Latest news with #TheNationalInterest
Express Tribune
23-06-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
What makes Iran's Sejil missile a regional game-changer?
Listen to article Iran's long-range Sejjil ballistic missile is in the spotlight following its reported deployment during the recent 'True Promise 3' operation targeting Israel, underscoring Tehran's advancing missile capabilities, Mehr news agency reported. What is Sejjil? The Sejjil, a solid-fuel, two-stage ballistic missile, is widely regarded as one of the most sophisticated assets in Iran's arsenal. Capable of carrying a 650 kg warhead, the missile has a reported range that enables it to strike targets such as Tel Aviv from Iranian territory in under 10 minutes, according to military analysts. The missile's use of solid propellant reduces launch preparation time, making it more difficult for enemy defence systems to intercept. Significance Its speed and range place it among the most strategic weapons in Iran's inventory, playing a central role in the country's deterrence doctrine. Military experts consider the Sejjil a key symbol of Iran's regional missile power, with its development marking a significant milestone in the nation's defence industry. According to The National Interest in a 2017 report, the Sejjil was considered Iran's most advanced missile prior to the unveiling of the Khorramshahr system. The upgraded Sejjil-2 features a faster launch process and improved warhead design over its predecessor, the Sejjil-1. Experts suggest these upgrades have significantly enhanced Iran's rapid-strike potential. A senior Israeli defence analyst warned that intercepting Sejjil missiles would pose a challenge for Israeli missile defence systems due to the missile's high velocity and solid-fuel propulsion.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
06-06-2025
- Business
- First Post
Indonesia gets J-10 deal offer from China: Is it a budget buy or Beijing's strategic trap?
If Indonesia chooses the J-10, the real question is what it's truly buying into. The real cost of the J-10 may not lie in the transaction, but in the trap that follows. read more AVIC Chengdu Aircraft makes J-10C fighter jets as well as the JF-17 Thunder planes – which are considered the backbone of the Pakistan Air Force since the US stopped supplying Pakistan with F-16s. Image courtesy Valka As Indonesia reportedly considers a deal to buy China's J-10 fighter jets, some analysts wonder if this indeed a wise choice for Jakarta. The J-10 is based on copied and borrowed designs and while China promotes it as a low-cost all-purpose fighter aircraft, there are problems behind the scenes. These include weaker performance, older systems and possible hidden political intentions—making it seem like Indonesia might be stepping into a carefully planned trap. Indonesia is reportedly motivated for this deal based on unconfirmed reports, strongly refuted by India, that Pakistan used one of its J-10 fighter jets to shoot down an Indian Air Force Rafale jet during Operation Sindoor last month. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to a report on May 28 in The National Interest, Indonesian Air Force Chief of Staff Marshal Mohamad Tonny Harjono acknowledged that the possibility of purchasing J-10C fighter jets from China is under consideration. However, he emphasised that acquiring such major defence equipment involves a complex decision-making process. The purchase must go through several stages and be reviewed by the Defence Equipment Determination Council. During this process, the government will evaluate various factors, including how well the equipment fits national defence needs and its potential impact on Indonesia's political relations with other countries. Origins of the J-10: A legacy of reverse engineering According to a 2021 article by Charlie Gao in The National Interest, the story of the J-10 shows how China has often used copying and adapting to develop its defence technology. The J-10 was first planned in the 1990s as China's response to advanced American and Russian jets like the F-16 and MiG-29. But the design wasn't completely original—it was based on Israel's Lavi fighter, a project that was cancelled in 1987 after pressure from US and China is believed to have gotten the Lavi's blueprints from Israel to help speed up their own development. This approach can be seen in the J-10's design. The air intake below the cockpit looks like that of the F-16, and the jet's wing style is similar to the Mirage 2000. But even though it looks similar to these jets, the J-10 is considered to have a less advanced aerodynamic design. It also relies on parts from other countries, especially the Russian-made AL-31 engine, which was originally built for the larger Su-27 fighter. J-10's technical shortcomings and incremental upgrades The National Interest reported that the development of the J-10 has been riddled with constant redesigns and slow upgrades. The initial J-10A variant, which entered Chinese service in 2003, was quickly outdated and suffered from technological limitations in radar and avionics. It was succeeded by the J-10B and later J-10C, each introducing refinements such as phased array radars and improved engines. Despite these upgrades, the airframe's core limitations persist particularly in terms of its aerodynamic maturity and engine reliability. The latest model, the J-10C, boasts an AESA radar and PL-15 long-range missiles, positioning it nominally as a 4.5 generation fighter. Yet much of its appeal lies in its affordability rather than capability. