McMaster Out Bolton In

Background:

Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, President Trump’s second National Security Advisor, has been replaced by the former American ambassador to the UN, John Bolton.

What has happened:

  • Amid speculation of a contentious relationship with the President, LT. Gen H.R. McMaster has been let go.
  • John Bolton, who was a recess appointment to the UN under President George W. Bush, was unable to secure a Senate confirmation and resigned from the post 17 months after his appointment.
  • On a day that included confirmed tariffs against China and the ousting of another significant advisor at the White House, markets reacted to the instability.

Why it matters:

  • Although reports have circulated that LT Gen McMaster has requested to retire from the Army and depart public service, it is not final. There is speculation he could be nominated to command US Forces Korea.
  • John Bolton is a known foreign policy hawk; Bolton strongly supported the Iraq war and argues for a preemptive strike against North Korea and Iran. Bolton’s stance on foreign policy is likely to be inflexible.
  • John Bolton and new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are similar in their views on national security and foreign policy; their appointments give rise to the concern that there will be no contrarian voice in the room as policy develops and tensions around the globe escalate.

 “HR McMaster shepherded the United States through a challenging year of major national security threats. A team player, McMaster worked closely with Ambassador Haley and President Trump to bring the North Koreans to the negotiating table. Now, the President appears to be consolidating a hard-line team heading into the North Korean negotiations. One risk with Ambassador Bolton is that he is closely tied to the neocons who led us into the Iraq war. President Trump campaigned against and disagreed with that conflict and Trump will need to privately keep Bolton’s hawkish views in check while publicly using them as a tool for negotiations with North Korea.”

Brigadier General Tata

Market Impact:

The news out of the White House this week might finally show some movement in the market. It appears that President Trump is positioning his team to follow through with some of his more extreme policy stances both on foreign policy and national security. These appointments may also indicate a willingness to ‘draw a line in the sand’ on trade and stick to it – even if it has negative impacts on the stock market.  Markets are finally realizing that protecting intellectual property rights and ‘unfair’ trade practices are not just a talking point or a negotiating point – but something this administration believes in strongly.  The implications for the Treasury market are less clear – as we must balance the ‘flight to safety’ response with the concern that tariffs are inflationary and China still holds over $1 trillion of our debt.

Peter Tchir, Head of Macro Strategy at Academy Securities

 

Original Post 03/24/2018

Russia Sanctions? “Bring ’em On.”

Relations between the US and Russia have always been tense. Today is no exception. The modern diplomatic relationship between the United States and Russia began its significant backslide when Russia invaded and then annexed Crimea, ignoring international law and enmity. In the four years since the invasion, the US and its allies have admonished and sanctioned Russia for a multitude of its sins but arguably without result. These actions include information operations in the 2016 Presidential election, direct involvement in the Syrian civil war to include acquiescing to Assad’s use of chemical weapons, and most recently, the use of a deadly nerve agent against a former Russian intelligence professional (and his daughter) in the UK.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is a leader with a clear vision of where he wants to take his country and is aggressively and creatively working to achieve those ends. What are the broader geopolitical implications of Russia’s influence operations? How can we expect the US to respond? How will the markets react as tensions escalate?
The now infamous Russian interference in the 2016 presidential elections spurred a special counsel investigation in the United States, leading to the indictment of more than 19 Russians. While these indictments monopolize cable news airways, they have had no bearing on Russia and Putin. Russian information operations are deft and constant. Information ops, by definition, can best be characterized as a sequence of action, reaction, and counteraction. They are an endless and adaptive cycle. At least publicly, it appears any mandate from the Trump Administration to mitigate this ongoing threat has not been issued. Admiral Michael Rogers, the Director of the National Security Administration, said in his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Trump Administration had not directed the agency to take proactive measures to stop Russian and foreign interference in our democratic process.
The US is not unique as a victim of Russian influence operations. Russia routinely targets Western democracies to undermine democratic institutions and create a culture of mistrust and chaos in their governing bodies. These sometimes subversive and always flagrant operations have done little to mobilize the Western world to confront this aggression.
However, things may be changing…finally. Just this month, Europe experienced the first offensive use of a nerve agent since the Second World War. A former Russian spy and his daughter (as well as a police officer) are in critical condition following their exposure to a nerve agent linked to a Russian operation. This action has led the leaders of the United States, France, Germany, and NATO to rally behind UK Prime Minister Theresa May in condemning the attack and its Russian perpetrators.
As a result, President Trump issued a new set of sanctions aimed at Russia. The sanctions (the barring of travel and freezing of assets in the US of 19 individuals and five entities) were advertised as a response to cyber interference by Russia in the US elections. However, timing is everything; the sanctions came on the heels of the nerve agent attack. Russia has vowed to retaliate, saying it will use the “principle of parity” in response to the new round of sanctions. Russia obviously has its hands full with its efforts to erode public trust in Western elections and attack its own citizens on foreign soil. It’s not a stretch to label both events as acts of war.
What are the effects of these sanctions? Will they have long-term or immediate implications? If these sanctions are effective, Russia may look for opportunities to help mitigate any cash flow issues. Market concern has concentrated on crude and the stability and endurance of the 2017 deal Russia made with OPEC, cutting production through the end of 2018. If Russia chooses to respond to sanctions, this is an option. In the past, we have witnessed energy producing nations “weaponize” this resource in an attempt to undermine profits of a competitor. OPEC has warned that supply from its competitors will exceed market demand. Discounts on Russian crude, coupled with increased shipments of crude from countries of the former Soviet Union could be a cause for concern. Crude prices are viewed as the benchmark for global growth, but low figures primarily hurt crude producers like the US (which continues on its aggressive march towards energy independence). This year, OPEC countries have already offered steep discounts, and a free flow of Russian oil could drive prices even lower. However, cheaper crude benefits many consumers and may ultimately have a broader positive impact should Russia chose to abandon its agreement with OPEC.
Vladimir Putin’s leadership style is both brazen and cunning. Putin’s aspirations are in his national interests. There is no separation between Russia and Putin; they are the same. However, Putin plays by an entirely different set of rules, focused on upending the status quo in an attempt to solidify his footing as a global leader. Putin’s re-election by an eye-wateringly large margin for another six-year term locks his grip on the strategic initiative. International observers will be waiting to see if Putin pursues a “leader for life” role in Russia as his ally, Xi Jinping, has in China. America faces global competition from Russia and will need to remain vigilant and adaptive to maintain the upper hand. The decision to compete or cooperate remains in our hands. Choose wisely.
– Major General (Ret.) Spider Marks

“Russia’s strategy is demonstrative intimidation to secure its interests, including pressuring the EU to ignore Russian hegemony and to re-secure their influence in the Middle East. Secondly, Russia is taking advantage of US relationship degradation among our allies and partners to influence global balance toward their objectives.  I believe their strategy is opportunistic while rapidly reacting to US absence or lack of policy alignment.”  
– Lieutenant General (Ret.) Frank Kearney
Original Post 03/21/2018

Secretary Rex Tillerson Ousted

Background:
 
Rex Tillerson, who served as Secretary of State for 13 months, has been ousted by President Trump.
 
What has happened:
  • CIA Director Mike Pompeo has been asked by President Trump to replace Rex Tillerson, pending senate confirmation.
  • Gina Haspel, the current Deputy Director of the CIA and career intelligence professional, will replace Pompeo; if confirmed, she will be the first woman to run the CIA.
Why it matters:
  • Mike Pompeo, a three-term congressman, Army Veteran, and Lawyer, is known for his hawkish foreign policy.
  • Pompeo has been critical of the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA), calling for its rollback.
  • Pompeo has supported regime change in North Korea and most recently, stated the US would make no concessions to Pyongyang.
  • In Secretary Pompeo, it appears President Trump will have a Secretary of State who more publicly aligns with his foreign policy vision.
Market Impact:
 
“Initial reaction to the President’s announcement was Treasury yields, and the Dollar went lower as we saw a very brief ‘flight to quality’ trade. For the most part, markets seem to be ignoring the cabinet change. This reaction is compatible with Rex Tillerson’s less visible role in recent months. “
Peter Tchir, Head of Macro Strategy at Academy Securities

North Korea Talks

Background:
Earlier this week, the Republic of Korea sent a delegation to Pyongyang (the capital of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea). This was done at the invitation of North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un.
What has happened:
  • The ten-person delegation led by the Republic’s national security advisor, Chung Eui-yong, held direct talks with Kim.
  • Kim Jong Un said that Pyongyang would consider ending its nuclear program and promised not to conduct any nuclear tests while negotiations are ongoing.
  • North Korea also signaled that it is ready to engage in direct talks with the United States.
   
Why it matters:
This is the first clear indicator from North Korea that they may be willing to abandon their nuclear program. To be successful, the following must occur:
  • A freeze on any current nuclear testing and development must be verified by inspectors.
  • The US and Republic of Korea should suspend joint military exercises during the period of the North Korean freeze.
  • The US should demand North Korea rejoin the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty as a precondition to direct talks.
Diplomacy can work. This effort will require a focused, personal touch by President Trump. There’s plenty of green on that pool table between good intentions and productive first steps. We must close the gap, cautiously, and quickly.
Major General Spider Marks
  “The Trump Administration’s deliberate and forceful application of the elements of national power–Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic–have created the conditions for negotiations. Similarly, this “buying of time” has allowed for enhanced U.S. military preparedness in the region. Whether Kim Jong Un is sincere about negotiating and eliminating his nuclear weapons program remains to be seen, but the outlook for long-term solutions on the Korean Peninsula is more promising than it has been in years.”
Brigadier General Anthony Tata

Cozy With Kim

It appears by all media accounts that the United States and North Korea are entering a period of peaceful transition and enhanced cooperation. We suddenly trust each other…at least enough to have direct talks. How did this happen over two weeks of ice dancing, curling, and biathlons? Does this sense of measured calm have staying power? How will the markets respond to the seemingly optimistic outlook on geopolitical stability? These questions are especially relevant considering recent reports linking Pyongyang with the Assad Regime’s chemical weapons capabilities.
The world is still euphoric over the “Make America Fourth Again” performance at the Olympics. Let’s be frank; the world loves to see America take one on the chin. More importantly, the games were executed flawlessly by the South Koreans. The Winter Games showcased world-class venues and the peaceful interactions among nations. The unparalleled beauty of Pyeongchang was matched only by the South Korean’s generosity of spirit. These games set a high bar; experiencing neither the weather challenges faced by Vancouver and Sochi nor the anticipated threat from the North. While not unprecedented, the North and South participated as a unified team. This partnership showed diplomatic savvy and was exactly the right move.
Last week, sitting in the same VIP reviewing box (at the closing ceremony), were Ivanka Trump and North Korean General Kim Yong Chol (head of North Korea’s Civilian Intelligence). Of course, the North Korean regime would send a prominent leader who, as an intelligence professional, is experienced and nuanced in the art of collection. North Korea would never squander the opportunity to score propaganda points and acquire some direct feedback on their efforts to “wedge” Washington and Seoul apart.
General Kim’s history is significant. Remember, he was blamed for the 2010 attacks on the South Korean warship Cheonan (killing 46 sailors) as well as the 2014 cyber-attack against Sony Pictures. He was personally sanctioned three times by both Washington and Seoul. At the Olympics, North Korea snatched the strategic lead from South Korea by simply showing up and not creating mischief or breaking anything. That’s a low bar, but one the North will continue to step over. US-North Korea relations can be characterized as volatile and episodic. We never fully engage in the long game with the North; it has been impossible, and the North prefers it that way. The dynamic is a never-ending back and forth. They bang the gong; we silence it but never take it away.
I operate under a measured optimism; this relative calm too shall pass. While serving as the lead intelligence officer on the Korean Peninsula, I witnessed the evolution of the Nobel Prize-winning Sunshine Policy. This policy was meant to soften tensions between the North and South, opening lines of communication, leading to reform. To some degree, it achieved its ends. However, South Korea built infrastructure and supplied aid to the North, only to be betrayed by the continued military provocation of North Korea.
Last Friday, the US issued a fresh set of sanctions against North Korea, the “largest ever” according to President Trump. A solution on the Korean Peninsula must be initiated with small, discernable steps, followed by enforced consequences for failure to meet international standards. Sadly, this is something the global community has never accomplished. Publicly, President Trump appears willing to take distinct actions to achieve results with North Korea saying, “If the sanctions don’t work we’ll have to go to phase two – and phase two may be a very rough thing, may be very, very unfortunate for the world.”
In today’s world of volatility, measured calm may be the best we can hope for, but we know hope alone is a failure. To maintain stability, and to ensure we don’t see Sunshine Policy version 2.0, the US-ROK military coalition must remain strong. It is.
Our world is volatile and ambiguous. The success of the Olympic games is no reason to assume anything has altered that reality. The United States and its allies must maintain their diligence and project their power or risk losing this measured calm.
Peter Tchir, Head of Macro Strategy at Academy Securities, added the following:
“Markets have acclimated to the new status quo of ‘measured calm’ on the Peninsula. Any indicators of progress towards a real and lasting solution would be rewarded with stocks rising. Markets would not be surprised to see a return to periodic posturing within the context of measured calm. The difficulty for markets and policymakers is that moving beyond measured calm would be very disruptive for stocks and bonds. Stocks would be impacted as concern about global trade increases. Bonds and the U.S. dollar might not benefit – unlike in traditional ‘risk-off’ situations. In the past, the US dollar benefitted when tensions increased; however, our involvement is so direct in this case, it’s predictable that the Euro would benefit.
Similarly, treasury bonds usually rally in a ‘flight to quality’ trade which helps mitigate the damage to stocks. With China (a large holder of treasuries) most certainly caught in the middle of any conflict on the peninsula, we might not see a flight to quality in the traditional sense. This would put a significant strain on stocks and the economy.
General Marks acknowledged the importance of a strong military in our dealings with North Korea; this imperative also holds true for the markets and economy. A powerful military is neither a luxury nor a given.”
Original Post 03/18/2018

Iranian Provocation

Background:

Israel’s official military role in the Syrian civil war is limited, and until the last year, not formally acknowledged. In December 2017, the Israeli Air Force confirmed it attacked Syrian government arms convoys and Lebanon’s Hezbollah nearly 100 times during the more than six years of the conflict in Syria. Israel’s primary objective is to challenge and eliminate expanding Iranian influence in the region.

