The Wall Street Journal featured an article this weekend announcing that the United States “aims to thwart China’s plan for Atlantic base in Africa,” as it supposedly encroaches on America’s “home turf.” The Journal published this just days after the Biden administration ridiculed the very notion of spheres of influence when Russia raised it in the Ukraine context.
It is quite stunning to see how the WSJ in its reporting — let alone its opinion section — pushes for American global military domination by creating a narrative that other countries are expansionist. Consider the numbers: the United States has more than 750 military bases worldwide. China has two.
Yet, according to the WSJ, it is China that pursues an aggressive "expansionist" policy by seeking a base (unclear whether it is military) in West Africa — which WSJ goes on to declare America's "backyard."
This is not about whether China is right or wrong on this issue. If indeed the base is military, there are good arguments as to why Equatorial Guinea should reject it. But one can oppose a Chinese military base in Africa without justifying continued American military hegemony globally — or mislead the readers to not even become aware of that broader context.
WSJ is entirely silent on what the United States itself does, leaving the readers with the impression that China is seeking global military domination while America’s 750 military bases are nothing more than Disneyland-style amusement parks. Though U.S. military bases outnumber Chinese ones by a factor of +300, it’s America that is playing defense, while China is "expansionist"? Perhaps both are?
And though Washington has encircled China with military bases throughout East Asia, some less than 100 miles away from the Chinese mainland, this reporting suggests it is China that is the aggressor by potentially building one in America's "backyard" — West Africa — more than 6000 miles from Florida. The point is not whether China's actions are problematic or not, but rather how the mainstream media often uncritically advances a narrative designed to strengthen U.S. military hegemony, which increases the likelihood of war, and ultimately makes the United States itself less secure.
As I wrote for MSNBC last week, the hard truth is that America's endless wars could not have happened without the media failing to systematically scrutinize the foundational assumptions of American foreign policy. This is a true case in point.
Trita Parsi is the co-founder and Executive Vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
A Soldier from Senegal observes the firing range with a Marine, assigned to India Company, 3rd Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment out of Little Rock, Ark., during Exercise Western Accord 14, June 19, 2014. ((U.S. Army Africa photo by Sgt. William Gore)
Russian President Vladimir Putin wants to increase the size of Russia’s military even while it’s seeing regular successes on the battlefield. These developments are leading some in the Ukrainian military and civilians alike to become more open to the idea of talks aimed at ending the war.
The Kremlin is currently negotiating a new military budget proposal of upwards of $145 billion which would mean that, if signed into law, Russia’s 2025 defense spending would grow to 32.5% of the budget, a 4.2% increase from this year’s spending.
This proposed increase coincides with the Kremlin’s recent announcement that it would revise the country’s nuclear doctrine, saying that Russia could respond to a conventional attack with nuclear weapons and that it would consider any attack that is supported by a nuclear power to be a “joint attack” — a policy presumably meant to deter at any Ukrainian attack inside Russian territory with U.S/Western weapons.
Meanwhile, it appears the Ukrainian military and public at large are growing war weary. The Financial Times reported this week that “Ukraine is heading into what may be its darkest moment of the war so far” in the face of increasing battlefield losses, its struggles to replenish military ranks, and the prospects of facing another winter with regular power and heating outages. “Society is exhausted,” said the Ukrainian parliament’s foreign affairs committee chair.
FT points out a poll conducted this summer by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology for the National Democratic Institute which found that 57% of the public supported negotiations with the Kremlin, up from 33% the previous year. Additionally, 55% are opposed to a deal that would include ceding land to Russia, down from 87% last year.
FT also noted that according to KIIS polling, “making any deal acceptable that allows Russia to stay in the parts of Ukraine it has seized since its first invasion in 2014 will hinge on obtaining meaningful Western security guarantees, which for Kyiv means NATO membership.”
Diplomats engaging with Ukraine also report that Zelenskyy and other Ukrainian officials seem more open to peace talks. One diplomat said, “We’re talking more and more openly about how this ends and what Ukraine would have to give up in order to get a permanent peace deal.”