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For instance, the combat radius of approximately 1,000 kilometres and payload capacity of up to 8 tonnes are respectable, but do not outmatch Western equivalents or even some Russian alternatives. Furthermore, China has not fully transitioned its own fleet to the newer models, with the majority of deployed aircraft still being J-10As, reflecting internal hesitation regarding the aircraft's viability. Why Indonesia's purchase is concerning Indonesia's interest in the J-10 appears driven primarily by cost and availability. Deputy Minister of Defence Donny Ermawan Taufanto reportedly emphasised the aircraft's affordability and baseline technical compliance. But such a rationale may be dangerously shortsighted. Affordability in defence acquisitions often comes at a hidden cost. Integrating Chinese aircraft into Indonesia's diverse fleet—which includes US and Russian-made platforms—poses significant logistical and interoperability challenges. Furthermore, the opaque nature of Chinese military technology and the potential for cyber vulnerabilities in avionics could present long-term security risks. China's willingness to sell J-10s is part of a broader geopolitical strategy to deepen its military and economic ties in Southeast Asia. The offer comes amid increased defence cooperation between the two nations, including joint drills and high-level military exchanges. Yet, buying into Chinese platforms could also mean buying into Chinese dependency. Once the J-10s are integrated, Indonesia could find itself reliant on Beijing for upgrades, parts and training—limiting its strategic autonomy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Propaganda and questionable combat claims One of the primary claims used to justify the J-10's efficacy is its alleged role in the imaginary downing of an Indian Rafale jet during Operation Sindoor. Chinese state broadcaster CCTV aired a documentary celebrating the J-10C's supposed combat achievements, stating the aircraft had 'achieved combat results for the first time … hitting multiple jets and not suffering any losses', the South China Morning Post claimed. These reports, however, are unsubstantiated and lack independent verification. India, for its part, has categorically denied the loss of any Rafale fighters in the conflict. In the absence of verifiable proof, these assertions appear to be more about domestic propaganda than battlefield reality—part of a campaign to boost confidence in Chinese military exports and shore up global influence. India's Rafales vs China's J-10s: A stark capability divide Comparing the Rafale to the J-10 highlights the technological and operational disparity between the two aircraft. The Rafale, produced by Dassault Aviation, is a true 4.5 generation multi-role fighter with twin engines, superior range and unmatched avionics. It boasts active and passive electronic warfare systems, highly advanced AESA radar and a wide range of precision-guided munitions. India's acquisition of Rafales has significantly enhanced its deterrent capability in the region. In contrast, the J-10, while equipped with surface-level improvements in its C variant, lacks the operational pedigree and real-world performance history of the Rafale. The aircraft's dependency on the AL-31 engine also makes it vulnerable to foreign supply constraints—a vulnerability that the Rafale's wholly indigenous development avoids. Strategic trap: Dependency and influence China's defence export strategy is increasingly aimed at selling its weapons as 'affordable alternatives' to Western systems. However, these exports come with strings attached. For recipient nations like Indonesia, entering the Chinese military ecosystem could mean sacrificing independence in defence planning and opening up to Chinese influence in critical areas of military doctrine and procurement. Moreover, there is an inherent asymmetry in the seller-buyer relationship when it comes to maintenance, software updates and upgrades. Indonesia may find itself beholden to Chinese suppliers, particularly in the event of geopolitical tension. These vulnerabilities can have long-term strategic consequences, making what appears to be an affordable choice today a costly liability tomorrow. A question of strategic prudence Indonesia's inclination to purchase the Chinese J-10 represents more than a defence acquisition. It signals a potential shift in regional alignment. At a time when great power competition is intensifying in the Indo-Pacific, countries must choose their defence partners carefully—not only based on price and immediate availability but also on long-term implications for sovereignty, reliability and capability. China's J-10 may offer Indonesia a quick fix, but it is a flawed platform born of outdated design philosophies and geopolitical expediency. In contrast, India's unwavering stance on retaining top-tier fighters like the Rafale and its refusal to acknowledge any fabricated combat losses, highlights a clear commitment to quality, credibility and strategic autonomy. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If Indonesia follows through with this deal, it may risk compromising its defence integrity and becoming another node in China's growing web of influence. The real cost of the J-10 may not lie in the transaction—but in the trap that follows.
