The Air Force has grounded its fleet of Osprey aircraft in order to investigate a series of recent safety incidents, according to Breaking Defense. The news comes just a few weeks after the Air Force ordered inspections of its F-35 fleet due to ejector seat issues, which began flying again this week after an almost month-long stand-down.
The pair of incidents show the dangers of the military’s quest to replace older aircraft with high-tech planes that have a bad habit of breaking down. And the risk goes well beyond wasting taxpayer money: This year alone, eight U.S. soldiers have died in Osprey training crashes.
These recent incidents are far from the first issues that the Osprey has faced. The aircraft has a “tiltrotor” design, meaning that its twin propellers can be adjusted in order to fly like a helicopter or a plane. This leads to two things: The Osprey is very cool to look at, but it’s also very hard to keep in the air.
These issues have been clear from the start, as former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb told Responsible Statecraft back in June. “That darn thing should never have been bought,” said Korb, who was working in the Pentagon when the Osprey was being developed.
The Osprey’s latest problem is related to the aircraft’s clutch. In short, a safety feature that would allow the plane to fly with just one engine is malfunctioning, causing the power load to quickly shift back and forth between the plane’s motors. The sudden shift makes it difficult to control the aircraft, forcing the pilot to immediately land.
Air crews have managed to safely land the Osprey during a pair of such incidents that occurred in the past six weeks. But, as an Air Force spokesperson told Breaking Defense, “if the aircrew were unable to control the aircraft when the incident occurs, it could result in loss of control and uncontrolled landing of the aircraft.” In other words, a mixture of luck and skill was the only thing standing between the soldiers onboard and yet another deadly crash.
Connor Echols is the managing editor of the Nonzero Newsletter and a former reporter for Responsible Statecraft. Echols received his bachelor’s degree from Northwestern University, where he studied journalism and Middle East and North African Studies.
A V22 Osprey doing a demonstration at an air show. (shutterstock/ jathys)
Top photo credit: Internally displaced elderly Palestinian man Salim Asfour, enters his family's tent in Khan Younis, southern Gaza Strip, 04 August 2025. Photo by Moaz Abu Taha apaima / IMAGO Images.
Forty-one percent of Americans, including 67% of Democrats and 14% of Republicans, believe that Israeli military actions in Gaza constitute either “genocide” (22%) or are "akin to genocide" (19%), according to a new poll released Monday by the University of Maryland Critical Issues series.
Confirming a growing trend, younger respondents of both parties were more likely to say that Israel’s actions constitute genocide or the like.
The poll, which surveyed more than 1,500 adults 18 and older between July 29 and August 7, found that only 22% of respondents said that Israel’s war in Gaza constituted “justified actions under the right to self-defense,” the public explanation by the Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Those included a mere 7% of Democrats and 46% of Republicans. A total of 23% of all respondents said they didn’t know.
Moreover, more than six in ten (61%) of respondents said that U.S. military, economic, and diplomatic support for Israel has enabled that country’s military actions, compared to 12% who said such assistance either has no impact (12%) or only marginal impact (10%) with the remaining 26% saying they didn’t know.
The view that Washington’s support has enabled Israeli actions in Gaza was transpartisan. Nearly three out of four Democrats (72%) agreed with that proposition, as did 57% of Republicans, and 63% of self-identified independents.
The survey was released amid growing international criticism of the Israel’s war, which is likely to intensify in the wake of Monday’s strike by Israel on a hospital in southern Gaza that reportedly killed 20 people, including five journalists bringing the total number of Palestinian journalists killed over the last 22 months to 189, according to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists.
The poll, the latest in a series dating back more than a decade by the University of Maryland, found that more Americans express sympathy for the Palestinians (28%) than with Israelis (22%), while 26% of respondents said they sympathize with both equally, and the remaining 25% aid they either sympathized with neither party (12%) or they didn’t know (13%).
Support for Palestinians was higher among respondents between 18 and 34 years old; 37% of that demographic said they sympathize more with the Palestinians compared to 11% who said they sympathize more with Israel. The gap between older and younger Republicans was particularly deep, according to Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, who has overseen the Critical Issues program.
“The change taking place among young Republicans is breathtaking,” he told RS via email. “While 52% of older republicans (35+) sympathize more with Israel, only 24% of younger Republicans (18-34) say the same — fewer than half.”
