronic warfare like GPS spoofing and jamming, pose severe risks to maritime safety.

As maritime systems become increasingly digital and interconnected, cyber warfare is no longer confined to the pages of a novel. It's an urgent, evolving threat lurking in the waters of global trade. 

CyberOwl & DNV: Securing Maritime Networks

The maritime sector faces increasing cybersecurity risks, driven mainly by the complexity of vessel lifecycles and supply chains. Daniel Ng, CEO of Singapore-based CyberOwl, explains that many shipping companies still treat cyber risk management as a one-off compliance task. 

"For cyber risk management to be effective, it needs to be continuous," says Ng. “This is where our partnership with DNV brings real value. By combining our expertise, we can address cyber risks throughout the vessel lifecycle."

This collaboration brings together over 70 maritime cybersecurity specialists in five global hubs from Oslo to Singapore, backed by a network of 500 cybersecurity experts and 7,000 maritime risk professionals. "This allows us to cover everything—from the design stage to vessel operations to incident response," notes Ng.

He points out that a significant challenge is the difference between operational technology (OT), which controls shipboard machinery, and information technology (IT), which handles data: "Legacy OT systems often aren't as secure as newer technologies. We align with standards like UR E26 for new systems but take a more practical approach to legacy systems. CyberOwl's technologies provide visibility into OT risks so shipowners can focus on real threats rather than theoretical ones."

Looking ahead, Ng sees the partnership driving innovation in maritime cybersecurity. He highlights CyberOwl's OT Security Manager as a key tool: "It ingests and interprets Excel documents, PDF reports and system drawings, helping shipowners assess risks without needing to deploy tech onboard." 

This approach supports compliance with the E.U.'s Network and Information Systems (NIS) Directive, aimed at protecting critical infrastructure. "Ultimately," says Ng, "we want to give shipowners peace of mind as they adopt digital technologies to boost performance and reduce emissions."

Information Fusion Centre: CYBSEC Threats & Trends

Based in Singapore, the Information Fusion Centre (IFC) serves as a critical hub for maritime security (MARSEC) monitoring and information-sharing across the Indo-Pacific. Under the Republic of Singapore Navy, the IFC collaborates with international liaison officers from over 25 countries to tackle maritime threats including piracy, smuggling and cybersecurity (CYBSEC).

The IFC emphasizes the increasing cyber risks to vessels' OT systems and the importance of continuous monitoring and rapid response. Its information-sharing capabilities have been instrumental in preventing cyber incidents from escalating into significant disruptions. 

"We've seen growing interest from shipping companies in involving us in their security drills, where we bring a naval perspective and real-time information-sharing," an IFC spokesperson noted.

Despite a 77 percent reduction in CYBSEC incidents in 2024—down to three from 13 the previous year—the IFC warns this may reflect a lack of reporting, not a decline in threats. Recent malware attacks on cargo vessels in Europe underscore the persistent cyber risks in high-threat areas.

The IFC provides regular updates on cybersecurity trends via its social media channels and advisories. Shipowners are encouraged to subscribe to these reports or engage the IFC in security exercises to boost their readiness against cyber threats. 

Tackling Cyber Espionage and Signal Jamming

Sahil Andrews Chand, Founder & CEO of ShipSafe, warns that signal jamming—disrupting communication and navigation—poses significant risks during critical operations like docking. 

"Jamming can lead to disorientation and even collisions in congested waters where precision is crucial," Chand explains. He also highlights the broader threat of cyber espionage, where attackers gather intelligence on shipping routes and cargo, creating severe security implications.

Chand addresses a common misconception in the maritime industry—the assumption that existing navigation systems are inherently secure. "This complacency can lead to dangerous vulnerabilities,” he notes. 

Many systems, primarily operational technology, can be exploited if not properly secured. Chand advocates for a structured cybersecurity approach, prioritizing critical communications such as navigation and safety, which must be safeguarded with dedicated bandwidth and strong security measures.

Chand also stresses the importance of network segmentation to isolate OT systems from administrative IT systems, limiting the impact of any potential breaches. He further emphasizes adopting robust firewalls and intrusion-detection systems to block unauthorized access.

"Limiting remote access is key," Chand continues, recommending multifactor authentication and strong passwords. However, technology alone isn't enough. "Continuous crew cybersecurity training is critical to ensure preparedness against evolving threats," he advises. Chand underscores the importance of collaboration with port authorities to share information about cyber incidents and threats.

Finally, he highlights the need to balance innovation with security, urging companies to evaluate new technologies like AI, machine learning, and blockchain through a cybersecurity lens to prevent new vulnerabilities from emerging.