Politico
30-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
5 questions for Sen. Todd Young
Hello, and welcome to this week's installment of the Future in Five Questions. This week we interviewed Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), one of the Senate's leading voices on tech policy and a key architect of 2022's CHIPS and Science Act. Young, who earlier this year published an essay in The National Interest proposing a 'Tech Power Playbook for Donald Trump 2.0,' discusses his skepticism about the value of social media, the insight of Alvin Toffler's 'Future Shock' and why America risks falling behind China on biotech. An edited and condensed version of the conversation follows: What's one underrated big idea? Using our tech diplomats at the State Department to accrue more geopolitical power as a country. We saw in the CHIPS and Science Act that this group of individuals, which I characterized as our special teams — it was football season when I put this together — they can help shape norms of use, develop standards and even help us gain market share. To the extent we advance our tech in different geographies, we're advancing our values, because our values around privacy, consumer protection, transparency and many other things are embedded within the standards of our different technologies. If the Trump administration and others adopt this approach, I think we can force our adversaries, most obviously the People's Republic of China, to have to produce in a bifurcated way. They produce one set of standards and embedded technologies for their domestic economy, where they'd spy on their own people, and then they'd have to produce for another set of standards for export. Because they have an export oriented economy, they couldn't sustain two different streams of production and they'd have to choose. What's a technology that you think is overhyped? Social media, without any question. I'm the father of four young children, and I don't think it is meaningfully, or on balance constructively, enhancing their lives. Actual social connection in person with people, or even by phone, is preferable to the sort of clickbait culture and abbreviated means of communication that we've all become accustomed to. I think it has diminished our attention span, I think it has coarsened our culture and I think it's made us dumber collectively than we would have thought in a universe in which we have instant access to all kinds of information. As I talk about this topic with regular citizens — that is, those who don't own major social media companies or work at Washington, D.C., think tanks — there is an appetite for certain smart regulatory approaches. However, in the last few years I think there's been a heightened awareness of the potential when you regulate to constrain speech, and a general skepticism of regulators' intentions and ideologies and good faith in trying to intermediate conversations. When I entered the public fray, I think there was an appetite — or maybe a missed window of opportunity — to come up with a better model through law. It's really challenging right now, because we've become, in many ways, a nation of distinct tribes not just in terms of our political identification but our belief system. There's a distrust of efforts to sort out fact from fiction and to referee the public square, and private actors have seized control of the public square through these social media outlets. We haven't figured out how to address that in a pluralistic, highly populous and dynamic democracy, and we're going to have to come up with answers at some point. What could the government be doing regarding technology that it isn't? Unleashing the power of biomanufacturing, which is something I've been deeply immersed in for the last couple of years as chairman of a national security commission on emerging biotechnology. Other countries have invested heavily in this. Notably, China is more advanced than the United States in some of these areas. The epicenter of this biomanufacturing revolution could be in heartland states like Indiana, using agricultural feedstocks to put into tanks and manufacture many of the components and products that are made through conventional manufacturing right now. McKinsey estimates that today, the technological capabilities exist to biomanufacture 60 percent of items that are conventionally manufactured. What we need is scale in order to make these things cost-competitive, and we offer recommendations for Congress to achieve this sort of scale. What book most shaped your conception of the future? Alvin Toffler's 'Future Shock' had a big