What has happened:

On Saturday, in its most serious engagement in neighboring Syria since the civil war began, an Israeli Apache helicopter shot down an Iranian drone that had entered Israeli airspace. Israel launched eight F-16s to strike Iranian targets deep in Syria before one of the jets was shot down by Syrian air defense.

  • The Syrian military denied the drone violated Israeli airspace, stating it was on an intelligence gathering mission of Islamic State militants.
  • For the first time in more than 30 years, Israel has lost a fighter aircraft.
  • On Sunday, the White House called on “Iran and its allies to cease provocative actions”; supporting Israel’s right to defend itself from the Iran-backed Syrian and militia forces.
  • Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is currently on a Middle East trip visiting Egypt, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey.

Why it matters:

The Syrian civil war serves as a proxy war for tensions in the region and beyond.

  • Iran is showing continued success in expanding its influence in the region.
  • The Iranian drone was modeled after US drone technology, displaying an increased military capability and threat by Iran and its allies.
  • The conflict in Syria has never been restricted to its borders and Israel has always been protective of its sovereignty. The loss of an Israeli aircraft will not alter that dynamic.
  • Expect increased Israeli cross-border military operations into Syria; this is not an isolated incident.

 

” I was struck by the cost of the action versus a drone penetration.  Israel’s rapid punitive retaliation for an incursion of its territory reminds all that the Syrian air defenses are capable. Past Israeli successes over 35 years do not mitigate the risk of each subsequent Israeli raid into Syria. This is text book Israeli over-confidence. ” 

Lieutenant General (Ret.) Frank Kearney

Iran Protests

Background:

Iran is a country familiar with protesting as a means of radical change. Iran’s modern government resulted from the 1979 revolution, and this current wave of unrest is the largest since 2009. The Islamic Republic has fallen out of favor with many Iranians, and Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has lost steam and relevancy among the public.

What has happened:

Five days of protests across the country; resulting in more than 20 dead and hundreds arrested.

  • The protests are in response to a failing economy (youth unemployment approaching 40%), rising food and fuel prices, and widespread corruption.
  • The billions of dollars returned to Iran by the Obama Administration were an economic opportunity squandered… the people know it.
  • This is not merely an “intellectual middle class” annoyance; protests are widespread, diverse, and angry.
  • Protests demonstrate deep resentment and the limits of President Rouhani’s influence.

Why it matters:

Can the US exploit?

  • Use the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) inspections to reveal corruption in the regime.
  • Create the narrative… “corrupt Iranian leaders break terms of the JCPOA and personally benefit from lifted sanctions.”
  • This is textbook diplomacy…put Tehran on notice without firing a shot. The US provided foreign aid and only ruling elites benefit. Internal unrest challenges the existing government’s corruption and its legitimacy.

 

“Iran has long been isolated by its national leadership…yet amazingly aware of the progressive and changing world around it. Now, the Iranian people are calling their national leadership’s bluff…lifting sanctions has done nothing for the people. At increasing risk, Iranian leadership will continue to try and suppress the voice of the people.”

Major General (Ret.) Mastin M. Robeson

Year In Review

As we say goodbye to 2017 and look onward to 2018, we reflect on this past year and the issues at the forefront of headlines and individual consciousness. Enjoy Academy Securities year in review.

 

North Korea:

23 missiles fired in 2017, one hydrogen bomb test, and three ICBM tests; all successful and demonstrated a capability to strike the United States.

 

  “The US should declare North Korea a nuclear-capable nation immediately. That inevitable step puts the Kim regime in a more precarious position…and Kim knows it.  Be careful what you ask for.”

Major General (Ret.) James “Spider” Marks

 

Cyber:

Cyber activity, the only ungoverned “domain of war.” North Korea, with the help of China, continuously modernizes its cyber capability, to include this summer’s “wanna cry” virus. Russia’s online activity remains an existential threat to the United States, and our civilian infrastructure is particularly vulnerable to cyber threats.

 

“Expect cyber-attacks to continue to grow in intensity, scale, volume, and complexity…Russia’s approach to information warfare will continue to leverage disinformation through social media…the arms race for artificial intelligence (AI) continues to accelerate…..”

Lieutenant General (Ret.) Rhett Hernandez

 

Counterterrorism:

Iraqi and Iranian leaders declared ISIS militarily defeated in Iraq and Syria. ISIS still holds territory in countries around the world but has been brutally disrupted by a US-backed bombing campaign and advancing ground forces. Despite military defeats, the spread of ideology and lone wolf actors both remain relevant terror considerations.

 

“The defeat of the ISIS geographic caliphate makes them more difficult to find, fix, and finish…expect more violence, especially, in Western nations…they hate us more than atheist Russia or China.”

Lieutenant General (Ret.) Frank Kearney

 

National Security Strategy:

The Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) focuses heavily on strategic international partnerships. The NSS highlights a shared economic defense burden. The document compels our international partners to invest a larger percentage of their GPD into their own security architecture as a cost of global security.The NSS brings attention to China and Russia as two countries that “challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity.” Among the chief threats listed in the NSS are “rogue regimes” North Korea and Iran. The Trump Administration’s strategy calls for continued US military action against terrorist groups like ISIS and combating radicalization in the United States.

 

“…quickly apply the increased budget to re-arm, re-fit, and repair our aged military capabilities in four critical areas….drones, cyber, naval shipping, and aviation. The tension between intelligence collection and civil liberties will not abate; it will, in fact, intensify as we uncover more threats within our borders.”

Major General (Ret.) Mastin Robeson

 

2017 is nearly in our rear-view mirror as we stare 2018 in the face. The year highlighted global shifts; elements of insecurity continue in the year ahead. Geopolitics remains volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Academy Securities’ Geopolitical Intelligence Group is committed to providing the most relevant and up to date insights on these events. Below is a link to the analysis we brought you this year. Happy reading and Happy New Year!

Turkey’s Future

President Trump’s National Security Strategy, unveiled this week, paints a picture of a world defined by volatility and little incentive for cooperation among the US, China, and Russia. In many regards, the world has gone nuts and it may seem advantageous to retreat to the corners and hunker down. However, America must ensure strength and resilience at home while simultaneously engaging all elements of national power abroad. This administration is struggling to put teeth into a foreign policy philosophy that often seems pitted against itself. President Trump’s National Security Strategy must offer a prescriptive solution: focus on home and abroad. Our current challenges in Turkey may prove instructive to this policy’s implementation.
 
The Trump Administration’s announcement this month to move the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, not surprisingly, spurred global protest. The Palestinian Authority’s demand for “three days of rage” had a very short fuse and the rest of the Muslim world has essentially remained quiet. However, America’s NATO ally, Turkey, admonished the decision and threatened to cut ties with Israel. Compared to other nations with a strong interest in the decision, Turkey’s reaction was a tad over-the-top strident. It is one of many disagreements in a growing divide between Turkey and the West.
 
A quick history: Turkey joined NATO in 1952. At the time, its inclusion in the alliance served as a deterrent to Soviet expansion and was applauded for its practical incorporation of a secular Turkey in the West. What was intended then as a geographic buffer has today assumed its ancient relevance as a gateway across the Bosphorus. Turkey’s position as the bridge from Asia to Europe invites the spiraling chaos of the Middle East, especially Syria, to migrate and affect the West fundamentally.
 
Current Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s vision for his country, a traditionally liberal, Muslim society, lauds Islamic uprisings in the region as a “grand restoration” of Islamic civilization. A campaign to establish Turkish influence and prominence has yielded an increasingly autocratic presidency and, alarmingly, warm relations with its traditional foes, Russia and Iran. In an increasingly volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous world we should not be surprised, but we are.
 
The United States has traditionally enjoyed a close and dynamic alliance with Turkey, one the United States has taken for granted over the years. Our relationship has always been a critical contributor to US and NATO military and intelligence requirements in the region. However, in recent years, tensions have escalated. The United States hoped to open a northern flank of attack from Turkey into Iraq in the 2003 invasion. To Washington’s surprise, Ankara refused to allow US ground forces on its soil. As a result, the United States has had to adjust its posture in its fight against ISIS and countering Russian recidivism, like the world witnessed in the Crimea. Although intact, the alliance with Turkey continues to atrophy.
 
Accelerating America’s “Turkey problem” was the 2016 attempted military-led coup. Erdoğan claimed the coup was inspired and planned by Turkish businessman and cleric Fethullah Gulen, who lives in the United States. The US refused to extradite him. However, President Trump, in a nod to Erdoğan, announced that the US would stop arming Kurdish fighters in Syria, a group Turkey considers a terrorist organization; but, it is one the US sees as helpful in its campaign against ISIS. It’s a mess.
 
One of the most alarming shifts in the region is the burgeoning relationship between Erdoğan and Putin. Despite centuries of conflict and the 2015 downing of a Russian fighter jet by Turkish forces near the Syria-Turkey border, the overall trajectory of the Turkish-Russian relationship has every appearance of collaboration. This developing alliance is reinforced by mutually beneficial investments in defense, energy, and ideology.
 
Defense: In September, Turkey rejected NATO warnings and secured a deal to purchase S-400 air defense missiles from Russia. While NATO does not prohibit the procurement of weapon systems or military hardware from manufacturers outside the alliance, it clearly discourages members from buying equipment that is not compatible with existing capabilities. This was anything but a subtle jab at NATO.
 
This unapproved acquisition will likely not be Turkey’s only step toward a decision to withdrawal from NATO’s military structure (not unlike France’s decision in 1966 to withdraw its troops from the alliance). Although NATO deployed US Patriot missiles to Turkey as tensions rose in neighboring Syria, Erdoğan’s insistence on having an autonomous defense capability stems from his mistrust of the West. His paranoia is unsubstantiated, and his actions are proving harmful to the alliance.
 
Energy: The modern progress of Russian-Turkish relations is driven by a deep and diverse economic connection. From 2002-2013, bi-lateral trade between Turkey and Russia increased fivefold. Russia already serves as the primary provider of natural gas to Europe, with Turkey importing more than 50% of its natural gas requirements from Russia. Additionally, in 2010, Erdoğan awarded a $20 billion contract to the Russian- owned energy corporation, Rosatom, which has been commissioned to construct the Akkuyu nuclear power plant in Turkey. There is little reason to assume the economic interest between Russia and Turkey will not grow.
 
Ideology: Beyond the economic and military ties shared by the two nations, Putin and Erdoğan share a similar leadership philosophy that fundamentally challenges the West. Several rebuffed attempts to become better integrated into European and American policies in the past decade have left both leaders resolved to directly confront Western influence. Their relationship is not without discord; but where they are aligned, NATO’s interests are at risk.
 
The Take Away: As the partnership between Turkey and Russia continues to flourish, the future of Turkey’s position in NATO is increasingly precarious. In a recent poll, 60% of the Academy Securities Geopolitical Advisory Board believe Turkey will withdraw from NATO in 2018. NATO’s relevance is as evident today as it was at its inception, but Turkey’s relevance to NATO seems shaky.
 
Ankara’s increasing infatuation with Moscow is problematic for the United States, since Turkey’s embrace of sectarian radicalism and Russian autocracy is diametrically opposed to Western democratic values. However, Washington must be willing to compromise to ensure Turkey’s continued participation as a full and trusted member of NATO.
 
In this conflict lies opportunity. Russian influence in the Middle East is not explicitly negative. The US can and will cooperate with Russia in the region, as it is not in our interest to lose NATO’s southern flank by pushing Ankara into Moscow’s arms.
 
Ultimately, NATO’s survival is not dependent on Turkey’s membership. Although the disconcerting alliance between Turkey and Russia is strengthening, it remains tenuous. If the US is to have any hope of retaining this Middle Eastern and NATO ally, now is the time for Washington to incentivize, encourage, and remind Ankara that its interests are best served in the democratic sphere. If the Trump Administration can accomplish this, it will be a firm step in validating its National Security Strategy.

The North Korean Thistle

It’s fair to say that the situation on the Korean peninsula will not become a “back burner” issue as we move into 2018. In fact, we should not want to wish this challenge away. There is too much at risk, like a nuclear conflagration or a conventional war on the peninsula. As we approach this administration’s first anniversary, it appears America’s first diplomat, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, may be on his way out. That alone does not make the drumbeat of war any louder, but it certainly can distract from what is a formidable dilemma.
 
My West Texas mother reminded me daily, “If you see a thistle, grasp it firmly.” My siblings and I never really knew what she meant, but like most knuckleheads, we finally figured it out the hard way. “Life ain’t fair; things are tough; make your bed and don’t whine”. This daughter of the Depression knew what she was talking about; she’d lived it. Solve problems…especially the thorniest among them. Don’t wait. Embrace the madness even if it hurts.
 
Well, North Korea is the thorniest among a pretty significant inventory of global challenges. Almost any solution to this problem will hurt. However, this is the moment to grasp the North Korean “thistle.”
 
The following are the twelve realities that must be acknowledged as we lead the international community toward a solution, albeit not ideal, on the peninsula. Be warned, since it is the holiday season, there may be a similarity between this analysis and the 12 Days of Christmas. Fight the urge to sing along.
 