He also stressed that, while recent polls, including by Gallup and the Pew Research Center, have shown increasing sympathy for Palestinians, “this is the first time it is found that more Americans overall sympathize more with Palestinians than Israelis.”
Four out of ten respondents, including 63% of Democrats and 45% of independents, said the Trump administration’s policy toward Israel-Palestine is “too pro-Israel,” compared to only 3% who said it’s “too pro-Palestinian.” Another 27% said it was “about right,” and 30% said they “don’t know.” While a majority (57%) of Republicans said it was “about right,” more than one if five Republicans (21%) said it was “too pro-Israel.”
On the genocide/self-defense question, the survey found a large gap between younger and older Republicans, with 52% of the latter saying Israeli actions were justified, but only 22% of self-identified Republicans under 35 agreed with that assessment.
Significantly more respondents said that Israeli actions constituted genocide or were “akin to genocide” than a year ago when the University of Maryland series first posed the question. The percentage who agreed with the genocide proposition grew from 23 percent to 41 percent. The movement among Democrats was particularly significant — from 38% who agreed with the proposition one year ago to 67% in the latest poll.
Asked to assess whether current U.S. policy in the region “advances American interests,” only one third of all respondents responded positively, while 25% said “it mostly advances Israeli interests” and 6% said “it mostly advances interests of Arab states.”
Remarkably, more younger Republicans (26%) said U.S. policy mostly advances Israeli interests than said it mostly advances U.S. interests (24%).
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: man rides a bicycle next to the "Oilworkers" statue, in Caracas, Venezuela, December 2, 2022. REUTERS/Gaby Oraa
On Friday, as three U.S. destroyers headed towards waters off of Venezuela and President Nicolás Maduro mobilized 4.5 million militiamen in response, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted a one-word tweet: “#Guyana.”
The post included a screenshot of a statement from the Guyanese government, which echoed concerns from Washington about Venezuelan transnational organized crime, all but offering support for the military escalation. Those concerns are based on the debunked assertion that Maduro is the head of the “Cartel of the Suns,” using drugs and gang violence as a weapon of war against the U.S.
Venezuelan Vice President Delcy Rodriguez responded by saying that Rubio’s tweet is proof that “who rules in Guyana” is not the Guyanese president, nor Rubio, but rather a multinational oil company — Exxon Mobil.
She may have a point. Yet many in the Washington establishment refuse to acknowledge Exxon’s influence.
Since 2015, Exxon has been leading the exploration of some 11 billion barrels of oil in Guyana, and Rubio has all but committed to a U.S. security guarantee for Guyana and Exxon. On a visit to Guyana in March, he warned Venezuela against attacking Exxon’s oil fields. “It would be a very bad day for the Venezuelan regime if they were ever to attack Guyana or attack ExxonMobil,” Rubio said then.
Meanwhile, Exxon’s competitor Chevron has sought to engage with the Venezuelan government. Chevron has operated in Venezuela since the 1920s, almost uninterrupted, including during the governments of Presidents Hugo Chávez and Maduro. The Trump administration has allowed Chevron to operate in Venezuela under unknown conditions, pumping around 200,000 barrels of oil per day. Though the State Department is insistent that it is helping U.S. companies “without helping the Maduro regime,” critics of engagement with Venezuela claim the “Chevron model” is simply providing a lifeline to Maduro.
This proxy war has boiled over into the world of nonprofits. Washington-based think tanks more heavily-funded by Exxon tend to be more in favor of maximum pressure, whereas those that receive more funding from Chevron appear more supportive of the Chevron model.
It has become a common refrain among these critics that experts who are not sufficiently hawkish on Venezuela are deemed to be shills for Chevron, oftentimes without evidence. A Manhattan Institute fellow suggested recently that another D.C. think tank, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, is being paid by Chevron to whitewash Maduro. But when RS contacted CEPR they responded categorically that they take no money from Chevron.
"CEPR does not receive any funding from Chevron or from Venezuela, or from any corporation or government. It’s a stated policy, in fact, on our website in various places, and we are proud that we — unlike so many think tanks in DC — do not take money from governments or corporations," CEPR said in a statement sent to RS on Sunday.