impact on me. It talked about something that is now familiar to every American: the disjunction between technological change and human adaptation to those changes. We are essentially living the anxieties that Alvin Toffler predicted from a world upended by increasingly rapid technological change. It impacts our psyche. It impacts our relationships. It impacts our professions; it profoundly impacts every facet of our lives and is therefore unsettling and disorienting. Toffler labeled this whole gamut of effects and emotions 'future shock,' and I don't believe he gets frequent enough mention or credit for identifying this profound change that was underway. The other one is Alexis de Tocqueville. In 'Democracy in America' he talks about how democracy shapes our way of thinking about ourselves in such profound ways, and how it permeates everything in our culture. In this time of tectonic political shifts we are — unless we discipline ourselves against it — inclined to ascertain what is right and true based on what our neighbors think rather than conviction, or trenchant analysis. If any person who lives in a small-'d' democratic culture thinks that they're not susceptible to this, they're wrong. That cultural milieu is put on steroids in an era of social media and, more generally, a fractured media environment in which people live in tribal echo chambers. We all are hardwired in our DNA to want to be part of the crowd. None of us wants to be lonely, and we look to others for guidance about what is right. So you can think again about how in this populist political age, members of the different parties have fundamentally changed their views over the past few years on some pretty foundational political issues. Setting aside some calculation from politicians here and there, there is a sincerity to it because people are persuaded by the popular opinions of people within their tribe. So you've seen a swapping of policy positions across parties on some really foundational things, and some have genuinely arrived at those new positions through analysism but others are more impacted by democratic culture than is typically realized. What has surprised you the most this year? Well, if we're going 365 days back, it would be Indiana University football's No. 5 ranking in the College Football Playoff era. But in this year, it's the Pacers' deep run in the playoffs, and it ain't over. doge rolls on Although Elon Musk is personally stepping back from government, DOGE remains at furious work. POLITICO's Robin Bravender, Danny Nguyen and Sophia Cai reported Thursday on how Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought is quietly directing lasting changes to the federal bureaucracy, which one anonymous White House official described as the 'true DNA of DOGE': The staffers made political appointees at various agencies who can remain at their posts indefinitely. DOGE staffers are also taking a quieter approach to cutting programs and staff by going to lesser-known departments and agencies, even as courts often stymie their changes. During the last two weeks, DOGE has tried to access the Government Publishing Office, the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, and sent teams to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Government Accountability Office. 'Everyone's more nervous about [Vought] than Elon actually, especially because he knows government a little bit better,' an anonymous federal worker told POLITICO. 'While people are excited that Elon is gone, this doesn't change much.' a new berkeley supercomputer The Department of Energy announced a new supercomputer project, teaming with Nvidia and Dell on a system to support physics, artificial intelligence and other types of research. POLITICO's Chase DiFeliciantonio reported for Pro subscribers Thursday on the announcement of a computer based at Berkeley, California's National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which has around 11,000 researchers. Scheduled for completion in 2026, the computer will be named after Nobel Prize-winning CRISPR scientist Jennifer Doudna. 'AI is the Manhattan Project of our time, and Doudna will help ensure America's scientists have the tools they need to win the global race for AI dominance,' said Energy Secretary Chris Wright in a statement. In response to a question from reporters, Wright defended the administration's broader science cuts. 'Politics and bureaucracy are the antithesis of science,' he said, adding that 'this administration is 100 percent aligned with speeding up and energizing American science, removing the shackles, removing the bureaucracy, cleaning out the politics, and focused on science and progress.' post of the day THE FUTURE IN 5 LINKS Stay in touch with the whole team: Derek Robertson (drobertson@ Mohar Chatterjee (mchatterjee@ Steve Heuser (sheuser@ Nate Robson (nrobson@ and Daniella Cheslow (dcheslow@