Staying the Course

As cyber and electronic warfare tactics like GPS spoofing and jamming increasingly impact military and civilian vessels, experts agree that the industry must bolster defenses. Heightened vigilance, coupled with substantial investment in advanced technologies and crew training, is crucial. 

These measures are essential to safeguarding maritime operations against the evolving landscape of cyber warfare. – MarEx 

Technology columnist Sean Holt writes from Singapore.
 

The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive.

Israel's targeting of UNIFIL, Lebanese forces ‘war crimes’: Lebanon

At least 3 civilians killed, 5 UNIFIL peacekeepers and 3 Lebanese soldiers injured in Israeli drone attack in Sidon in southern Lebanon

Wassim Seifeddine |08.11.2024 - TRT/AA



BEIRUT

Lebanon condemned an Israeli drone strike Thursday in the southern city of Sidon that killed three civilians and injured several Lebanese soldiers and UN peacekeepers, labeling it a "war crime."

Five peacekeepers were injured in the drone strike near a military checkpoint in Sidon in southern Lebanon, the UN mission said.

In a statement, the mission said the injuries occurred as a convoy from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) bringing newly arrived peacekeepers to the southern part of the country was passing Sidon when a drone strike hit nearby.

The Lebanese army confirmed that the attack was carried out by an Israeli drone targeting a vehicle which killed three people inside and injured three of its soldiers stationed at a military checkpoint nearby.

In response, Lebanon's Foreign Ministry said it strongly condemns the Israeli assault and called on the international community to denounce such attacks and hold Israel accountable.

The ministry described the attack as "an escalation in Israel's targeting of UNIFIL forces, Lebanese soldiers and civilians constituting war crimes and a blatant violation of international humanitarian law."

It reiterated Lebanon's commitment to the essential role of UNIFIL in coordination with the Lebanese Army in maintaining security and stability along Lebanon's internationally recognized borders, especially amid continued Israeli escalations threatening regional peace.

The ministry also reaffirmed Lebanon's commitment to UN Resolution 1701, stressing the need for its full and balanced implementation to protect UNIFIL forces, Lebanese soldiers and civilians and to achieve sustainable security in the area.

A massive Israeli air campaign in Lebanon has been ongoing since late September against what it claims are Hezbollah targets, an escalation in year-long cross-border warfare since the start of the Gaza war.

More than 3,100 people have been killed and over 13,800 injured in Israeli attacks since October 2023, according to Lebanese health authorities.

Israel launched a ground assault into southern Lebanon on Oct. 1.

*Writing by Rania Abu Shamala

It’s Not Just About the President
It’s About the Presidency

By Karen J. Greenberg

November 7, 2024

Source: TomDispatch


Ted - Presidential seal. Flikr.



As the dust settles over election day, it’s worth reflecting that it’s not only the election results that have been at stake, but the future of the presidency and its powers. Over the course of the first quarter of this century, the American presidency has accumulated ever more power, rendering the office increasingly less constrained by either Congress or the courts. With Donald Trump’s reelection, the slide toward a dangerously empowered president has reached a moment of reckoning, particularly when it comes to foreign affairs and warfare.

Presidential Powers

Throughout American history, presidents have repeatedly sought to increase their powers, nowhere more so than in the context of war. As historian James Patterson has pointed out, “War and the threat of war were major sources of presidential power from the beginning.” Whether it was George Washington’s insistence that he was the one to formulate foreign policy when it came to diplomacy, treaties, and more; Thomas Jefferson’s assertion of complete control over whether or not to attack the Barbary Pirates; James Polk’s decision to take actions which risked war with Mexico; or Abraham Lincoln’s “sweeping assertions of authority” in the Civil War era, executive claims to authority when it comes to matters of foreign relations and warfare have been a persistent feature of American history.

The twentieth century saw a continued rise in the powers of the presidency. As historian Jeremi Suri noted in his book The Impossible Presidency, the four terms of Franklin D. Roosevelt were a transformative moment, essentially multiplying the responsibilities of the president with the ultimate goal of “mak[ing] the national executive the dominant actor in all parts of American life.” The presidents who followed Roosevelt continued to display such enhanced powers, especially when it came to foreign affairs.

As legal scholar Matt Waxman has reminded us, FDR’s successor, Harry Truman, went to war in Korea without congressional authorization. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did consult with Congress over the need to protect U.S.-allied Pacific coastal islands from possible Chinese aggression and, in his farewell address, warned against “the military-industrial complex,” still believed “that the president had broad powers to engage in covert warfare without specific congressional approval.” In fact, his successor, John F. Kennedy, exercised those powers in a major way in the Bay of Pigs incident. Richard Nixon unilaterally and secretly launched the invasion of Cambodia in 1970, and Ronald Reagan created a secret Central American foreign policy, while arranging the unauthorized transfer of funds and weaponry to the Nicaraguan rebels, the Contras, from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran, despite the fact that such funding was prohibited by an act of Congress, the Boland Amendment.