In other Ukraine war news this week:
Reuters reports that China and Brazil, amongst others, compiled a peace plan to present to Ukraine and Russia last Friday. Seventeen countries met in New York during the last United Nations General Assembly meeting to discuss a potential end to the war, with China chairing the talks. Zelenskyy showed no interest in the peace plan, and questioned why they were drawing up alternative plants to his own.
Incoming NATO secretary-general says that the alliance will support Ukraine regardless of who wins in America’s November election. According to The Wall Street Journal, new Secretary-GeneralMark Rutte said, “I am absolutely convinced that on this issue, they both see what is necessary.” He added confidently that “supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do. And it is also an investment in our own security.”
State Department Spokesman Matthew Miller responded to a question regarding Ukraine’s ability to strike at Russian targets. Miller reiterated that Ukraine does not need permission to strike Russian targets with its own weapons. He also stated that the United States had given Kyiv permission to use some American weapons in a retaliatory fashion against targets in Russia.
He was pressed as to why Ukrainians are limited as to which American weapons they can use to strike targets in Russia. In his response he said, “We look at all of the capabilities and all the tactics and all the support that we provide Ukraine in totality, and look at how – when we approve any new weapon system or any new tactic, we look at how it’s going to affect the entire battlefield and Ukraine’s entire strategy. And that’s what we’ll continue to do.”
A reporter asked Mr. Miller if Washington was ready to start implementing Ukraine’s proposed victory plan, to which he responded with, “We took that plan, we reviewed it, we saw a number of productive steps in it. We’re going to engage with them about it.”
Finally, Miller interacted with a question which compared US support of Israel during the recent Iranian missile strike to the support which Ukraine has received. He explained that the United States gives Ukraine the support needed to shoot down missiles, saying that “we have made clear that we support Ukraine’s right to defend itself not just in words but in deeds, and we have provided them with the equipment they need to shoot down missiles.”
keep readingShow less
The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) approaches the fast combat support ship USNS Arctic (T-AOE 8) for a replenishment-at-sea. September 12, 2019. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Tristan Kyle Labuguen/Released)
A U.S. Navy oil tanker running aground off the coast of Oman isn’t a huge event. The fact that it is the only tanker to refuel American warships in a Middle East conflict zone, is.
In fact, this only underscores the fragility of the Navy’s logistic systems at a time when the U.S. has chosen to lean in on an aggressive military posture when it may not have the full capacity to do so, and it may or may not be in the national interest for the Navy to be conducting these operations in the first place.
The first is a question for Naval experts, many of whom may not feel comfortable second guessing the mission. So let’s tackle that one first.
The issue: according to a statement by the U.S. Navy, “USNS Big Horn sustained damage while operating at sea in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of operations overnight on Sept. 23. All crew members are currently safe and U.S. 5th Fleet is assessing the situation.”
The Big Horn is a 33-year-old Kaiser class refueler. This ship is owned by the Navy and is operated by civilian mariners under the U.S. Sealift Command. These ships are responsible for getting jet fuel out to the carrier’s fighter planes and replenishments to the other escort ships at sea — in this case, the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, which has been serving in the Arabian Sea area since August. It includes the flagship carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, the air wing (including 5th generation F-35s) and three destroyers.
It is the only replenisher nearby, making refueling tricky for the strike group, which is busy in the throes of a fight with the Houthis. The Lincoln had been accompanied by the Theodore Roosevelt strike group which had departed the area in mid-September, according to reports.
Sal Mercogliano, in his “What's Going on With Shipping?” podcast last week laid out where the other refuelers currently assisting other Navy assets are in the world right now: the Mediterranean, Singapore, the Western Pacific, two on the West Coast of the U.S., one on the Southern coast at Norfolk, and a number that are being fixed or ready for decommissioning at various shipyards across the globe. There aren’t many to spare.