Hindustan Times
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Hotmail's Sabeer Bhatia in intense online spat over X post on India-Pakistan hostilities: 'Price a country pays for…'
Hotmail's India-born founder Sabeer Bhatia is facing backlash over a pro-Pakistan news story he has shared on social media. The piece – titled 'How Chinese Missiles Routed India's Air Force Over Pakistan' – was published on May 8 in the American bimonthly magazine The National Interest. In the controversial piece, author Brandon J Weichert claimed an 'unambiguous victory for Pakistan' in the India-Pak conflict. Weichert repeated the Pakistan government's claim of shooting down five Indian Air Force jets – including three Rafales – using Chinese-made PL-15 air-to-air missiles. 'Their [Pakistan's] successful engagement downing five IAF warplanes is a tremendous blow to the IAF, as well as to India's military,' read the piece. Hotmail founder Sabeer Bhatia shared the piece on X with a caption suggesting critique of Indian leadership. 'This is the price a country pays for the sins of its leaders,' Bhatia wrote, indicating criticism of the Indian government for underestimating the China-Pakistan defence cooperation. Chandigarh-born and San Francisco-based Bhatia has since engaged in multiple online spats defending his stance. His comments section has been flooded with Indians slamming him for his take on India-Pakistan hostilities. 'Have you gotten yourself checked? Sometimes dehydration causes this, and sometimes it could be a serious condition. Mental illness is no joke. The sooner you get yourself checked, the better. Rest well. May you recover soon,' commented X user Jaivardhan Vermaa, to which Bhatia replied: 'No joke.. I'm hydrated too…' X user Karan pointed out that the article is dated and requested the Indian-American entrepreneur to give further context. 'This article is from 8th May. A lot has happened since. Give the complete picture Sabeer. Don't edit stuff like a troll,' he wrote. Bhatia replied to him with a short 'Thank you for your advice.' Some wondered if he even held an Indian passport, with one person writing: 'Which passport do you have Sabeer ? Nonsensical tweets repeatedly from your handle at this time when the nation is at war.' 'World Passport,' Bhatia replied. Others accused him of having become an 'American.' Sabeer Bhatia was born in Chandigarh and grew up in Pune and Bangalore. According to a Times of India report, his father was in the Indian Army. He went to the US at the age of 19 on a Cal Tech scholarship.
News18
12-05-2025
- Politics
- News18
India Won The War, But Lost Narrative Battle To Pakistani & Western Lies
It is time for India to up the PR ante, spend money on building presence in international media, and counter the global negative narrative more robustly India has decisively won the latest military conflict against Pakistan. If anybody had a doubt, the Indian Air Force (IAF) presser on Sunday conclusively demonstrated it with clear images and videos of the precision strikes in Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) and deep inside Pakistan. From Muridke to Bahawalpur and from Sargodha to Jacobabad, every missile strike has been captured, as if in 4K. It is now clear that the bombing of Sargodha and a couple of other airfields could be the immediate reason for Pakistan's panicked outreach to the US, which, in turn, advised it to directly request India for a ceasefire, which Pakistan did. Apparently, the Indian missiles landed alarmingly close to its nuclear facilities and could even have triggered radiation. But despite this unprecedented aggressive response to a terror attack (the Pahalgam massacre, in this case), cheer was missing from the Indian side. It was as if we had lost. Pakistan, forever blissfully in denial, actually started claiming victory. The Western media obliged, with almost congratulatory pieces and shows about Pakistan snatching a ceasefire. advetisement There were three main narrative setbacks for India. First, some seriously irresponsible and childish mainstream media reporting. It is fine to run psy-ops on social media and rattle the enemy. But when the mainstream media outlets mirror that misinformation, it leads to loss of credibility and opens up the nation's information environment to damaging fact-checks and mocking, even