1.    One Korea. This is an aspirational ideal for both the South and the North. However, the realities of a separated Korea for over 70 years make its realization unlikely. We must live with two Koreas.
2.    Two months until the Winter Olympics. If not already, the world will be focusing on Korea this February. The Republic of Korea (ROK) hosted the Summer Olympics in 1988 without incident. The same will happen this year. However, three decades ago, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) did not have nukes and ICBMs and its leader, Kim Il Sung, was hardened and measured by war. He understood its realities. The current Kim is a perfumed prince, a man of luxuries and boundless vitriol. The Olympics embrace the struggle, not the victory. I’m not certain the younger Kim understands this sentiment.
3.    Three ICBM tests. Since this July, North Korea has conducted three ICBM missile tests. All were successful and demonstrated a capability to strike the United States. North Korea can terrorize with ICBMs but they can’t fight and win with them.
4.    Four other countries with a dog in this figurative fight. The standoff between the US and North Korea also includes China, Russia, Japan, and, of course, South Korea. We tend to personalize the animus between Kim and President Trump.  The path toward a solution includes, but is not limited to, these four very interested parties.
5.    Five years until the next ROK Presidential election. President Moon Jae-in has five years to fashion his vision for security and normalcy on the peninsula. He entered office with a liberal bias toward cooperation with the North. The realities of governing have taught him caution.
6.    Six nuclear tests. Since 2006, North Korea has conducted six nuclear tests ranging from a yield of 2 kilotons to 250 kilotons. The most recent test was assessed to be a hydrogen bomb. Expect another test, probably above ground, before the Olympics.
7.    Seven months for North Korea to reach nuclear weaponization. The intelligence community (IC) was surprised by the accelerated pace of North Korean nuke and missiles development. Weaponization, the far more precise challenge of the miniaturization and marrying of a bomb to a missile, is imminent. Frankly, it is already past time for the IC to declare North Korea a nuclear-capable state and demand it act accordingly.
8.    Eight loose nukes. North Korea is highest on the list of consumers on the nuclear black market. The other routine participants in this marketplace are Libya, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, Eastern European nations, and non-state actors like ISIS and Al Qaeda. Based on the current rate of development, North Korea will soon become a net exporter of nuclear technology.
9.    Nine major incidents. Over the years, North Korea has attempted to provoke the South into an escalation of violence. Every time, the US and South Korean forces acted with restraint and resolve, de-escalating what could have become the spark for war. The incidents include an unsuccessful but deadly commando raid by North Korean special forces in 1968 on the Blue House (the executive office and ROK’s presidential residence). An attack and capture of the USS Pueblo in 1968. In 1976, the axe murders of two US Army officers by North Korean soldiers in the Joint Security Area along the DMZ. A number of military engagements to include firefights, helicopter incidents, the exchange of artillery fire, and most recently the defection of a North Korean soldier earlier this month. This is expected behavior from the North. Lives are routinely at great risk.
10.    Ten million people live in Seoul. Every citizen of Seoul lives within the range of North Korean rockets and artillery. If war starts, tens of thousands will be killed.  This is an inevitable outcome of war on the peninsula. The Greater Seoul metropolitan area is home to more than 25 million people. To North Korea, this is where the targets are.
11.    Eleventh largest GDP. South Korea is an Asian economic miracle. The area from the DMZ to just south of Seoul, which is the historical invasion route from the North into Seoul, is a corridor of vibrancy, energy, commercial growth, and modern business parks. For those of us who have spent a good deal of our adult lives in Asia, South Korea’s growth is staggering. War would flatten all of this.
12.    Twelve years of North Korean nuclear research and development. By next year, North Korea will no longer be a novice at nuclear development and armament. They will have acquired the knowledge to strengthen and harden their development processes and will be deeply experienced in the black market of nuclear trade. It is alarming to think that multiple US presidential administrations have allowed this to happen. It now rests squarely on the top of this administration’s shoulders and can no longer be neglected.
 
This will be the year of decision vis-à-vis North Korea. Our President has said, “we will handle it; it will be handled.” I believe him. I’m just not sure what that means.
 
If the US seeks to eliminate North Korea’s nuclear and missile technology sometime in 2018, it will be by force. I’d like to hope the US can avoid this outcome, but war is the one guarantee that North Korea will not have nukes and will not be in a position to threaten the world. I could play out the scenarios in detail. However, there are only two details of importance: North Korea will not have nukes, and large portions of the peninsula will be a bloody mess.
 
Whether the Kim regime survives is irrelevant. China wants Kim or a Kim-like buffer between itself and South Korea. The US can live with that; we have for 70 years. We can extend that lease. But this contract will have a non-nuke clause!
 
Should the US agree to accept a nuclearized North Korea, then expect a flurry of international diplomatic efforts. First among those should be “to encourage” (not sure how “to force”) North Korea to rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) protocols of inspections. This must be step one. Like any treaty, the NPT is only as good as its compliance and enforcement arms. Inarguably, no nation has ever been able to modify North Korean behavior. Sadly, we’ve never seen North Korea self-regulate or act with any restraint. But this is the challenge of diplomacy. The world would have to “hope” North Korea chooses to behave, though hope is not a real strategy.
 
A nuclearized North Korea will be a different North Korea, and Kim knows it. He would be in a far more precarious position. With nukes, he has limited options. Having nukes is his security; using nukes is his death sentence.
 
How we choose to “grasp the thistle” is ours to decide. Kim, on the other hand, will soon be the dog that just caught the bus. What now?

Middle East Tension

In recent weeks, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) has been the subject of numerous headlines with a series of maneuvers to strengthen control and dominance in the region. The man behind the wheel, Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman (MBS), whose national authority has advanced at an unprecedented rate, has vowed to transform the kingdom into modernity. Last week, KSA (along with Kuwait) advised their citizens to leave Lebanon immediately. These announcements came within days of an attempted Houthis missile strike on Riyadh and the unexpected resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister, Saad Hariri. Most Recently, KSA co-sponsored a UN resolution with Israel, pointing to evolving alliances in the region amid growing Saudi-Iran tensions. This week, in a demonstration of support, Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, visited Qatar. The economic isolation of Qatar by its fellow Arab states threatens the already tenuous coalition of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Saudi Arabia
  • MBS’ vision of expanded Saudi regional influence: start a war next door in Yemen, consolidate power internally, create a diplomatic crisis with Lebanon (forcing Lebanese PM to resign for being too weak on Hezbollah), escalate tensions with Lebanon, and forge new alliances to thwart Iranian Shiite influence.
  • The war in Yemen continues with no resolution in sight; Houthi rebel resilience threatens Hadi’s tenure as Yemen’s President as well as KSA’s campaign to exert regional military dominance.
  • A Saudi led conflict in Lebanon is never a sure thing; just ask the Israeli Defense Force after its 2006 debacle.
  • Iranian backing has seen tactical and strategic military success in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Iran won a proxy fight in Syria simply by ensuring Assad’s survival and Yemen is in shambles while KSA is unable to defeat or effectively counter Iran’s support of the Houthi rebels.
Lebanon
  • Hariri, a pro-Saudi Sunni politician, resigns; Lebanon still has a President but the position is honorific.
  • Hezbollah cannot be controlled or effectively politically muted.
  • Next…proxy if not a hot war.
Syria
  • Ungoverned space.
  • Most significant success is liberating Raqqa from ISIS; caliphate is shrinking, but ideology remains vibrant.
  • Russia involved deeply in an effort to counter U.S. interests, they will be successful.
  • Assad will die an old man…in power.
Turkey
  • A NATO ally…for now. NATO authority could be questioned should Turkey depart; however, NATO survived the departure of France in the late 1960s.
  • Turkey outraged at US backing for YPG’s (People Protection Units) fight against ISIS; Turkey views YPG as a terrorist organization aligned with the PKK (Kurdistan Worker’s Party) which the US considers a terrorist organization.
  • Escalation of diplomatic tension between the US and Turkey threatens the long-standing alliance; the region will benefit if Turkey remains a vibrant member of NATO.
Iran
  • Iran has extensive influence in spreading its interest through proxies.
  • Sanctions have been lifted and they are developing nukes under the JCPOA.
  • The Saudi-Iran influence battle continues with many opportunities to achieve tactical victories and an increased risk of strategic losses on both sides.
  • Iran remains in the catbird seat.

Saudi Arabia ups the ante in Lebanon

On November 9th, Saudi Arabia advised its citizens in Lebanon to leave immediately, as did Kuwait (their neighbor and Gulf ally). This guidance comes on the heels of a contentious power consolidation by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohamed Bin Salman (MBS), and an attempted missile strike by the Iranian-backed Houthis rebels on the Riyadh Airport. Iran denied supplying the munitions to the rebels and accused Saudi Arabia of trying to escalate tensions. Additionally, the calls for evacuation come five days after the unexpected resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister, Saad Hariri. Hariri cited fear for his safety and the growing influence of Hezbollah (the extremist Shiite Muslim group with inexorable ties with Iran) as the cause for his decision. 

 

These developments signal the forthcoming appointment of MBS as the King of Saudi Arabia, as well as the likelihood of military action against Lebanon. Much like its proxy war fought in Yemen, Saudi Arabia will attempt to exert its military strength and undermine Iran’s influence in the region. In a statement addressing Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia’s Minister of State Affairs re-affirmed that it “won’t accept Lebanon taking part in a war against Saudi Arabia. The Saudis will take all political measures and more to confront Hezbollah.” Unlike in Yemen, geography will not favor or advantage a Saudi military strike in Lebanon. Any military intervention would require if not coordination, at least acknowledgement of Lebanon’s neighbors, Jordan and Israel. Furthermore, the threat in Lebanon is a well-trained and well-equipped professional military unlike the rebel force the Saudi military faced in Yemen. MBS shocked the region with his recent internal political reformations and appears willing to go to extraordinary measures to project his vision of an adaptive and overtly bellicose Saudi Arabia. 

Muhammad Bin Salman Strikes

On Saturday, November 5th, King Salman issued a royal decree establishing a new anti-corruption committee. He appointed his son, Crown Prince Muhammad Bin Salman (MBS), as the committee’s leader and within a few hours sweeping arrests were made. Acting without support of the senior princes, MBS arrested and detained eleven princes, senior government officials, an undisclosed number of prominent businessmen linked to the royal family, and top military officers. Among those arrested on corruption charges, were Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, the Minister of Economy, and scores of Islamic scholars, judges, and intellectuals, whose views run the gamut from ultra-conservative to liberal. With this consolidation of power, MBS now commands all three hands of the Ministry of Defense.

This power grab foreshadows, albeit not imminent, the likely abdication of King Salman and the impending appointment of MBS as King. Beyond anti-corruption goals, MBS has a vision of Saudi Arabia as a more moderate and modern Islamic society. The regional rivalry and near-constant proxy wars fought by Saudi Arabia and Iran are motivation for many of the proposed reforms. Saudi Arabia must enter the 21st century with a global economy, not exclusively reliant on oil and gas, and seeking to encourage foreign investment and subtle gender equality. Beyond the legalization of women drivers, MBS has proposed the construction of green and smart cities in the country and has hosted investment galas soliciting support and funding for his endeavors. Many of these changes will be at odds with not only the ruling establishment that the arrests seek to marginalize, but also with the views of the average Saudi citizen. These reforms make the royal family vulnerable. Despite these risks, the reliable, albeit controversial, support of the U.S. will help sustain and accelerate modernization efforts by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in the region.

What do you get when you combine three aircraft carriers, two Koreas, and one U.S. President?

As we approach President Trump’s visit to Asia over the next two weeks, global attention remains fixated on the growing strain between the United States and North Korea. Most recently, concern has concentrated on the repositioning of three American aircraft carriers. The USS Roosevelt and the USS Nimitz have found a new station operating in the western Pacific. They join the USS Reagan which maintains a permanent presence in the region conducting combined training with South Korea. While the DOD acknowledges this amassing is unusual, it should not necessarily signal alarm. This posturing is not an indicator that military operations are imminent. It is, however, a prudent move with our President in the Far East to have this “additional firepower” in close proximity. If for no other reason, at least it sends a message to the North Korean regime…“In case you forgot, we’re ready.”

A distinctive outcome of the tension between the U.S. and Pyongyang is a coordinated regional response. China, in a rare move, voted for the U.S. drafted, United Nations initiative bringing unparalleled sanctions against North Korea. Japan is making moves to have an offensive military capability again, and South Korea is lobbying to have operational control over its wartime military, undoing a 60+ year status quo. While the media focuses on North Korea, we should not overlook the rest the President’s journey and the evolving dynamic of our relationships in East Asia.

Philippines: According to police statistics, more than 3,000 suspects have been killed in anti-drug operations since Duterte became president on June 30, 2016. There has been an international condemnation of his so-called war on drugs. However, these human right’s abuses are not likely to affect a century old relationship with a dependable regional ally. The U.S. –  Philippines relationship is too significant to abandon, and the U.S. has a higher chance of influencing positive change within the framework of their existing partnership.

Vietnam: Rapid industrial growth in the 21st century has positioned Vietnam as a potentially important trading partner. Enhanced trade cooperation between the U.S. and Vietnam would prove mutually beneficial.

Japan: Given the vulnerability faced by Japan during Pyongyang’s latest missile launches, North Korea will prove to be a prominent point of discussion. Japan’s recent elections and legislative action to build their military signals a growing concern over the regional threat.

China: A surprising show of solidarity in the face of the North Korean menace might have warmed the relationship between our two nations, but recent statements regarding markets and trade prove to be chilling. President Trump has long been critical of China’s heavy-handed influence over their markets and currency manipulation. Most recently, following the refusal to classify China as a market economy, the U.S. Commerce Department said “The state’s pervasive role in markets and involvement in the private sector causes fundamental distortions in its economy,” exacerbating tension between China and the U.S. before President Trump’s visit. While escalation on the Korean Peninsula is sure to be a topic on which the two powers can find common ground, the discussion of markets and trade will most influence the efficacy of the meeting.

South Korea: Following the Secretary of Defense’s visit to South Korea, the President, the National Security Advisor and Secretary Mattis have all doubled down on the stance that there is no scenario where North Korea has nuclear weapons. This “red line” is a risky one that muddies the water for continued diplomacy. Establishing these absolutes can be precarious as we saw with President Obama concerning Syria’s use of chemical weapons. In general, it’s best to avoid these hardline approaches. Diplomacy is most successful when there are options on the table. This is especially pertinent as the intelligence community has already confirmed North Korea has nuclear weapons and ICBMs. It may impede our continued pursuit of a diplomatic resolution if we have narrowed our options. South Korea, for their part, has pivoted to maintain open dialogue channels with the North. In a nationally televised address, the president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, stated “Our top priority is to maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula. Thus, armed conflict must be avoided under any circumstance. No military action on the Korean Peninsula shall be taken without prior consent of the Republic of Korea.” The public volatility between President Trump and North Korea’s Kim Jung-un has exacerbated the decades old sense of unease between the U.S. and South Korea. Most recently, Seoul’s first left-leaning government in a decade has asked for an accelerated transfer of the operational control over its military forces in an attempt to publicly separate South Korea and the U.S.’ methods of diplomacy. The administration must resolve this fissure — as a peaceful solution to the North Korean threat depends on a unified front.

