Manoj Ambat's Blog dealing with Defence, Foreign Affairs, Strategic Affairs and Politics

PLAAF J-10 ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons / Author- 天剣2) Source- The National Interest Author-  Alexander Vuving Ever since China set up its first air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea in November 2013, a Chinese ADIZ has hung as a sword of Damocles over the South China Sea. The same day as China’s Ministry of Defense announced the establishment of the East China Sea ADIZ, the ministry’s spokesman proclaimed, “China will establish other air defense identification zones at an appropriate time after completing preparations.” Since then, official statements by both China’s Ministry of National Defense and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have never ruled out the possibility of a South China Sea ADIZ, saying consistently that setting up such an ADIZ is the right of China as a sovereign state. Adding to this suggestion, sources close to the Chinese military occasionally told foreign journalists that China had plans and was ready to impose an ADIZ in the

Image credits- VOA Source- The National Interest Author- East Asia Forum China’s reaction to the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s relatively harsh ruling against it on the South China Sea has been angry. The court upheld nearly all of the 15 points on which the Philippines approached the Court in 2013.China boycotted the proceedings, questioning the Court’s jurisdiction and publicly claiming historic rights to the South China Sea and its resources. The Court rejected this claim, concluding “there was no legal basis for China to claim historical rights to resources.” In the absence of China exercising its right of defence, the Court was left with little alternative than to give an ex-partè ruling based on United Nations Convention of the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), to which both China and the Philippines, but not the US, are signatories. The Chinese Foreign Ministry in a defiant statement said “the award is invalid and has no binding force. China does not accept or r

USS John Stennis on petrol ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons / United States Navy) Source- The National Interest  Author- Michael Mazza The accepted wisdom has it that, as a general rule, Chinese leaders should not be made to “lose face.” In the wake of last week’s Permanent Court of Arbitration award in Philippines v. China, a veritable chorus of China hands has called for the United States to support the ruling, but to avoid rubbing Xi Jinping’s nose in the dirt. Giving “face” to Xi Jinping—essentially, allowing him to escape the current predicament without incurring further shame—is important if we are to avoid a dangerous escalation of tensions, or so the thinking goes. There is a certain logic here. Xi Jinping has just suffered a significant defeat on the international stage, and at the hands of lowly Manila, no less. Should other countries now act with what Chinese citizens or leaders perceive to be disrespect, Xi will look weaker and more ineffective than he

Image credits- Indian navy Source- The National Interest Author- McDaniel Wicker India and China are on a collision course. They boast the world’s two largest populations, two of the fastest growing economies on the globe and aspirations to lead the way into a new Asian century. The two nations’ fates will be intertwined for decades to come. Troublingly, China’s move last week to block Indian membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) is merely the latest sign of tension to emerge between the two Asian giants. Further competition and even confrontation await. Competition between rising powers is hardly new or surprising. This particular case, however, shows China’s intent to remain the sole Asian power stretching from Siberia to the Arabian Sea. This was most recently demonstrated last week when China led the push to exclude India from the NSG. Membership in the prestigious group, which controls the trade of nuclear material and related technologies, would fac

USS Nimitz ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons / United States Navy) Source- The National Interest Author- Anders Corr The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague released a stinging rebuke to China in last week’s ruling on the arbitration case brought by the Philippines. Philippine presidents Benigno Aquino III and Rodrigo Duterte both risked their relations with China by initiating and, in the latter case, not acquiescing to Chinese demands that they withdraw the case. The Philippines should be strongly supported by the United States and our allies in this moment of need, including through U.S. naval enforcement of the ruling and U.S. ratification of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The intensity and unanimity of the court’s ruling was a surprise to most analysts, and must feel like a crushing humiliation to Chinese officials. China reacted swiftly and with equal intensity. “The arbitration tribunal made the illegal and invalid so-called final verdict on

USAF F-35 ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons / USAF) Source- The National Interest Author- Robert Farley The focus of ground combat operations has shifted dramatically since the end of the Cold War. Relatively few operations now involve the defeat of a technologically and doctrinally similar force, leading to the conquest or liberation of territory. Preparation for these operations remains important, but ground combat branches also have a host of other priorities, some (including counter-insurgency and policing) harkening back to the origins of the modern military organization. What will the balance of ground combat power look like in 2030, presumably after the Wars on Terror and the Wars of Russian Reconsolidation (more to come on this idea below) shake out? Predictions are hard, especially about the future, but a few relatively simple questions can help illuminate our analysis. In particular, three questions motivate this study: • Does the army have access

Sukhoi PAK FA ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons / Rulexip) Source- The National Interest Author- Robert Farley The PAK FA has played the bugbear for Western air forces for nearly a decade, the terrifying Russian jet that will eat F-35s for breakfast. American aviation analysts in search of something, anything that might threaten U.S. air dominance settled on the PAK FA, a frankly evil looking jet that bore a very mild resemblance to the MiG-31 “Firefox” that Clint Eastwood made famous. Say what you will about the F-35, but Lockheed Martin has actually built and delivered one hundred and seventy one aircraft thus far.  The Russian Air Force, meanwhile, has yet to receive its first PAK FA.  In lieu of the PAK FA, Russia has continued to acquire generation 4.5 fighters (mostly of the Flanker family) as well as upgrading generation 4 fighters (including various Flankers, the MiG-29 Fulcrum, and the MiG-31 Foxhound). Sukhoi will likely never build the number of fighters