when there is enough meat in its military response. Sensational stories like Lahore, Karachi or Islamabad falling did just that. It is a good occasion for the Indian media to introspect. At a time when plain-vanilla reporting is sensational enough, going overboard with spice is a recipe for self-goals which harms the nation's splendid military effort. Second, the international media coverage was grossly tilted against India. The West was especially negative. Neocon online publication The National Interest carried pieces titled 'How Chinese Missiles Routed India's Air Force Over Pakistan' and 'Why Has India's Military Performed So Poorly Against Pakistan?', both by Brandon J Weichert, a contributor to the Hong Kong-based Asia Times and author of Biohacked: China's Race To Control Life and other books. 'The Pakistanis have proven their mettle. Armed with top Chinese equipment, and with military assistance provided by the Turks, Islamabad has shown itself to be more than capable of rebuffing at least the initial wave of Indian air attacks. The Pakistanis shot down a total of five Indian Air Force (IAF) warplanes at the start of Operation Sindoor, after all," Weichert writes. A Reuters headline screamed: 'Exclusive: Pakistan's Chinese-made jet brought down two Indian fighter aircraft, US officials say'. 'At least two Indian jets appeared to have crashed during Pakistan strikes, visuals show', read a Washington Post headline. Interestingly, neither Pakistan nor the unnamed US officials whom the Western media quoted could produce any proof of a single Indian plane being shot down. Al Jazeera, the undeclared mouthpiece of Islamists worldwide, went as far as to carry the laughable Pakistani canard that Indian woman pilot Shivangi Singh has been captured. Pakistani director general of inter-Services Public Relations Ahmed Shareef Chaudhry, who is the son of UN-designated terrorist and Osama bin Laden's close aide Bashiruddin Mahmood, later denied that Pakistan has custody of any pilot and dismissed it as 'fake news from social media". It is another matter that his boss, Pakistani defence minister Khawaja Asif, told Sky News that the proof of Pakistan downing Indian planes was 'all over social media". But why did the international media lap up Pakistan's brazen lies and contradictions? Why was the Indian side so bleakly presented? Is it because China wielded its influence—built through years of lobbying, buying out journalists, and funding western media and academia? Or does Pakistan and its intelligence ISI do better PR in the West than India? Or because the West and China's planes and missile defence systems were effectively busted by India's own homegrown weapons and Russian aircraft and missile interception systems like S-400, making it a terrible advertisement to potential buyers? advetisement We may not know the precise answers, but it is time for India to up the PR ante, spend money on building presence in international media, and counter the global negative narrative more robustly. Third, US President Donald Trump and Vice-President JD Vance have re-hyphenated India and Pakistan. Trump infantilised India, which is the victim of Pakistan-sponsored terror, by his statement: 'Proud that the USA was able to help you arrive at this historic and heroic decision." Claiming credit, he said on Saturday that the US mediated talks after which the two neighbours 'agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE". He then added insult by bringing up Kashmir and offering to mediate, which India had politely but firmly turned down in the past. 'I am going to increase trade, substantially, with both of these great Nations. Additionally, I will work with you both to see if, after a 'thousand years," a solution can be arrived at concerning Kashmir," read his statement. advetisement Could it be some ulterior reason, some kind of a negotiating chip to cut India down to size before the imminent trade deal? top videos View All Whatever the reason, India will need to disabuse the pathological narcissist in Trump and set the narrative right. It was never enough to win the war on the battlefield. The greatest nations and leaders have also won the war in the mind and popular imagination. Only then does one effectively break the enemy's morale and lift it for one's own people. The ceasefire has given us that moment of introspection. tags : donald trump Operation Sindoor Pahalgam attack pakistan United states Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: May 12, 2025, 08:50 IST News opinion Opinion | India Won The War, But Lost Narrative Battle To Pakistani & Western Lies