Despite all the perceived chaos in the region, there is still plenty of opportunity in the Pacific. Consensus building and a multi-national approach to managing North Korea can help expand on and grow these opportunities. President Trump’s trip abroad is a sign of our continued commitment to our allies and a platform on which to forge new ones.

Iran Deal In Question

President Trump’s decision to decertify the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has raised questions and concerns across the globe about the future of the U.S.-brokered, multilateral deal. Many of those questions will have to wait until we see how Congress chooses to respond. In the meantime, it is necessary to acknowledge the impact that the President’s announcement makes today.

Engagements and compromise with Iran have long been criticized. Since its completion, concerns over sunset clauses and inspection protocols in the JCPOA have drawn attention. However, this is our first real engagement with Iran after decades of sanctions and diplomatic isolation. It is better to engage and gather intelligence rather than distance ourselves; leaving information gaps that may lead to uninformed policy decisions and the potential for violent conflict.

This is not to say that there are not very real concerns about the destabilizing actions of Iran.  However, these activities should be considered in the context of our shared objectives in the Middle East and the impact they have made in the way of containing ISIS.

Undoubtedly, increased aggression from Pyongyang has impacted President Trump’s reluctance to support JCPOA. International strategic patience has brought the world a nuclear North Korea. So, what now? What is the impact in the region and beyond if America reneges? How will it influence further diplomacy with the ever-increasing threat of North Korea? And importantly, where does it leave America’s credibility to negotiate and influence global policy in an environment where Russia and China are actively vying for an expanded role in the world?

The way ahead resides in Congress. Moving forward, congressional sanctions against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are a wise step to pressure Iran decoupled from the JCPOA. Ultimately, the US stands to benefit from a measured but fulsome engagement with Iran.  We can do both. We should.

Trend Lines

Yes, we live in interesting times.  The traditional power paradigms are shifting and it’s fair to say that “studied ambiguity” defines our current state of affairs. We must stay attuned to our evolving world or we’ll undoubtedly fail to be a leader in it.

Let’s break it down. For the sake of this conversation, the world consists of seven regions: East Asia, South Asia, Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, Latin America, and Russia. Some might disagree with the groupings but conventional wisdom supports this arrangement.

On top of these regions we must place the megatrends that are arguably shaping our world.  These game-changers will determine our world in 15-20 years. Here’s my short list of the four megatrends we must embrace:

  1. Potential for Increased Conflict. We’re in a period that can be called an intergenerational “continual state of conflict.” Challenges to existing world order are not diminishing. The elimination of barriers to global migration and movement combined with the growth of violent extremism has brought violence home. We are all at risk. There is an obvious reaction to and a rejection of “open borders.” Elections in America and Europe reflect a desire to strike individual bargains and to shut the door to others. This retreat produces a self-fulfilling prophecy. A lack of interaction creates a lack of familiarity leading to diminished trust. Everyone will become suspect.
  2. Regional Instability. This regional spillover will create the conditions for instability short of war and conflict but damaging to human progress. We must agree that being a demographically eclectic nation enhances our strength across all elements of national power. We can leverage this advantage by being an open and confident society. If we shut the door, we lose trust. If we lose trust, we default to unhealthy forms of competition, not cooperation.
  3. New Technologies. We are on a steady technological march toward facilitating full transparency among individuals, nations, and non-state actors. In fact, there’s a good argument that secrets may no longer exist. Individuals have increasing power at their fingertips. How we engage with all the divergent aspects of nature, disease, markets, and each other will take a collective effort to navigate. Will technology force us to engage or will we choose to drop off the grid and further isolate ourselves? Trustworthiness will dominate decision-making.
  4. America’s Global Influence. The world is a better, more ordered place when the United States Over the past decade, the US has chosen to demur internationally. We’ve been in the middle of America’s most protracted war yet we’ve chosen not to exert our strength and influence broadly. It’s like America suddenly became a “one ball juggler”, incapable of focusing on anything but the exigency of the moment. Goodness, even during World War II when outcomes were still very much uncertain, the US was the architect of the post-world order. No small feat, but one no other nation could perform.  What happens now? Does America lead internationally or demur? We can make America great again and lead globally at the same time.

Every region will respond uniquely to these megatrends, each reaction having a significant impact on our future national security.

The Far East.  China becomes an unchallenged world economic power. However, America chooses to compete with both China and Russia in the Far East for security dominance. The US-North Korean relationship will remain tense but hostilities will not break out on the peninsula. With America’s laser focus on North Korea, China emerges the winner economically in the region. China’s and Russia’s “peacekeeper” status rises by averting a US-NK conflict.

The Mid East. The struggle for the center of Islam continues but moderate Arabs remain dominant. Violent extremism wanes but remains a viable ideology for the youth of today as they mature. They either have opportunities other than radicalization or they embrace it. The region will unravel in Iraq and Syria. Both countries will become Balkanized with the establishment of an independent Kurdistan in Iraq, and then after Assad’s departure, Syria will collapse into subparts. The House of Saud is very vulnerable as regional economic diversity migrates beyond oil and gas. With the legalization of women driving we have seen the first steps toward Arabian social modernity beyond economic factors. Remember the collapse of the Soviet Union started with small steps; once begun, “Perestroika” was irreversible. Coerced conflict against Iran or Yemen could divert attention on further progressive openings. Iran will have nukes and the IAEA inspection protocols will surprisingly ensure compliance, most particularly on the Revolutionary Guards’ previously unchecked influence.

South Asia. India and Pakistan relations are not cherry. Tension still exists.  Routine military engagements and cross border firings occur…and this is between two nuclear powers.  The distrust is too deep, too well defined. India has the real chance to be a global technology and urbanization leader. Pakistan must acknowledge its complicity vis-à-vis Afghanistan’s internal struggles. It will never progress beyond its current political and economic malaise until it suppresses extremist activity in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.  Pakistan will enjoy the full backing of the United States once that occurs.

Europe. The EU will resist its far-right leanings and remain viable. A united states of Europe is far stronger than a divided Europe.  A unified Europe is the world’s largest trading body but more significantly it leans toward the United States for its moral, historical, ethical, and political moorings. Each country within a divided Europe would tip east and look much like Europe between the wars…striking its own deals: economic alignments with China and security arrangements with Russia.

Latin America. The growing middle class economically and politically will not accept government programs that do not work. Political activism has extended to women and the indigenous tribes. Their expectations are far different. The demand for commodities and services will only increase with an expanded political base. Governments must provide or be challenged…. hopefully by a peaceful transfer of power and not the region’s historical option to exact change through violence.

Sub-Saharan Africa.  The region has an excellent opportunity to adopt the best technology solutions across all industry verticals and government’s elements of power but must tackle political corruption head on. Sub-Saharan Africa has no legacy IT systems that must be adapted or reformed. They have very little in terms of IT infrastructure and are, therefore, not limited to narrowly defined, practical solutions to correct what’s currently inadequate. They get to start fresh, no predisposition toward any solution. The most significant challenge to accomplishing what could be an economic miracle is government corruption, a constant in sub-Saharan Africa. It’s all about incentives…integrate the best, eliminate the worst. How that gets accomplished is beyond me.

Russia.  Russia remains in decline and trends are holding Russia back….sagging living standards,  how to cope with security challenges from criminal and violent extremist organizations, and a pervasive concern for external threats. Resultantly, these conditions can lead to the centripetal pull of nationalism which is not healthy for Russia or the global community of nations. Moscow can not afford to merely observe international events but it must resist a self correction that attempts to influence events externally only to repeat another Crimea-like annexation. Not good for anyone. Ironically and sadly, Russia could emerge as a global “peacekeeper” by staying distant and seemingly “an uninterested third party” in ongoing conflicts. Except in Syria, Russia may be suited for the role. Historically, I am more than skeptical.

Regardless of how the next decades evolve and international order is challenged, there are certainties that must be acknowledged. Under any scenario, there will be competition. America must not lose its position as a steady and predictable force in influencing global events. The world is a more hybrid place than ever before. NGO’s, non-state actors, financial markets, multinational enterprises, and scientific discoveries all have equal weight in shaping events. This globalization and transparency will ensure that the best ideas that emerge on the horizon can be realized…hopefully for the better.

Winter Olympic Security…is it?

The current tension on the Korean peninsula today is palpable. Conditions on any given day are always in a state of guarded calm. However, the accelerated North Korean nuclear developments and our President’s “don’t test my patience” red line highlight the diplomatic razor’s edge between normalcy, an acceptable accommodation of the brutal regime in Pyongyang, and the reality of war.

In light of these conditions and the world’s elevated concern, the winter Olympics next February in South Korea deserve attention and a measured discussion. There’s something uniquely poignant about the Olympic games. The Olympic games have weathered two world wars, deadly acts of terrorism, numerous economic depressions, and countless other global controversies. We can only assume that its resiliency will once again be tested in February 2018, as the games take place on the increasingly volatile and unpredictable Korean peninsula.

If current diplomatic tensions between North Korea and the West continue to escalate, and North Korea’s rapid development of its nuclear and missile arsenals remains unabated, the security of the 2018 Olympic city, Pyeongchang, South Korea, could be tested. North Korea has an extensive arsenal of accurate short-range ballistic missiles and is developing its long-range capability at an alarming rate. In order to accurately measure threat, it is necessary to gauge both capability and intention. North Korea has the capability to strike the south and shows little regard for restraint. Their real intentions, however, remain unknown. As the friction on the Peninsula worsens with each passing day, it is likely that the South Korean government will host a tense Olympic games this winter.

Preparing for a North Korean attack on Pyeongchang is a strategic challenge for the South Korean military and security forces. Pyeongchang is located in the Gangwon Province, just 50 miles away from the Demilitarized Zone, the border separating the two nations. Located in the Taebaek Mountains, the Olympic city is isolated, with few main service roads leading in and out. While steps are already being taken to improve the city’s transportation infrastructure (such as a high-speed rail service and a highway expansion project), Pyeongchang remains compartmentalized…few options in or out.  An attack on the Olympic city would undoubtedly produce widespread chaos.

While the historic “Olympic Truce” encourages all countries to come together for the games, the Olympics have never been immune to controversy, danger, and tragedy. The massacre of eleven Israeli Olympians in the 1972 Munich games, the U.S. and Soviet boycotts, and the pipe bombing at the 1996 Atlanta games all serve as grim reminders that the world’s attention can stimulate and encourage geo-political calamity. While tensions on the peninsula have always been high, and did not disturb the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, the current diplomatic climate in the region is unlike ever before. Over the past two decades, North Korea has become increasingly bellicose due to its unpredictable leader, who, unlike his predecessors in the Kim dynasty, finally possesses unprecedented nuclear and missile capabilities.

Given North Korea’s recent surge in international relevancy, newly elected South Korean president Moon Jae-In seeks an elusive peace between the two countries, with hopes of ending the decades-long historical conflict. Throughout his campaign, candidate Moon ran on a platform that emphasized increased diplomatic, economic, and cultural engagement with the Kim Jong-Un regime in the north. In fact, over recent months, President Moon has urged the International Olympics Committee to extend an Olympic invitation to Pyongyang, hoping North Korea’s participation will promote a reduction in tension.

To be sure, peaceful co-existence is by no means a novel approach. President Moon’s diplomatic approach is reminiscent of former South Korean president Kim Dae-Jung’s Sunshine Policy. Initially unveiled in 1998, the Sunshine Policy emphasized peaceful cooperation and short-term reconciliation between the two nation states. The policy immediately received international praise, as President Dae-Jung, who was lauded as the “Nelson Mandela of Asia,” received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2000. Despite initial promising success, such as the 2000 summit meeting between the two heads of state, the Sunshine policy ultimately ended in failure and at great cost to the south. It became obvious that even with South Korea’s best efforts, the North was not interested in reconciliation.

I was assigned to South Korea as a senior intelligence officer during the Sunshine policy era and witnessed the attempted thaw in relations. What a disaster. Despite the promising rhetoric, the north was really never on board. Their officials, however, gave every indication that the country would be interested in modifying its behavior if it led to reconciliation. Operating under that assumption, South Korea invested billions into joint projects that could bring the two countries together: the Kaesong Industrial region, a special economic zone along the border, and a railroad across the DMZ connecting north and south. The North, on the other hand, never remotely changed their ways. Seoul’s efforts went wholly unreciprocated, and the repressive North Korean regime remained in power. Today, South Korea has a president that hopes to replicate that same policy two decades later. While we can hope that North Korea will act in favor of regional peace and decreased tension, history cautions us to be skeptical.

With the XXIII Winter Games looming, we can only speculate how the recent North Korea narrative will play out. I anticipate that North Korea will participate in the Pyeongchang games, which clearly reduces the likelihood of an incident. While the North’s inclusion should grant us a brief sigh of relief, their involvement in the games is no guarantee of calm or restraint. While it would appear hugely careless for Pyongyang to threaten the games and provoke global condemnation, the regime in the north is fundamentally unpredictable. No one knows how this will play out, but an incident on the international stage could happen. The rule, “plan for the worst…hope for the best” applies.

The Olympic games offer North Korea two opportunities to assert itself. First, the Olympics provide perfect leverage for Kim Jong-Un. The Supreme Leader could threaten chaos at the games if the United States does not revoke sanctions, reduce the frequency of joint military tests with South Korea in the Asia-Pacific, or lessen the number of U.S. troops on the peninsula. Given Kim Jong-Un’s truculent disposition and the country’s enhanced conventional and unconventional military capabilities, the United States and South Korean alliance could be forced to alter its military posture. Second and perhaps more likely, the XXIII games may be the perfect occasion for Kim to strengthen his position among global powers, which is perhaps why we are witnessing this rapid expansion of his nuclear and missile arsenal. International validation of North Korea as a global nuclear power, in advance of the Olympics, would propel Kim into international stardom. North Korea could finally have the respect it’s been seeking.