“What this means is that the ability of the U.S. Navy to deploy and sustain its battle groups is very precarious,” Mercogliano points out. “So to support U.S. battle groups, whether it's an amphibious group or a strike group, requires vessels that can go from forward bases, fuel up, and bring the fuel, ammunition, dry cargo out to them.”
“You don't have a lot of back backup in this and that's a big problem,” he added, “because if you don't have backup, when you lose a ship like Big Horn, you've got to scramble to fix it.”
The Big Horn was tugged to a nearby port but it is not clear when and if it will be ready to get back to work. According to reports, including this one by John Konrad at gCaptain, the Navy may have to turn to a commercial tanker for refueling the strike group but that will pose its own difficulties. It would require retrofitting for special rigs, hoses, fuel pumps, communications and most importantly a special team to be flown out to the Middle East to oversee it all.
“Commercial tankers are significantly slower than Navy oilers, which could leave the USS Abraham Lincoln more vulnerable to attack during aviation fuel loading operations,” Konrad wrote.
Experts say the real problem is the shortage of fuelers and other support ships throughout the entire Navy. Not only that but there is a shortage of qualified crew.
According to Sam Lagrone at USNI news in August, the Navy is weighing whether to dock 17 support ships in a “great reset” plan because of the shortage. They need to free up the crew. “For every billet on an MSC ship there are about 1.27 mariners to fill the positions, a ratio that two former MSC master mariners told USNI News on Thursday was unsustainable,” wrote Lagrone.
At that ratio, a mariner would be at sea for four months and off for about a month and then return. “No one is able to have a healthy work-life balance and be able to get off the ship and get adequate time to go home, have time at home with their family, take leave, take care of medical requirements [in that timeframe],” a former mariner told USNI.
Meanwhile, the Kaiser class oilers are supposed to be replaced by the new John Lewis class ships, which feature “double-hull construction, improved safety, and enhanced fuel capacity.” Three have been built and christened so far and more on the way, but as Mercogliano points out, they already “have some substantial issues that need to be corrected, and so we don't have them yet” out at sea.
Lyle Goldstein, who studies both Russian and Chinese militaries, said there are widespread issues confronting the U.S. Navy right now and the grounding of Big Horn “certainly illustrates this.”
He said there are similar issues with stretched oilers operating under the U.S. Pacific Fleet, which includes the 3rd and 7th Fleets, for a total of 200 ships, 1,500 aircraft, and 150,000 military and civilian personnel. “I have documents illustrating that Chinese strategists repeatedly identify weaknesses in the U.S. Navy logistics system stretching across the Asia-Pacific, particularly with respect to oilers,” he told RS.
Like other strategists he believes that the current capacity no longer matches the ambitions of the U.S. to be everywhere, all the time, and to engage in aggressive posturing in places like the Pacific while literally fighting a military upstart (Houthis) in the Middle East. American ships, along with the UK Royal Navy, have been intercepting and engaging Houthi attacks for almost a year. Critics say the kinetic mission is expensive and futile, and ultimately not in U.S. strategic interests.
On the Middle East, Goldstein said, “to me it is quite a dicey situation and may imply the need for a rethink of strategy across the board, including Naval strategy where clearly the force is over-taxed and there needs to be a readjustment and retrenchment. People should realize that we don’t need the largest Navy on Earth, but we need a competent Navy. And we will only have a more competent Navy if we rein in our objectives, train our crews closer to home, prioritize our people, and re-focus on warfighting competencies versus parading around to demonstrate 'presence."
Modeled like the U.S. intelligence community’s venture capital arm IQT (In-Q-Tel), the fund’s intention is to focus on spurring innovation in areas including biotechnology, AI, space tech, and advanced communications.
As NATO Innovation Fund Board Chairs Klaus Hommels and Fiona Murray described the project's purview in Fortune in July: “By investing in and adopting emerging dual-use technologies, NATO can leverage the private sector’s innovation power and its transatlantic talent pool, while countering our strategic competitors’ influence and ambitions.”