Meanwhile, Carrie Filipetti, the Executive Director of the Vandenberg Coalition, recently took to LinkedIn to explain why she resigned from the Atlantic Council’s Venezuela Working Group. Filipetti said she had left following what she considered to be “an outrageous missive they published that seemed to provide cover for Maduro's theft of democracy, freedom, and a future for millions of Venezuelans.” The reason for that push, she suggested, could be found “shining in capital letters on the terrace of the Atlantic Council's fancy new 80,000 sq ft building: Chevron.”
However, many critics of the Chevron model are themselves embraced by the oil lobby. Exxon has become a symbol of the maximum pressure campaign and an “enemy of the Venezuelan people” according to Maduro, for working with neighboring Guyana in territory disputed by Venezuela. Exxon donates at least $900,000 per year to DC’s top 20 think tanks, according to an RS analysis.
The Venezuelan government nationalized the country’s last privately owned oil fields in 2007, and while most multinational oil companies accepted the new laws for regulation, ConocoPhilips and ExxonMobil refused. Then-Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson valued the seized assets at some $10 billion, but a World Bank arbitration tribunal ordered Venezuela to pay only a fraction of that at $1.6 billion.
Exxon’s revenge came in the form of Venezuela’s next door neighbor: Guyana. In 2015, Tillerson — who became President Trump’s secretary of state two years later — began working with Guyana to explore 11 billion barrels of oil in waters claimed by Venezuela. Venezuela in turn began threatening to invade its neighbor in late 2023 over the disputed territory, known as Essequibo, sending troops to the border for military exercises and building highways needed for an invasion.
Filipetti’s own organization, the Vandenberg Coalition, was founded by Elliott Abrams, who the London Observer reported was “the crucial figure” in a 2002 attempted coup against Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez. In an email, the organization told RS that it does not accept corporate or foreign donors, though it does not publicly disclose its funders. “The issue is not that Chevron, Exxon, or any other company gives money to think tanks,” Filipetti told RS, "the issue arises when a company has a direct financial stake in the outcome of a particular policy on which the think tank is active.”
Both Exxon and Chevron clearly have a financial stake in policy towards Guyana and Venezuela. Exxon’s own executives have acknowledged on numerous occasions their direct financial stake. Asked about Venezuela’s claims over the region, Exxon CEO Darren Woods made clear where the company stands. “We can do what we can do, which is making sure that we’re helping the government of Guyana by producing the resources efficiently,” he said.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) receives over $250,000 annually from ExxonMobil. Despite also accepting over $250,000 every year from Chevron, CSIS has been among the loudest critics of the Chevron Model of joint ventures in Venezuela and even lists Exxon CEO Darren Woods on its Board of Trustees. When a Venezuelan ship approached an Exxon oil facility demanding information in March, CSIS fellows expressed support for the military to protect Exxon’s interests, saying that “[a] coordinated response…which aims to deter Venezuela from further military action towards its neighbor, is sorely needed.”
Last December, Venezuela’s opposition leader María Corina Machado spoke at a CSIS event about Maduro’s “oil lifeline” provided by Western companies such as Chevron. In her remarks, she promised to “develop the energy sector, oil gas, and renewables to make Venezuela the most attractive energy partner in the Western Hemisphere.” After the event, several CSIS fellows voiced support for “returning to a pressure campaign” against Venezuela, starting with more sanctions and revoking Chevron’s oil license.
Many CSIS fellows have also been supportive of the maximum pressure campaign against Venezuela, even potential U.S. military intervention. In 2019, Grayzone confirmed that CSIS hosted a private roundtable titled “Assessing the Use of Military Force in Venezuela” attended by former National Intelligence Council and National Security Council officials.
Cristina Burelli resigned as a Senior Associate Non-Resident fellow at CSIS two years ago, alleging that the think tank censored her over criticism of Guyana, the country hosting Exxon’s oil fields. Burelli’s research concluded that Guyana has “enabled and encouraged the destruction of ecosystems in the Disputed Area west of the Essequibo River.” Her article was published and taken down the same day, August 17, 2022.
Commenting on Filipetti’s LinkedIn post, Burelli said that shortly before the piece was published, CSIS President John Hamre “hosted President Irfaan Ali of Guyana at an event sponsored by Exxon,” adding that “[t]oo many ‘think tanks’ in DC are no longer places to think—they’ve become pay-to-play platforms.”