In these next winter games, we will see if Lindsay Vonn has recovered from injury and if Shaun White is back to his former self. More significantly, however, we will see if North Korea can behave long enough for the world to come together in sport. Let’s hope we can be on the edge of our seats witnessing incredible athletic competition rather than worrying about North Korean bombast.

A Year in Review: A Year Long Assessment of Academy Securities’ Geopolitical Analysis

Living in an ever changing and volatile world, predicting the future of our geopolitical climate can seem like a futile and nearly impossible task. The election of President Trump, the shocking result of the BREXIT vote, and North Korea’s steady development of intercontinental missiles and nuclear warheads caught many by surprise. During the past year, Academy Securities and its Advisory Board, which includes several former United States military officers, have attempted to make sense of the headlines and the decisions of today’s global leaders. Beginning in July of 2016, Academy has released sixteen essays, ranging from topics such as U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan to the ramifications of the most recent French presidential election. Given the firm’s unique military background, Academy Securities aims to provide its clientele with insights on global events and their potential effects on market dynamics. Listed below are some of the commentaries that Academy has made within the last year.

U.S. Troops in Afghanistan: In a July 7th, 2016 article titled, “U.S. Presence in Afghanistan,” Academy Securities anticipated that the level of United States troops in Afghanistan would remain in full force for the foreseeable future. The same article also opined that without constant U.S. oversight and heavy military involvement, Afghan host forces would prove ineffective in quelling Taliban expansion throughout the country. Since early July, the current 8,400 U.S. troops authorized by President Obama have remained in the country and are now expected to be augmented by as many as several thousand more troops during this fighting season. In addition, an increased U.S. focus on ISIS in Iraq and Syria has led to reduced attention on the Taliban in Afghanistan. During that time, Taliban control has expanded significantly as Afghan forces have proven unable to operate independently of U.S. leadership. The Taliban’s current control in Afghanistan has not been this widespread since the arrival of U.S. troops in 2001.

U.S. Presence in the South China Sea: In the firm’s second essay, published on August 16th, 2016, titled “China’s Blue Water Navy… Embrace It,” Academy remarked on the significant growth of the Chinese Navy in the South China Sea within the past several years. The firm argued that the United States should similarly augment its naval presence in the region to contend with its counterpart to the East. The article stated that the United States must “rebuild its withered and weakened capacity and willingness to lead and influence actions internationally.” Within the past year, the South China Sea has become an even greater source of contention, with Beijing increasingly asserting its unilateral control over the contested water. The United States is now periodically demonstrating its military capabilities in the disputed waters through Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPS), despite Chinese grievances that such operations on behalf of the United States infringe on Chinese sovereignty.

U.S. Relations with Turkey: Less than a month after the failed Turkish coup, Academy Securities published an article on August 25th, 2016, commenting both on the botched coup and on the standing of U.S.-Turkey relations. Author General (Ret.) Marks stated that regardless of the attempted coup, and despite President Erdogan’s alleged human rights abuses and autocratic tendencies, the relationship between the two countries would most likely be too valuable for either nation to sacrifice. While the United States has both remained critical of Erdogan’s domestic policies and maintained support for Syrian rebels whom Erdogan opposes such as the Kurds, the diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Turkey have not faltered. Incirlik Air Base in South-Central Turkey has remained critical to the U.S. offensives against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. In fact, after meeting in May of 2017, Trump and Erdogan proudly declared a “new era” of Turkish-U.S. relations.

North Korea Nuclear Capability: In an article published on September 15th, 2016, Academy maintained that without more aggressive U.S. policies and enhanced diplomacy with other powerful countries, it is likely that North Korea will soon possess intercontinental nuclear capacity. In the article titled “Opportunity,” author General (Ret.) Marks posits, “time is currently [North Korea’s] only limiting factor. Our behavior must change or theirs never will.” From the time that General Marks’ issued his cautionary declaration to the present, the United States has failed both to act with a strong fist and to garner support from other allied nations. China has remained unwilling to level substantive sanctions against Pyongyang, while Russia has refused to take any punitive measures whatsoever. North Korea now appears to have possession of an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States. Due to inaction and lack of international cooperation, North Korea currently stands as perhaps the greatest threat to the security of the United States. The window is closing on the opportunity to alter Pyongyang’s behavior.

Syria, U.S. Stance on Bashar al-Assad: In September of 2016, Academy contended that despite Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s authoritarian actions and blatant disregard for human rights, the United States ought to stop propagating the Syrian rebels’ fight against Assad. The war has become too bloody, produced far too many refugees, and has taken up too many resources that could have been used in the fight against ISIS. ISIS must be isolated, destroyed, and relentlessly attacked, an effort which requires “total cooperation and coordination among all U.S. allies,” along with other involved nations such as Russia. Throughout the year, Academy remained steadfast in its belief that the United States should sever ties with the rebels. In the piece published on June 27th, 2017 titled “Storm, No Surprise,” the firm reiterated, “The United States should admit that the Assad regime in Damascus is not going anywhere.” Nearly a month later, President Trump finally announced that the U.S. would no longer be providing support to rebel factions, recognizing that funding the rebel groups is not in line with the United States’ greatest long-term interests.

The 2017 French Presidential Election: Months before the election, on September 15th, 2016, Academy Securities provided insight on France’s two Presidential frontrunners, Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, and their starkly opposite views on French immigration and inclusivity. Academy argued it is the United States’ prerogative to intervene in the election on behalf of Emmanuel Macron, to ensure that a future France will no longer be a breeding ground for international terror. As anticipated, the United States did not stay silent as former President Barack Obama gave his unqualified support to the far more liberal Emmanuel Macron. While we are yet to see if Macron’s more inclusive stance will ameliorate tensions between Muslim immigrants and French citizens, he is already promising policies that are far more constructive than his predecessor or presidential opponent.

The Future of Cyberspace: Ever since Russia’s cyber “influence operation” into our Presidential election, it has become increasingly obvious that we need diplomatic resolve to address the menace of cyber terrorism. The internet is a new domain that is largely ungoverned and unprotected. Academy suggested in its December 23rd, 2016 article “Winter is Coming,” that the only way to make substantive progress in the realm of cybersecurity is for both the United States and Russia to acknowledge that they have everything to lose if they don’t work together to govern actions online. While such a coalition seemed unlikely, President Trump announced in July of 2017 the possible creation of a US-Russian coalition on cybersecurity. Although the risk is significant, the purpose of the coalition is to “create a framework in which we have some capability to judge what is happening in the cyber world and who to hold accountable.” Much work is required for a coalition to take shape, but it is clear this administration has recognized the need for a coordinated effort to focus on global cybersecurity.

Contention over the Baltics: While the United States and other western countries have been focused on thwarting radical Islamic terrorism, Russia has worked restlessly to solidify its place as a world power.  Russia’s annexation of Crimea, their military aggression against Syrian rebels, and their attempt to influence the U.S. election are all examples of Russia’s reach beyond its near abroad. Academy Securities noted in early February of 2017 that it wouldn’t be surprising if we witnessed another antagonistic move by Putin, perhaps even a Crimea-like “soft” invasion of one of the NATO Baltic states such as Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Many pundits now believe that a Russian offensive is entirely possible. Russia has increased its military presence in the region and has a sizeable military exercise, Zapad 2017, planned in the Baltics for this September. In preparation, NATO has augmented the number of troops it has stationed in the region.

We were witness to a chaotic past year. During all the volatility, Academy Securities addressed several diplomatic and political narratives. From U.S. relations with Turkey and Russia, to military action in Syria and the South China Sea, Academy has tried to stay ahead of ever-changing geo-strategic pulses on behalf of its clients. As Academy begins its second year of research and analysis, the firm aims to both remain cognizant of current storylines, such as the rise of North Korea or the fall of Venezuela, and provide observations on emerging geo-political developments.

Major General Spider Marks, US Army retired, is a member of the board of advisors of Academy Securities and a CNN national security and military analyst.

East Africa Mess

As a nation, we are presently consumed by the latest revelations about Russia’s objective to deepen its influence in our elections through aggressive cyber attack. The media has labeled this as “meddling,” which woefully understates its significance. Theirs was a campaign of computer network attacks designed to weaken our democracy. Our nation will survive and emerge stronger as a result.

Meanwhile, the world remains a dangerous and threatening place. While the ever-challenging political climates in North Korea, China, the South China Sea, the Middle East, and Europe will continue to capture front-page headlines over the coming months, the instability of East Africa (namely countries such as Kenya, Djibouti, Eritrea, Somalia, and South Sudan) cannot be overstated.

Political instability, armed conflict, and extremism, coupled with inadequate infrastructure and resource scarcity make the region of East Africa one of the most volatile in the world. Countries such as Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Kenya all hold similar reputations as unstable and dangerous while Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan are unremittingly seen as three of the world’s most violent nations. Political, economic, and diplomatic uncertainties in East Africa affect countries both within the region and around the globe. Millions of African lives have been lost, and many more have been displaced, due to regional unrest, civil war, and terrorist activity. Both local and global economies have felt these ripples as well. The Swahili Coast is home to highly sought-after natural resources such as fish and timber, and is host to one of the most popular maritime trade routes in the world. In fact, more than four million barrels of oil travel through Bab al-Mandeb daily, the eleven-mile strait between Djibouti and Yemen.

Kenya: The upcoming Kenyan presidential election, which is scheduled to take place on August 8th, has already begun to capture the attention of the international community. Just a decade ago in 2007, the post-election riots in Kenya and the ensuing police response left greater than a thousand Kenyans dead, while displacing hundreds of thousands in the process. In addition, the mayhem had damaging effects on the East African economy, given Kenya’s longtime reputation as a business, transportation, and trade powerhouse of the region. As August 8th looms closer, many pundits fear a repeat of that history. The opposition leader, Raila Odinga, and the incumbent, Uhuru Kenyatta, have outwardly vocalized their strong distrust in the Kenyan voting system while Odinga has already been accused of promising violence throughout the county if he loses the race. While it is unlikely we will witness violence on a similar scale as in 2007, the ramifications could be far more severe. Kenya’s capital Nairobi and the port city of Mombasa have become increasingly critical to transportation and trade among fellow East African countries. In addition, over the past decade, the country has become progressively more popular among foreign investors. Kenya is now considered to be one of the top investment destinations throughout the entire continent. Major investors such as the United States, France, UAE, and China are now vulnerable to the effects of Kenya’s election violence. We can only observe if past is prologue.

Djibouti and Eritrea: Djibouti and Eritrea, two countries the size of New Jersey and Ohio respectively, are also under recent international scrutiny. In 2008, the two nations engaged in an armed conflict over their disputed shared border. The feud was short-lived, as peacekeeping troops from Qatar were deployed. However, on June 14th, almost nine years after the dispute first began, its troops withdrew. While neither of these two countries holds any real international clout, resumption of border conflict would have significant implications on trade through the Bab al-Mandeb. An armed conflict between the two countries on one side of the strait, coupled with the current ruthless Yemeni civil war on the other, would make the Bab al-Mandeb highly precarious for international merchant shipping.

Somalia: Any report on East African security would be incomplete without a brief discussion on Somalia. As reported earlier, Somalia is, and has notoriously been, one of the world’s most violent and unstable countries. While international players have done a remarkable job in thwarting piracy off of the Somali coast over the past half-decade, the country, on the contrary, has become no less violent. In fact, over the past ten years, terrorism within the nation’s borders has spiked, rendering the country one of the most dangerous in the world. This surge can likely be accredited to the rise of the Somali terrorist group Al-Shabaab, which just recently surpassed Boko Haram as the most deadly organization on the continent. Al-Shabaab has launched attacks not only throughout Somalia in attempts to destabilize the incipient national government, but also in neighboring Kenya. The disturbing growth of Al-Shabaab will most likely worsen in the next several years. Host forces in Somalia are ineffective in combat and the United States is reluctant to provide substantive aid. While President Trump announced in mid-April that U.S. troops would be deployed to Somalia (its first deployment to that nation since 1994), the troops would be limited to conducting advisory role missions.

South Sudan: On July 9th, South Sudan observed its six-year independence anniversary in harrowing silence. President Salva Kiir cancelled the celebration, deeming it inappropriate for the government to spend money on festivities when so many citizens remained in need. South Sudan’s four-year civil war has devastated the country. The seemingly never-ending conflict has rendered their economy hopeless, yielding exorbitantly high inflation rates, while producing a food shortage of incomparable magnitude. Over half of the country’s 11 million person population faces severe food insecurity. To make matters worse, each of these struggles overshadow a cholera outbreak in the country that is now being considered by many as one of the worst in recent history. More than 1.8 million people have fled the country, over-burdening the infrastructures of neighboring countries. Here’s the challenge. Developed nations simply cannot allow further degradation of the South Sudan situation. If unabated, South Sudan will continue to demand more United States assistance (currently over $2 billion in aid) and will undoubtedly threaten the security and stability of an already fragile East Africa. Given the importance of the East African coast to foreign military bases, maritime trade, and oil shipping, western countries like the United States must stay engaged. In a world of competing priorities, this region arguably is among the many global issues that are deserving of our attention.

A mere handful of geopolitical issues continuously dominate presidential attention, media airtime, and newspaper headlines in the United States. While North Korea’s nuclear proliferation, the fight against ISIS in Syria, and the diplomatic dispute between Qatar and its Middle Eastern rivals are undoubtedly important, they mustn’t command our sole attention. Further escalation of conflict in East Africa has the potential to dramatically destabilize oil markets. Nearly all oil transit that departs from the Middle East towards North and South America travels along the East African coast, while a good portion journeys through the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait. Increased conflict in East Africa will have an enormous and permanent impact on the West and oil producing Gulf-states.