The Twenty-First Century

Even within the context of repeated presidential acts taken without congressional assent (or often even knowledge) and in defiance of the constitutional checks on the powers of the presidency, the twenty-first century witnessed a major uptick in claims of executive power. In the name of war, this century has seen an astonishing erosion of constraints on that very power, as Yale law professor Harold Hongju Koh details in his illuminating new book, The National Security Constitution in the Twenty-First Century.

At the dawn of this century, the attacks of September 11, 2001, led to an instant escalation of presidential power and executive unilateralism. In the name of national security, President George W. Bush issued an order that authorized the indefinite detention of prisoners in what quickly came to be known as the Global War on Terror. He also set up an offshore prison of injustice at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and authorized military commissions instead of federal court trials for terrorism suspects captured abroad.

Meanwhile, Congress and the courts consistently deferred to the will of the president when it came to actions taken in the name of that war on terror. One week after the attacks of 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which undermined its own power in Article I of the Constitution to declare war and weakened its powers of restraint on presidential actions carefully articulated in the 1973 War Powers Resolution (WPR), passed to guard against the very kind of secretive engagement in war that Nixon had unilaterally authorized in the Vietnam era.

Now, turning their backs on the power given them by the Constitution and the WPR, Congress, with that AUMF, acceded to the expansion of presidential powers and opened the door to the disastrous wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere early in this century. The president, it stated, was “authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.”

In October 2001, Congress also passed the USA Patriot Act. It included an expansion of presidential power at home in the name of protecting the nation in the war on terror, including authorizing greatly expanded surveillance policies that would come to include, among other things, secret surveillance and searches that took place without evidence of wrongdoing, notably in Muslim communities in this country that were considered inherently suspect in the name of the war on terror.

As a result, when, in January 2009, Barack Obama entered the White House, his administration found itself with a strikingly expanded definition of the powers of the presidency on the table.

Obama’s Presidency

A former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama pledged to overturn some of the Bush administration’s most egregious, extralegal breaches, including the very existence of the Guantánamo Bay Detention Facility and the use of torture (or what the Bush administration had politely termed “enhanced interrogation techniques”) authorized by executive unilateralism as part of the war on terror. In what became known as “trust me” government, Obama also pledged to reform the excessive surveillance policies implemented in the war on terror. In 2013, David Cole, a civil rights attorney and currently the National Legal Director of the ACLU, credited Obama with making substantial “shifts” toward restraint by formally declaring an end to many of the Bush administration’s “most aggressive assertions of executive power.”

But while Obama did indeed trim some of the most striking excesses of the Bush era, his record of presidential reform fell significantly short. Jameel Jaffer, the founding director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, for instance, disputed Cole’s claims, citing the Obama administration’s continued reliance on illegal and extralegal policies that Bush’s aggressive actions had already put in play — among them, warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detention, and the military commissions to try prisoners at Guantánamo. In addition, as Jaffer pointed out, the Obama administration frequently relied on the powers granted the presidency in that 2001 AUMF to authorize targeted lethal drone strikes globally, as in the case of the drone-killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, without further congressional authorization, by expanding the definition of “imminence” in order to appear to be complying with the international rule of law.

When it came to such targeted killings — a military tactic introduced under President Bush but greatly expanded during the Obama years for strikes in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen — the president reserved for himself the right to have the final say in authorizing such strikes. As the New York Times reported at the time, “Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary, and the president’s own deep reserve.”

Although he served as legal adviser to the Department of State in the Obama administration, in his warnings about the perils posed by the slide towards unilateral presidential powers, Harold Hongju Kou concedes that the president could have done more to curtail the Bush era enhancement of the powers of the president. “[T]he cautious Obama administration,” he writes, “succeeded in swinging the national security pendulum only part of the way back” to restraint on executive power via the courts and Congress. While the “cascade of illegality” that defined the Bush era’s war on terror was indeed somewhat addressed by Obama, it remained, Koh reminds us, “undercorrected” — including not seeking “stronger accountability for past acts of CIA torture, and the stubborn continuation of a Guantanamo detention policy.”

While President Obama adhered more closely to restraints on presidential power than his predecessor, his administration did not make the kinds of structural and procedural changes necessary to deter future presidents from following in the footsteps of the Bush administration, as we were soon to learn, since, as Koh points out, enhanced unilateral presidential and executive powers would be “sharply re-intensified” under Donald Trump.