Fund leadership believes that venture capital’s propensity for technological innovation can be NATO’s trump card in an increasingly perilous geopolitical context. But taking after the likes of venture capitalists isn’t exactly a recipe for global security and peace. If American VCs’ hawkish track record is any indication, rather, it’s one that promises to supercharge militarism on a transnational scale.
Venture capital’s defense break
NATO Innovation Fund proponents propose that VCs take on the financial risk they perceive as necessary to develop cutting edge security- and defense-tech, which has lagged in places like Europe due to regional difficulties bringing start-ups to scale.
Venture capital is indeed a risky business, where VCs burn through large sums of money on smaller start-ups in a bid to grow them into large companies. If the companies they've invested in go public, VCs can then cash in on often extremely high rates of investment returns, sometimes worth hundreds of times their original investment.
When introduced to the defense space, however, VCs’ hunger for such investment returns ultimately puts ethics on the backburner in favor of gaming a primary client — governments — to produce business-sustaining contracts, supercharging militarism in the process.
Able to withstand the high failure rate of VC-backed startups due to their gargantuan wealth, controversial American VCs like billionaire investor Peter Thiel and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt have spawned defense tech industry heavy hitters like Anduril, Rebellion Defense, and Hadrian, all while steering more tech companies towards developing more military applications for their products.
These VCs and the companies they’ve funded have honed tangible political power in the process, from funding successful congressional campaigns (including current Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance’s previous 2022 U.S. Senate campaign) and launching associates into positions in presidential administrations, to extensive DC lobbying and securing top-dollar military contracts.
NATO’s VC plunge
American VC-backed defense tech companies are raking in monstrous profitsamid bloody conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza and beyond; the NATO Innovation Fund’s creation suggests outside VCs want in.
But to hope these VCs and the respective tech and defense startups they spawn won’t attempt to game the system for funds and influence like their American counterparts is foolhardy. Defense companies are increasingly lobbying EU officials in Brussels; prominent Thiel-backed AI research company OpenAI, meanwhile, is already lobbying against AI regulations in the European Union.
The Fund’s operations, in other words, appear opaque despite its possible impact on NATO’s military- and security-related capacities. Generally, NATO and associated projects’ funding arrangements suffer from a lack of transparency due to NATO’s complex, transnational composition and organization, which Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) Editor Dr. Ian Davis fears invites “potential for ‘unwarranted influence’ by the military–industrial complex.”
As Ingrid Lunden highlighted in TechCrunch last year, it’s unclear whether there are any red lines regarding the types of companies the Fund would support or otherwise collaborate with. In this respect, American-based VCs’ abject lack of guardrails, where VCs have consistently invested in controversial AI-powered military technologies like lethal drones and military targeting systems, inspires little confidence.
Power competition through venture capital
Critically, the NATO Innovation Fund has been created in the name of great-power competition. Upon the Fund’s creation in 2022, NATO Secretary General Jans Stoltenberg emphasized a need for a technological edge against NATO’s adversaries: “Nations that do not share our values, like Russia and China, are challenging [our technological] lead in everything from Artificial Intelligence to space technologies…We [must] do everything in our power to remain at the forefront of innovation and technology.”
In December 2022, Atlantic Council nonresident senior fellow and former NATO Assistant Secretary General Giedrimas Jeglinskas even proposed that NATO-allied countries in Asia set up NATO Innovation Fund-aligned venture capital funds in a team effort to counter China.
Such language suggests that great-power competition and tech war rhetoric, are likely to worsen relations with countries, notably China and Russia, rather than improve them, and will heighten if North Atlantic-based VCs garner increased political influence via organizations like the NATO Innovation Fund.
In addition to a European Defense Fund with a nearly $9 billion budget from 2021-2027, the European Union also unveiled the first ever European defense industry strategy to bolster military capacities earlier this year.
Prioritizing acquiring military might over genuine diplomacy, NATO’s recruitment of profit-minded VCs signals turbulent times are ahead.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.