The Manhattan Institute also has longstanding ties to ExxonMobil, having received $1.3 million in funding from the oil conglomerate since 1998. In an article last year titled “Drill, America, Drill!” a contributing editor to the organization’s City Journal publication wrote that “[t]he people of Guyana are on track to join those in Norway and Qatar near the top of the world’s per capita GDP rankings because of the remarkable volume and velocity of their own new offshore oil production.”
In an article in January, another contributing editor held up Exxon’s venture in Guyana as a model: “In recent years, the pace at which industry brings newly identified offshore resources into production has accelerated dramatically. Consider Guyana, where an Exxon-led offshore development went from discovery to production in less than five years.”
Those critical of U.S. engagement with Venezuela have been quick to point out Chevron’s funding of the nonprofit world, but conveniently avoid mentioning funding from one of its biggest competitors, Exxon. While there are plenty of other competing oil companies that fund think tanks, the two oil giants have become emblematic of the binary policy options towards Venezuela that have defined, and will continue to define, the Chavismo era: engagement, or maximum pressure?
Quincy Institute researcher Lee Schlenker contributed to this article
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: Philippine Navy personnel salute an Indian Navy vessel in the South China Sea, off the west coast of the Philippines, on Aug. 4, 2025, during their first naval exercise with India, a two-day event that started the previous day (Kyodo via Reuters Connect)
After calming down a little during the early part of this year, the South China Sea is on the boil again. Two serious incidents have brought home the fact that the situation is becoming critical, and a Philippines-China military crisis could happen anytime, potentially pulling the United States in.
On August 11, two Chinese vessels, one of which was a Chinese navy craft, collided while chasing a Philippine ship off Scarborough Shoal. The collision was serious, and several Chinese coast guard personnel possibly died in the collision. Any Chinese deaths would mark the first loss of life in the China-Philippine tussles in years.
Soon thereafter, there was a swarming incident in the second hotpot in the South China Sea, Second Thomas Shoal, where an aging Philippine ship, the Sierra Madre, with a handful of troops has been berthed since 1999. Though there were no injuries, Chinese craft camewithin 50 meters of Philippine military positions on the shoal.
The concern in Manila now is that China may respond to the acute embarrassment and losses it suffered in the collision by trying to forcibly seize or dislodge the Sierra Madre or take another similar aggressive action. The head of the Philippine military,General Romeo Brawner, has asked his troops to defend the post at Second Thomas Shoal “at all costs” and reiterated the “red line” of the death of even a single Filipino in contested waters.
The crossing of this line, General Brawner said, could invoke the Mutual Defense Treaty with the United States. The same red line was firstarticulated by Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos Jr. himself during the 2024 Shangri La Dialogue in Singapore.
China’s nine/ten-dash lines were ruled illegal in 2016 in a ruling at The Hague by an international tribunal constituted under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. China is unquestionably violating international law and interfering with Philippine sovereign rights and maritime jurisdiction through its intrusive activities.
However, the United States is far from helping. As laid out in a Quincy Institute brief in February 2025 (“Defending Not Provoking: The United States and the Philippines in the South China Sea”), Washington has expanded its military sites and exercises in the main Philippine island of Luzon northward, far from the South China Sea, and provocatively close to the Taiwan theater. Taiwan is the reddest of red lines from Beijing’s perspective.
The United States has also deployed advanced missile platforms to Luzon, which have little utility in countering Chinese gray zone tactics in the South China Sea. Moreover, Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) by the U.S. Navy, like the oneconducted just two days after the serious August 11 collision, will not deter, but only further destabilize the situation. There was no pressing need to conduct this FONOP, certainly not so soon after the collision incident, when Chinese nerves were on the edge.
Calls are already being made in the United States for a direct U.S. naval role in Philippine resupply missions to Second Thomas and Scarborough shoals. In the coming days, these calls will doubtlessly multiply. But such escorts can only heighten the risk of a U.S.-China war over specks in the ocean that are an American interest, but far from a vital one.
Amilitary crisis in the South China Sea must be avoided. All sides need to pull back and let temperatures cool down at this fraught moment. Otherwise, the summer may turn out to be a long hot one in Asia.
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.