The Trump Years

Indeed, the first Trump presidency vastly accelerated the claims of expanded presidential power. Jack Goldsmith and Bob Bauer, lawyers who worked in the Bush and Obama administrations, respectively, served, as they put it, “very different presidents” and hold “different political outlooks.” Yet they agree that the Trump administration took unchecked presidential authority to a new level. In their 2020 book, After Trump: Reconstructing the Presidency, they contended that “Donald Trump operated the presidency in ways that reveal its vulnerability to dangerous excesses of authority and dangerous weaknesses in accountability.”

And as they make all too clear, the stakes were (and remain) high. “The often-feckless Trump,” they wrote, “also revealed deeper fissures in the structure of the presidency that, we worry, a future president might choose to exploit in a fashion similar to Trump — but much more skillfully, and to even greater effect.” And with the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding the immunity of Donald Trump for acts taken while in the Oval Office, the shackles that once tied presidential acts in wartime to Congressional authorization are arguably now fully off the table, should a president be determined to act on his or her own say-so. (As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, the ruling “will have disastrous consequences for the presidency and for our democracy,” arguing that it will, in essence, “let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends.”)

The Biden Years

When it comes to recognizing limits on presidential powers, President Biden has had a distinctly mixed record. He immediately withdrew Trump’s executive order known as “the Muslim ban,” set out to close Guantánamo (but has not yet succeeded in doing so), rejoined the Paris climate accord, and revived international ties around the world that had been disrupted by Trump. And yet, that quintessential institutionalist, who prided himself on his ability to work with Congress, nonetheless veered in the direction of presidential unilateralism in the conduct of foreign affairs.

As Professor Koh put it: “In foreign affairs, even the longtime senator Joe Biden — who widely proclaims his love of the Senate — now operates almost entirely by executive fiat,” including a reliance on “classified policy memoranda, with minimal congressional oversight.” Overall, in fact, Biden issued more executive orders than any president since Richard Nixon. Though Biden wisely relied upon an interagency group of lawyers to advise him on national security decisions, following their advice, he issued “nonbinding political agreements, memoranda of understanding, joint communiques, and occasionally ‘executive agreements plus,’” just as Obama had done on the Paris climate accords and the Iran nuclear deal, relying on “preexisting legislative frameworks” rather than new Congressional authorizations. When it came to the war in Ukraine, Biden leaned heavily on “the coordinated use of sanctions, enhanced almost weekly post-invasion.” Most of those sanctions were set, as Koh also points out, “by executive orders and regulatory decrees,” rather than in consultation with Congress.

Our Future

A second Trump presidency will undoubtedly take unilateral presidential powers to a new level. After all, he already indicated that he might withdraw the U.S. from NATO and end support for Ukraine. Nor is Trump likely to be deterred by Congress. Reporting on Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s nearly 1,000-page prescription for a second Trump presidency, written primarily by former office holders in the first Trump administration, New York Times reporters Jonathan Swan, Charlie Savage, and Maggie Haberman reported that Trump “and his associates” plan to “increase the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House.”

In particular, Project 2025’s stance on nuclear weapons is a reminder of just how dangerous a president who refused to be restrained by law or precedent will be. After all, in his first term in office, Trump unilaterally pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal and reimposed sanctions on that country, leading its leaders to increase its nuclear capacity. Meanwhile, the march toward nuclear confrontation has accelerated worldwide. In response, Project 2025 argues for ramping up America’s nuclear arsenal yet more. “[T]he United States manifestly needs to modernize, adapt, and expand its nuclear arsenal,” the treatise declared, in order to “deter Russia and China simultaneously,” adding that the U.S. needs to “develop a nuclear arsenal with the size, sophistication, and tailoring — including new capabilities at the theater level — to ensure that there is no circumstance in which America is exposed to serious nuclear coercion.”

Consider all of that a frightening vision of our now all-too-imminent future: a president freed from the restraints of the constitution, unchecked by Congress or the courts — or by his cabinet advisors. In the words of MSNBC’s Ali Velshi, Project 2025 has set the stage for Donald Trump to be the very opposite of what this country’s founders intended, “a king,” surrounded not by “groups of qualified experts” but by “unblinking yes-men.”

(Dis)Trust in the Presidency

The growing power of the presidency has been taking place in plain view, as unilateral powers have accumulated decade after decade in the Oval Office, while the recent choice of president has also become a grim choice about the nature and powers of the presidency itself. Notably, the rise in executive powers has coincided with a creeping distrust of government in this country. Since the early 1960s, when nearly 80% of Americans said they trusted government “most of the time,” the public’s faith in this country’s federal government hovers at just over 20%, according to the Pew Research Center. And no wonder. When the office of the president refuses to accept the checks and balances that underlie the democratic system, the country’s trust in negotiated, reasonable, and restrained outcomes understandably falls away.

Sadly, in this era, the benefits of restoring the very notion of checks and balances that birthed the nation have come to seem ever more like a quaint dream.