Storm, No Surprise

Earlier in the week, I was asked by a business executive what I thought was our nation’s next “unknown” challenge. Great question. It really wasn’t a “black swan” question, but it was close. I felt lost, intellectually ambushed, failing to anticipate the question. What was I “not” thinking about?

America is in the midst of a period of unrelenting chaos and international challenges but we seem fixated on our political drama at home.  War in Syria, Iraqi forces clearing Mosul of ISIS fighters after years of planning and execution, nukes in North Korea, a US college student returned to the US from a North Korean prison only to die a day later, terrorist attacks in Great Britain, the USS Fitzgerald colliding with a Philippine flagged tanker off of Japan’s coast killing seven sailors, etc. Of course, I was ready for the question.

No, I wasn’t. After a moment’s hesitation, I offered that there are two scenarios that I think are equally likely and equally unpredictable in terms of their longitudinal outcomes: cooperation with China to solve the North Korean conundrum and war with Russia over our conflicted interests in Syria.

Cooperation with China. The United States and China are polar opposites. We’ve been at war with China. Our political objectives are competitive regionally in Asia as well as globally. China is building islands in the South China Sea for purposes that remain unclear but seem to indicate military use.  We should not be surprised when China denies everything except peaceful purposes for these “made in China” outposts.  China is stretching its regional muscles. They are increasing trade and presence at Indonesian ports. Not surprisingly, in recent polling, China polls favorably (52%) with Indonesians. Also, the current president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, sees China as the best alternative to his deteriorating relationship with the United States and is pursuing policies that better align the Philippines with China. The US should be alarmed.

Obviously, both history and current events suggest that competition (not cooperation) defines relations between the United States and China. However, America must embrace its history of competition and find a way to alter the arc of history and cooperate with China to solve the existential threat of a nuclear North Korea.

So what does cooperation with China look like? The short answer is that it must be far more draconian than anything the regime in Pyongyang has ever suffered through before. Economic trade sanctions have never altered NK behavior…never. Additionally, the US-South Korean military alliance headquartered in Seoul and our shared values with the Republic of Korea are models of international cooperation.

Although China banned all imports of North Korean coal, turning away a ship on 11 April, the full economic life-line of the regime must be severed.

Not unlike the recent quarantine of Qatar by Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt, the United States and China, must put a virtual dome around North Korea and “starve” the regime. This has never been attempted. Previous efforts at enhancing the isolation of the North Korean regime have been a patchwork of individual, punishing sanctions but not synchronized into a campaign creating the conditions for Pyongyang’s behavioral change.

The US and China should cooperate and fashion a brutal campaign that breaks the back of the regime without causing its collapse. All flights must be banned. Ports should be blockaded and shuttered. China and Russia must cease all land shipments across their respective borders with North Korea. The combined effect of synergizing our collective elements of power with our persuasive diplomacy, visible and crushing militaries, and far reaching financial levers to isolate the nation can be near fatal to North Korea.

Certainly, bad actors that are on North Korea’s list of favorites will slip through the inevitable cracks of this embargo. However, with China’s concurrence and commitment, Pyongyang could be made to feel desperately lost.

Our goal should not be to encourage or coerce regime change. China has no interest, nor does the US, in forcing regime change. Our message to NK’s leadership must be unequivocal and powerful: without nukes, you can stick around.

This of course would enrage North Korea’s leader Kim Jung Un and risk his support by the regime elites. However, it is this very target, Kim’s supporters, who have the most to lose. They must suffer greatly on a personal level and skirt along the edge of their pathetic universe that could disappear in a heartbeat. A campaign that accomplishes those objectives is attainable but would require a coordinated effort unleashing the incredible talents of the American and Chinese national security teams. That’s never happened before. It can and must now.

Time is no longer our friend vis-à-vis the North’s nuclear ambitions.  By 2020, North Korea will possess an arsenal of nuclear tipped missiles that can reach Seattle.  By then, it’s fair to assume that North Korea will be able to launch a nuclear missile and explode it over South Korea creating an electromagnetic pulse that would destroy South Korea’s electric grid and thousands of its citizens.

A nuclear North Korea is a certainty unless we act immediately. China and the United States are not alone in agreeing that something must be done now. However, both China and the United States are the only nations who can galvanize the community of nations to act forcefully and unequivocally. But Washington and Beijing must act first. Our cooperation is non negotiable.

War with Russia. The United States has never fired a shot in anger against the Soviet Union before it collapsed in 1991or Russia over the past 25 years. Our nations have struggled through proxies for the primacy of our respective political ideologies and tangible objectives since the middle of the last century. The blessing in all of this is that the US and Russia shared a similar view of normalcy…no direct military confrontation. We were in a Cold War; it never heated up…directly.

The prospect now of a direct shooting conflict, however, has never been closer. Just in the past few weeks, the US shot down a Syrian fighter and two Iranian drones. All three attacked US forces on the ground. Of course, US forces eliminated the threat.

Russia warned the US that they would engage US fighters in the airspace above Syria if these actions were repeated. Just this week, a Russian SU-22 fighter flew dangerously close to a US RC-135 signal intelligence aircraft conducting operations in international airspace over the Baltic. Russian aircraft always shadow our intelligence flights but never threaten them by flying within a few feet at a dangerous speed and attitude.

We’ve come a long way from an overt pledge late last year to “deconflict” our respective air operations over Syria to threats of shooting down US aircraft. Unless the United States and Russia can agree to shared outcomes in Syria, a mistake is inevitable.

American and Russian militaries have no experience conducting coalition or cooperative military operations. It has never happened. The potential for conflict is real. It is not inconceivable that a mistake will occur at the tactical level where junior officers and non commissioned officers make engage-don’t engage, rapid fire decisions based on incomplete intelligence that are always clouded by the fog of war and the mandate to protect your forces.

There are no plans for the US and Russian military to train together. That will not happen unless we have a shared picture of what we’re trying to achieve in Syria, together. Right now, that’s highly unlikely.

However, the United States should admit that the Assad regime in Damascus is not going anywhere. Assad has the material support of Russia and is not threatened by the neutered and inept regime resistance. Our fight in Syria is against ISIS, not Assad. Washington and Moscow must agree that we may not share the same desired outcome in Syria, but we can operate separately and safely to achieve our respective and de-conflicted objectives.

Years ago, the US Army changed the terminology of an unintended discharge of a weapon from an accident to negligence.  The change was intended to ensure full accountability for the proper functioning of a weapon. Today in Syria, an accident and negligence are a distinction without a difference. Accountability for an “unintended discharge” is instantly strategic and immediately catastrophic. The US and Russia must agree that we should keep the streak alive…no hot war between us.

So, here we are, labeling China and Russia as our two thorniest challenges. The United States must embrace the chaos and uncertainty that relations with both of the nations present. We’ve been here before but every storm is different. When ships are in a storm, every sailor finds some form of religion. But the prayers are not for the storm to end; they ask for strength simply to get through.

This international storm of volatility and ambiguity that currently defines our circumstance will not go away. Let’s trust our leaders to get us through.

Pivot to Asia? Better Get Moving!

Asia should be America’s top national security priority. Right now, it isn’t. Even in chaos and uncertainty, the United States exerts unprecedented influence internationally and is cloaked in immense powers. With the snap of a finger, the United States can make a difference. Let’s look at what’s happening in Asia today.

Early Friday, terrorists conducted a well coordinated raid in Manila against a soft target that had every characteristic of an international incendiary action. While the objectives of the attacker(s) are being debated, the attack has all the hallmarks of an ISIS-inspired operation.

The Philippines military has been fighting an Islamic insurgency on the southern Island of Mindanao for decades. Over the past few years, the spread of radical Islam has found favorable support where governance is rare. This is an area for rich and fertile recruiting of the vulnerable to join the ranks of metastasizing radicalism.

The last thing the world needs is growing terrorism in South East Asia (SEA). However, the conditions are aligned for its spread. Philippine President Duterte is a thug. His political agenda has two prongs: kill as many drug users as his administration can (thousands to date) and do his part to further distance Manila from Washington politically.

We should not be surprised by this recent horror in Manila. The United States will always lean in to resist and attack terrorism where it emerges. It now has been overly complicated by our weakened presence in the region.  American law enforcement and intelligence will support the Philippines. However, terrorism won a tactical victory because of the fractured relationship between our two nations.

Not only has radical terrorism become a part of the region but also hosts the struggle between an expanding China and an adventuresome Saudi Arabia.  Specifically, Indonesia is at an inflection point. First, it must embrace the promise of regional support from China or accept the global advantage of a stronger relationship with the United States. Second, Indonesia must strengthen its tradition of a moderate, accepting, and thoughtful brand of Islam or risk aligning with the radical and hardline teachings of Saudi Arabia’s madrasas.

Over many years, America’s time and treasure have been diverted fighting existential terrorism in the middle east. As the United States exercises muscles it hasn’t used in awhile, China, by comparison, has been busy in SEA (especially in Indonesia). China seeks to own Indonesian ports and, as a result, the international flow of commerce through the region.

For obvious reasons Jakarta has a decision to make: embrace Beijing, embrace Washington, or embrace both. The third option is a throw away. Washington has a decision to make as well. In April 2019, Indonesia will hold its next general elections. Let’s hope American leadership makes it clear that Indonesia is more than simply important to our collective national security. It is critical to global peace and stability.

The clash of titans has shifted east. Asia deserves our sincere focus.

As we know, North Korea has nukes. It continues to develop missile technology that with every new missile launch (three in the last two weeks), moves the regime in Pyongyang closer to realizing an ICBM. China and the United States agree that a nuclear Korean peninsula is unacceptable. North Korea must modify its behavior on its own or it must be forced to change.

South Korea has a new President, democratically elected just last month following the arrest of the former President. Apparently, newly elected President Moon Jae-In was not notified about the deployment of additional launchers of the Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system in the south by the U.S. He was elected to assert Seoul’s independence from Washington. Not a good way to deliver on a fundamental campaign promise. Look, Korean political leaders always reflect Korean pride and strength. Our alliance is not at risk but fissures like this (if true), are avoidable.

Today, the western Pacific has three U.S. carrier battlegroups on station, a prudent strategic move in light of the current uncertainty in the region. What’s clear is that Asia has been a second-tier national security priority for almost two decades. It is only through the vigilance of our regionally deployed military and alliances that we’ve been able to ensure stability. Additionally, we’ve been fortunate. Readiness of our military forces has never been at risk; however, our posture in Asia has been.

America never followed through on its promise many years ago “to pivot to Asia.”  However, Asia pivoted to us. I’m not sure that’s good news or bad news but it is what it is. Let’s not squander it. A young soldier told me years ago, “better to be lucky than good.” Not that I agree that serendipity is a solution, but let’s take advantage of our “luck” and stay focused on Asia.

Latin American Security and Economic Situation Report

Russia, Syria, ISIS, and North Korea are capturing the news today, but simmering political and economic unrest in Venezuela and Latin America is potentially a threat to the United States.

The security and economic standing of Central and South American nations are critical to the defense and economic growth of the United States. President Trump’s “America First” foreign policy impacts longstanding formal and informal relationships with many of our southern neighbors.

The most headline grabbing initiative of course is the border wall the administration intends to build along the boundary with Mexico to mitigate the steady stream of illegal immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security estimated nearly 1 million illegal immigrants crossed the Mexican border in 2016, adding to the nearly 11 million currently in the United States. The prospect of more comprehensive border security (including a wall) projects fewer illegal immigrants, lessening state and local tax burdens to cover the education, welfare, and health care expenses of undocumented workers and their families. Importantly for Mexico, President Trump has abandoned his initial position to repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and pledged to renegotiate the terms so that they are more favorable to American workers. Amid softening of the U.S. administration’s stance on trade with Mexico (and Canada), the Mexican economy has seen growth of nearly 3% GDP during this latest quarter. We can anticipate the administration’s border security posture and its NAFTA negotiations will drive much of the Mexican economic and security outlook for the foreseeable future.

Further south, the Venezuelan socialist experiment is imploding, causing violence, mass exodus to Colombia, Brazil and Panama, and an economic and political spiral that threatens the entire region. Former President Hugo Chavez in 1998 nationalized many of the private assets, such as oil and mining companies, to redistribute wealth and create a socialist state. With the severe drop in oil prices, Venezuela finds itself the owner of assets that cannot pay for themselves, much less the services it has promised its citizens. Worse, because of Chavez mandated price controls, Venezuelan farmers and manufacturers saw no upside in producing basic food products and manufactured goods. Therefore, Venezeula must use what little foreign exchange it has to import food to feed its citizens. This is the classic socialist/Latin American dependency story with predictable results.  Venezuela’s GDP has contracted by nearly 19% in 2016 and inflation is predicted to be between 700-2000% going forward. With numbers like those, we can expect chaos to reign in Venezuela. Naturally not a safe investment until President Nicolas Maduro (or a more competent replacement) can attempt to implement market reforms, Venezuela also poses a security threat to the region. The exodus of refugees, mostly into Colombia, Brazil, and Panama, could potentially destabilize those governments and their decelerating economies. Similar to how the Syrian civil war has displaced millions of refugees into Western Europe, the Venezuelan crisis could have a similar, but smaller, impact on the teetering economies of Colombia and Panama. As the chaos continues, we must recognize the significance of the Panama Canal and the logistics and services sector that revolve around that strategic asset. The Venezuelan crisis poses the largest regional security threat to U.S. vital interests, the free passage of trade through shipping lanes. The U.S. Administration should keep a watchful eye on the refugee migration as the situation develops. Just as ISIS has expanded into Afghanistan and other regions where instability reigns, we can expect ISIS to exploit the Venezuelan crisis to potentially disrupt the Panama Canal and move with refugees up the Central American landscape to the border with the United States.

Brazil and Argentina have traditionally been the main drivers of the Latin American economic outlook, especially in relation to the United States. Brazil is emerging from a recession that mirrors what the United States endured from 2008-2013, yet is still seeing flat to marginally increasing GDP growth. Meanwhile, Argentina’s reforms seem to be gaining traction as they claw their way out of recession.

Watch for U.S. policy toward border security with Mexico (and therefore the rest of Latin America), the administration’s positioning on NAFTA, and the U.S. response to the long developing crisis in Venezuela. We have some major strategic interests involved (illegal immigration, drug flow, and the Panama Canal) and while these issues may not receive the same attention as U.S. involvement in Southwest Asia and Afghanistan, they are every bit as critical.

Frexit? Pas Encore! (Not Yet!)

Following the election victory of Emmanuel Macron on Sunday, France will remain a willing, and hopefully, leading member of the European Union (EU).  At least for now, and hopefully into the future, the fracturing of the EU no longer appears inevitable.

Just last week, all evidence gave Marine Le Pen, a full-throated French populist who campaigned on a platform of strength and French assertiveness, a slight edge over her opponent. Her platform essentially was to declare France independent of the burdensome rules associated with EU membership. In her view, continued membership in the EU put France at risk diplomatically, economically, and in terms of its security. These were all seemingly solid reasons to re-assert France’s identity. It was an identity she felt was lost.

A few weeks ago, I attended a national security seminar in New York City that addressed the current and most troublesome global security challenges. Economists, justifiably, seemed to dominate the conference. Of all the elements of power, economics is the most tangible that can influence problems in their infancy or be used punitively in the form of sanctions to punish and hopefully modify bad behavior. At one point in the conference a Wall Street analyst declared rather agnostically (and certainly with a level of confidence that I could not challenge) that he was “the best short seller in the world of banking.” Based on the sounds of murmurs and chatter that erupted from the back of the room, the audience seemed largely unimpressed.

His proclamation, possibly true, was irrelevant. No one cared. Like this banker, Ms. Le Pen might have been the strongest person in France, and, not surprisingly, no one cared. She was irrelevant.

The short seller succeeded by reading the tea leaves of failure and collapse, not by providing remedies to thorny and inherently complex economic and market driven problems. Similarly, Le Pen succeeded by pointing out failures, but did not provide solutions acceptable to the French electorate.

The voters in France’s Presidential election on Sunday agreed. Ms. Le Pen’s bombast and stridency did not convince anyone that they were essential ingredients to building France’s path to its future. In contrast, Mr. Macron’s center left position of moderation might be like eating unsalted peanuts…appealing to some but not many, filling but spectacularly bland.

Look, there were many reasons for the French electorate to align itself with Le Pen and her desire to assert France’s authoritative position as a leader in international politics. Today, France struggles with several major issues that are timeless.

France’s economy is on an anemic growth trajectory. The work week is mandated by law at 35 hours. On average, French workers enjoy 15 hours each day of leisure time (including eating and sleeping). The mandatory retirement age is among the lowest in Europe. Unemployment holds steady at an alarmingly high 10 percent. Youth unemployment is greater than 23 percent, which has remained a chronic problem since the early 1980’s! No solutions exist; the French economic ship of state is potentially robust but remains adrift…still.

France is not safe. Under assault by radical Islam, France’s President, Francois Hollande, has declared terrorist attacks over the past few years as “acts of war.” He is correct.

Since 2015, France has suffered from 23 separate attacks. The most notable of these was the attack on Charlie Hebdo (the satirical magazine), on 7 January 2015 that left 12 dead.

On the evening of 13 November 2015, ISIS-inspired terrorists conducted simultaneous and well-coordinated attacks at various sites including the France-German soccer game and the Bataclan nightclub. In total, 130 were killed and 386 were injured.

On 14 July 2016 in Nice, a driver using his cargo truck as a weapon slammed into the crowds celebrating Bastille Day (France’s national day), killing 86 and injuring over 400. Undisputedly, France is at war against a well-documented and easily recognizable form of radicalized Islam.

Arguably, it is a war many describe as one that France is losing.  France is concerned about its obvious vulnerability to attacks by radicalized Islamists. But France bears responsibility for the isolation of the Muslim community into “pockets” within its borders. The French worry, rightfully so, that their laws have incentivized the failure to integrate its immigrants. A legitimate distance exists among its various demographics. France is faced with victims on all sides of their self-created divide.

France must face its demons but further isolation within France and within Europe as advocated by Ms. Le Pen was not the correct choice. Marine Le Pen was not wrong; she just wasn’t right, right now.  France is like an alcoholic, admitting its weaknesses while declaring its strengths in order to solve its most vexing problems. I suggest this election was a first step toward political sobriety.

Look, Le Pen was right to hold a mirror in front of France and ask if it liked what it saw. Like anyone in therapy, the truth hurt, but her remedy had too many bad side effects.

A France distancing itself from the rest of Europe was absolutely the wrong answer. The citizens of France agreed. Now, the ball’s in the court of the newly elected President to shape France’s future and deliberately take the immediate, tactical next steps. It’s time for the prose of action and less for the poetry of words.

Not surprisingly, Ms. Le Pen in her final debate with Mr. Macron observed that France, regardless of the outcome, would be led by a woman…her or German Chancellor Angela Merkel!

France and the rest of Europe have drafted off Merkel’s brand of leadership for the past twelve years. She is a European nationalist whose policies embrace a united Europe as more secure, more prosperous, and better aligned to shape the future of Europe than a divided one.  Simply stated, a united Europe leans west; a divided Europe will lean east with each separate nation positioning itself favorably with a recidivist Russia. Those deals always end badly; just look at the previous century.

Europe must remain together…with all its warts and ugliness. For now, a French exit from Europe has been avoided. Let’s hope all of Europe saw how close isolationist populism was to becoming a reality. Brexit will happen but Frexit will not…at least not yet. However, sobriety can be fleeting.

Unpredictable Predictability

Several years ago, a young Army officer asked me to give him a one word answer to a very specific and complex question, arguably deserving more than a single word. He asked, “What is leadership?”  After three seconds, my answer was, “predictability.”

In over 30 plus years in uniform and a decade in business, all in leadership positions, I was frankly unprepared for the question.  My surprise, however, did not prevent me from honoring the question as it was asked…with a single word. Predictable behavior by a leader is THE most important ingredient to organizational success.  When a leader is predictable, good and bad news are embraced similarly. Organizations respond predictably. Calm can be restored more quickly; routine can become routine.

As a newly commissioned lieutenant, my first company commander (a hardened Vietnam vet with little perceived sympathy for any anticipated “newbie” problems) instructed me to run to him with bad news and walk with good. What an insightful and helpful concept.  He wanted me to know with absolute certainty that he was always available regardless of circumstances; that I could count on him…storm or calm.  I did a lot of running! Over time, my commander, a practitioner of the art and science of leadership, became my leadership Yoda.

The lesson of predictability is in my DNA, my culture. I passed it on because it works. It’s a timeless virtue of leadership.

Above all else, it helped me get beyond the exigencies of the moment and encouraged me to get ahead of events and try to shape them. There was predictability in how I engaged with my team, my requirements, the linear sequencing of time and the physics of pushing things to be accomplished to the top of the stack of competing demands. It got me out of the “now.”

Today, our President has told the world that he wants to be unpredictable. But what does my leadership journey have in common with the President’s?  Frankly, a lot.

I suggest that unpredictability is not what our President really wants.  Sure, the President wants to keep his cards close and not telegraph every decision at a tactical, specific, and minimally bounded level.  The decision to deploy forces to strike ISIS targets in Syria is best shared with our Congress in a classified setting to seek their approval (not socialized with the media…or ISIS). The only thing ISIS needs to know is that the United States will do everything in our power to crush them. Now that’s predictable; anything else is foolish.

Similarly, our friends and allies should be equally confident knowing where we stand together and where we diverge.  This is the basic foundation of all relationships. Private discussions lead to public agreements.  We hold hands in public and throw fists in private. That’s how partners are emboldened and trust flourishes.

The opposite does not work. I do not want my friends or enemies to be confused about how I may interact with them. Predictability and certainty must guide our relationships. There’s too much at stake. Markets hate uncertainty. Guess what? So does every aspect of human endeavor.

The world is volatile, uncertain, complex, and with social media, increasingly transparent.  Everybody knows everything.  These circumstances, which by the way will never abate, scream for predictability. How the United States, the world’s surviving super power, will react must be known a priori crisis.

Here’s the challenge. Absent facts, people make stuff up. That’s not a good thing when existential threats have assumed many forms…a nuclear North Korea, ISIS, Russian adventurism in Europe and the Middle East, or an expanding Chinese Navy. Every nation, every non-state actor, and every potential threat must be cautioned by a clear understanding of how the United States will react to their adventures.

America’s unpredictability unnecessarily adds an ingredient to an already toxic brew. Most of the world’s challenges seem to be isolated and have achieved their own momentum, marching to their own drumbeat. In other words, what our President says has little to no bearing on the current projected international challenges that we face. By contrast, what our President may choose to do is highly relevant.

And those strategic choices must be predictable.  Leadership among nations (and non-nations) is all about a philosophy of leadership that is at its core predictable.

Our media slams the President for “stirring the pot” of North Korea with his tweets. Here’s the real news. The North Korean pot is in a continual state of self-stirring.  Our President’s tweets are irrelevant; actions are huge.  The actions of the United States and South Korean alliance are predictable. Nothing is aberrant or unpredictable or new to the North Korean intelligence collection efforts. We are predictable.

Today, the last thing the world needs is for the North Korean leader to think that the US presence on the peninsula is unwilling to act to keep the regime from acquiring a fully functioning nuclear capability. We’ve been on the peninsula for over 70 years. We have no current plans to go anywhere. Although President Jimmy Carter naively put that offer on the table, it was wisely removed quickly. The United States remains a predictable presence on the peninsula.

President Assad used chemical weapons on his people again just a few weeks ago. The United States responded proportionally by striking the air base that launched the attack with cruise missiles. That’s a predictable and proportional use of force to punish a murderous regime that continues to ignore internationally recognized protocols banning the use of chemical weapons.

China continues to be a “community of one” in its economic and political support for the North Korean regime.  That is changing. Following President Xi Jingping’s visit with President Trump, China abruptly ceased accepting coal from North Korea, choosing to impose economic sanctions on the regime. Albeit, unprecedented, China is creating a new relationship with the North Korean regime. This is inevitable and, not surprisingly, predictable.  North Korean nuclear ambitions have gone unchecked for decades. The world is running out of time and patience. Predictably, China will be on the right side of history by helping to eliminate this threat and stabilizing the regime.

In these first 100 days of this new administration, it’s fair to suggest that our President’s preference for unpredictability has failed on the international stage.  He’s actually quite predictable. He admires the Andrew Jackson, no nonsense leadership style and sits beneath the seventh President’s portrait in the Oval Office. Like Jackson, President Trump is certain, bombastic, and controversial…if comparisons are even worth making at such an early stage in a President’s administration.

Not unlike Jackson’s epoch, today’s world is experiencing undiminished volatility and uncertainty. Possibly, our President’s form of unpredictability is the new predictable. Everything we can nail down and remove from our “to do” list of crises, provides some rare calm and certainty.

Chaos, not calm, is the new normal; it’s predictable. How we handle it going forward needs to be equally predictable.

Can’t Wait Any Longer

Our new administration is at risk if it doesn’t do something about the increasingly elevated tension on the Korean peninsula.  North Korea (NK) is an uncontrolled nuclear state with an accelerated missile development program and the Republic of Korea (ROK) just impeached a failed President.  Conditions are ripe for something to go terribly wrong.  The only moderating voice on the peninsula is Washington’s.

 Without hyperbole, it’s safe to say that we are currently seeing with frightening clarity a future we all hoped we could avoid: a rouge regime of Kim Jun-un in North Korea with nukes, an imminent intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability, and government in Seoul dealing with a constitutional crisis.  Reassuringly, the U.S. military is a part of the equation on the peninsula.  Realistically, our military may be asked to transition from deterrence to aggression to stop Pyongyang’s wild nuclear ride…a ride designed to strike the United States, not simply North Korea’s regional neighbors.

 The U.S.-ROK alliance is steadfast and has been pressure-tested by Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital, and political turmoil in the south multiple times.  Precisely because of these challenges, the alliance knows what it is doing.

 South Korean democracy has a dark past.  It suffered through two military coups in 1961 and 1980 defined by violence, suspension of civil liberties, and restorative calm but always on the edge.  In my years watching the peninsula, it always felt like South Korea was a heartbeat away from another political crisis that would push Seoul to the point of anarchy followed by a crushing blow by the military to ensure order.

 Well, here we are.  Again.  Thankfully, order was restored during the impeachment some days ago of President park Geun-hye, not ironically the daughter of General-President Park Chung-hee who led the coup in 1961.  The ROK will elect a new President in early May.  South Korean democracy is in equal parts emotional and resilient.  Kim, not a disinterested observer, will be watching and testing that resilience.  It’s something the North Korean regime does quite well but now with even greater consequence.  North Korea has nukes!  That alters the balance.

 Just last week, as the United States and South Korea began their annual “Foal Eagle” joint training exercise, North Korea launched four medium-range ballistic missiles which landed just inside Japan’s Air Defense Identification Zone.  This was not a demonstration of new or enhanced missile technology.  It was, however, perfectly timed to get maximum attention…always an objective of the regime in Pyongyang.

 This past month, Seoul was in political chaos; international media was all over the south covering the increasing vitriol of the South Korean protests; the government was without an effective executive.  Of course, North Korea took advantage.

 Historically, North Korea is totally dialed into what the U.S.-ROK alliance is up to.  Frankly, it’s part of the alliance’s strategy to demonstrate its capabilities and the cost of NK interference.  Military exercises in the south are routing.  Literally, for decades the alliance has conducted a series of command post exercises and field maneuvers to validate war plans, the evacuation of non-combatants, targeting procedures, and the logistical demands of war in an increasingly dense urban terrain.  North Korea has superb human intelligence collection that can hide virtually “in plain sight” in South Korea.  That challenges the alliance’s ability to detect and disrupt it, but the upside is the leadership in Seoul knows that North Korea understands the crushing power of the alliance.

 Pyongyang knows it cannot challenge the foundation of the alliance in the south.  It can, however, have a far moe likely and lasting impact on the peninsula.  A nuclear ICBM cannot be ignored.  Pyongyang is on a path to realize that capability by 2020 with an arsenal of approximately 100 nuclear tipped ICBMs according to open source intelligence estimates.  That’s fare more frightening than another coup in the south and, frankly, more likely.

 Time is the only thing slowing this inevitability.  For years, the international community has tried every means of pressure to modify North Korea’s behavior in its development of a nuclear capability.  Nothing has worked.

 There is not enough money to pay off Kim.  Economic sanctions do not affect his behavior.  His people suffer or starve without result.  Kim has advisors and family members killed if there is a suspicion of disloyalty.  It’s not lunacy or craziness; it’s total control and survival.  Kim wants an equal share internationally of the attention he gets regionally.  He wants to be a “playa.”  He is now.

So what can be done to stop his march to nuclear infamy?  Very simply, Washington has three options: seek China’s help to modify North Korea’s ambitions; diplomatically recognize Pyongyang and end the war on the peninsula (the Korean conflict ended with an armistice); or attach the nuclear missile development capabilities in the north.

 These are all legitimately difficult options to realize.  Inarguably, China is the only neighbor that North Korea has any historical interest in listening to.  However, Beijing’s influence over Pyongyang is diminished.  Without Beijing, Pyongyang is further isolated and will result in an acceleration of Pyongyang’s missile and nuclear development.  Plus, the U.S. and China must agree that a nuclear North Korea is a threat.  Currently, we’re not on the same page.

 Recognition of the regime in Pyongyang is a tough nut to crack but may be THE nut that needs cracking.  Diplomatic recognition scratches the only political itch that Pyongyang has, which is to be treated like an equal.  This option makes me want to throw up in my mouth but the alternative is a nuclear tipped ICBM being launched from North Korea headed toward Alaska or Los Angeles.  Though the recently deployed Theater High Altitude Defense (THAAD) system is an effective deterrent from an ICBM or medium-range missile, we should not accept a North Korean regime with these capabilities.

 If necessary, the U.S. should act unilaterally to militarily take out North Korea’s nuclear test and missile launch facilities.  As abhorrent as it is, a kinetic strike to reduce the nuclear and missile development capabilities of North Korea is legitimate.  A military conflict with the north could also lead to one of the worst refugee crisis in our planet’s history.  It should be the option of last resort.

 The international community can no longer wish away the possibility of a nuclear North Korea.  We have used time to our advantage realizing that nuclear and missile technology development in the north was ongoing but remained nascent and not an imminent threat.  It is no longer either.

 Our ally in Seoul is focused inward to ensure a smooth and democratic transition of power.  The U.S. will encourage the Republic of Korea as it exercises its constitutional authorities.  Seoul will emerge stronger and our alliance intact.  But what about the north?

 Time is not our ally here.  We have for decades planned for the eventuality.  It is upon us.

Finally

The United States is finally re-asserting itself internationally in a morally and unequivocally correct way with last week’s military strike against the Assad regime in Syria. 

The images of dead and dying children, their lives choked away by poisonous chemicals, moved President Trump to act.  Although the murderous regime in Damascus is clearly not the only source of human suffering in the world, it nonetheless provided the impetus for a swift decision. The ongoing atrocities imposed by Assad on his own people remain limitless, but human suffering alone does not provide a sufficiently robust foundation to act. However, when our national interests intersect with human suffering, it is the right thing to do. 

Without a stable Syria, extremism and terrorism of all kinds will continue to grow. Assad is fighting everything that challenges his family’s brutal rule. His singular focus on the resistance has facilitated the unbounded growth of ISIS: while Assad crushes his opposition, ISIS grows. In fact, Syria is a training ground for terrorists to gain experience in their evolving form of lawless war craft…bomb making, weapons proficiency, terror tactics and recruitment. The caliphate created by ISIS is a free-fire zone of brutality and inhumanity of epic proportions. Syria is a total mess. 

President Trump has acknowledged that it’s his mess. Regardless of how America got here, he is embracing this disaster as his own. The cruise missile strike was successful. It had a narrowly defined and proportional military objective to strike the Syrian air base that conducted the chemical attack last week. The strike was not intended to collapse the regime, weaken Assad’s military, or deny him use of his Air Force.  It was simply the first of what will likely be more efforts to further degrade Syria’s military and diplomatic relationships with Russia. 

If not completely tired of propping up Assad, Putin is quickly tiring of the cost to Russia in maintaining their influence in the Middle East. Russia, and before that the Soviet Union, has always had a presence in the Middle East and the region has long been a nexus for east-west competition.  The Syrian port of Tartus provides Russia an underrated and vital Mediterranean naval base. Russia’s military presence in Syria is all-encompassing and makes up the fabric of Syria’s military.  The United States cannot easily separate Syria’s behavior from Russia’s –  that’s why taking action in Syria is so important.

 The strike in Syria was clearly designed to help unseat Assad, but our recent actions really have more to do with Russia than Syria. If not already obvious to the casual observer, there is no good reason why any nation would try to assist Assad’s brutality. Russia is at great risk by sticking by him and they know it.  Their patience is running out. 

Russia is losing the information war. They do not want out of the Middle East but Russia most certainly wants out of the Assad quagmire. Assad must go and Russia probably has no pre-conditions on the manner of his departure or his ultimate disposition…dead, in jail or on a beach somewhere. Where the United States and Russia might converge is on who and what’s next for Syria. We should try to find out how that common interest can be achieved.

 Russia wants US military cooperation. Without giving away the crown jewels of our technology, it is in our best interests to figure out how we can make that happen. Putin knows that American military capabilities are far superior to his.  The United States would crush Russia in a conventional fight, but that kind of engagement is not likely. It’s not in either of our interests for that to occur. Cooperation along the lines of influence and shared interests beats the alternative – for Russia certainly, but for the United States as well. We hold the cards and wrested the initiative away from Russia…finally. 

Our actions in Syria have immense implications in the Far East, especially our emerging strategy to contain North Korean nuclear and missile developments. It may have been happenstance that the strike against Syria was ordered when Chinese President Xi Jinping (Pyongyang’s benefactor) was visiting President Trump in Florida, but what a gift for our President. The “gods of coincidence” were clearly working their magic last week.  

President Trump swiftly decided to strike a brutal dictator in Syria who has zero regard for his people. The brutal dictator in North Korea, Kim Jung Un, who also has zero regard for his people, clearly got the message.  Just this past weekend, the U.S. Navy’s Carl Vinson Carrier Battle Group was ordered to transit from Singapore to the Korean peninsula in case Kim misunderstood.

 America is watching and is prepared to act. 

 The United States must cooperate with China to find a convergence of interests that has atrophied over the past decade. Shaping behavior in the regime in Pyongyang that reduces the risk of a nuclear accident is in the shared best interest of the United States and China. The rest of the world agrees. 

 It is the start of a more fulsome relationship with China. If events in Syria can positively influence the arc of our diplomatic engagements in the Far East, all the better for America, China, Russia, and our fight against extremism…finally. 

The Principles of War…In Business

We are now several weeks into the new administration and the frenetic pace of executive orders, protests, legal rulings and multiple Presidential meetings with business leaders seems only to be picking up pace.  The National Security Advisor resigned on February 13th following revelations of his mischaracterization (i.e., lying) regarding his communications with the Russian ambassador.  It’s inarguably a busy time with a decidedly pugilistic feel to it.  The administration is sparring with a host of antagonists and there is a “martial” feel to these first few weeks.

 This situation is not all bad.  Many changes are necessary in our international posture and domestic policies.  If boundaries are not pushed, assumptions challenged, and behaviors modified, stasis will continue to define us.  That is not why Trump was elected.  He must be a change agent…and in change there is uncertainty, volatility, and chaos.  In light of the administration’s rhythm of engagement, I thought it might be a good opportunity to step back and view these critical first few weeks, and, what I certainly a blueprint for the next few years, through a leadership lens.

 This administration is about creating jobs and shoring up our economy in a manner that benefits “America first.”  Without question, there is a strong, sharp-edged, in-your-face feel to this administration.  Accurate or not, both the administration and the media, in these first few weeks, have decided to compete.  We should not be surprised by this characterization of the relationship since many of President Trump’s cabinet leaders and members of his inner circle are business and former military leaders who are trained in the art and science of creating and calming chaos.

 It is quite common to view military leadership through a much broader lens and ascribe its characteristics and principles to business.  It seems to fit.

 The “missions” of business are not dissimilar from the military…defining the purpose, describing the necessary tasks, designing the organization, building the team, and achieving open and precise communications.  The risks are similar as well.  Sadly, but inevitably, soldiers may die in combat and their units may suffer loss; nothing in life is more tragic or permanent.  A business may fail and drag its employees down with it.  Certainly, this does not place anyone at physical risk, but a negative outcome in business is personally damaging and the effects long-lasting.  Families are displaced and careers are ruined.

 The art of war has been practiced and studied for millennia.  Not unlike other theoretical fields of study or practical professions, the art of war is rooted in a doctrine and a set of principles.

 The Principles of War, codified by Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian who fought in the Imperial Russian Army in the early 19th century against Napoleon, guides our study of warfare and military leadership in war today.  By comparison, Peter Drucker, the brilliant and prolific author (over 25 books) who studied and established the guiding principles of business, shares many of Clausewitz’s views.

 What Clausewitz did for the study of war, Drucker did for the study of business.  Military and business leadership arguably are two sides of the same coin.

 There are nine Principles of War.  They are: objective, offensive, mass, economy of force, maneuver, unity of command, security, surprise, and simplicity.

 I think it’s helpful to provide a brief description of each.

 Objective: This is the ultimate purpose of war, to destroy the enemy’s ability and will to fight, by directing every military operation toward a clearly defined, decisive and attainable end.

 Offensive: Seize, retain, and exploit the initiative.  Offensive action is the most effective and decisive way to attain a clearly defined common objective while maintaining freedom of action and achieving decisive results.

 Mass: By synchronizing the effects of overwhelming combat power, rather than concentrating forces, at the decisive place and time, a numerically inferior force can achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy fire.

 Economy of Force: This is the opposite of mass.  Economy of force is the realization that one must employ all combat power in the most effective and judicious way possible.  Every part of the force must have purpose.

 Maneuver: Maneuver is the deliberate movement of forces in relation to the enemy to gain an advantage.  It is used to exploit your successes and to preserve your freedom of action.  Maneuver is a demonstration of initiative.

 Unity of Command: For every objective, you must seek unity of command and unity of effort.  Unity of command means that all the forces are under one responsible commander.

 Security: You should never permit the enemy to acquire unexpected advantage.  Security enhances freedom of action by reducing vulnerability to hostile acts, influence, or surprise.  Security results from knowledge of your enemy and solid planning.

 Surprise: You must strike the enemy at a time, place, and manner for which he is unprepared.  Surprise can decisively shift the balance of combat power and momentum.

 Simplicity: Prepare clear, uncomplicated plans and concise orders to ensure their understanding.  Everything in was is very simple, but the simple thing is difficult.  Other factors being equal, straightforwardness is to be preferred.

By cross-walking each principle of war to business, it’s not surprising to see the similarities overlap.

 Objective: No business has ever emerged from infancy of a notion to realization of growth without a clear and decisive statement of purpose.  An example: Amazon’s vision is to be “earth’s most customer centric company; to build a place where people can come to find and discover anything they might want to buy online.”

 Offensive: This demands disruption.  You should be first to market by establishing the bar.  Of course, you’d prefer to have market share and defend against newcomers that try to break in with possibly nothing more than a knock off.  If you want to own the high ground, take it.  You should want to be there first.

 Mass of Economy and Force: These two principles keep us in balance.  You must focus on what supports and advances the core delivery and get behind that effort with every resource.  Simultaneously, you must be mindful of exposure that this priority effort requires.  Where are you most weak when strong elsewhere?  Answer that question to identify and mitigate risk.

 Maneuver: If you’re stagnant in business, you’re irrelevant, at risk, and ultimately dead.  Stay focused on the core of your business and invest (maneuver) in new markets and additional revenue channels.  Think disruption but don’t grab at every shiny object.  Have a plan to get to where you are not.

 Unity of Command: There’s always someone who’s in charge.  However, in companies with a matrix design of teaming to attack opportunities, leadership often is never declared or, more importantly, resourced.  Set your teams up for success and clearly establish the authority and responsibility lines at the beginning.  Remove any doubt about who’s in charge.

 Security and Surprise: Protect your organization from competitors and yourself.  If you can accomplish that, you’ll never be completely surprised.  The best security is a greater understanding of the market environment and competitors.  Mostly, competitors (your enemy) are outside your organization; however, increasingly and troubling, your worst enemy may be “inside the wire” in the form of an insider threat.  Have a program to monitor the environment and yourself.  If you know yourself, and you know the environment, you’ll win.  At the end of the day, it is about winning.

 Simplicity: We know the KISS rule: keep it simple, stupid.  Possibly a less insulting description is to use Occam’s Razor, the principle of parsimony, economy, and succinctness.  Among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  Of course!  We should never deviate from this rule.  As Steve Jobs said, “That’s been one of my mantras – focus and simplicity.  Simple can be harder than complex.  You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple.  But it’s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains.”

The basics of leadership are to influence a team to get the job done by providing purpose, direction, and motivation.  It’s fair to say that when the principles of war are applied to business and our Presidential administration, successful outcomes are more likely.

 Additionally, an organization will evolve that knows its people and promotes their welfare, develops leadership, demand openness in communications, trains its members, and grows as a team.  There can be no better outcome.  I’d say Clausewitz and Drucker would agree, as would our President.  Let’s hope that everyone else on either side do as well.

Let’s Hope…Not Exclusively

The administration of President Trump is picking up speed in its First 100 Days and, as advertised, campaigned, and promised, a lot is happening by way of executive order and legislative policy  priority. The top priority issues are not a surprise: create an energy plan, focus on foreign policy, create job growth, strengthen our military, support law enforcement, and establish trade deals favorable to America.

In the past ten days, the White House has issued executive orders in each of these areas to create the necessary momentum to affect the change the President has said he needs in order to “make America great again.” Campaign promises and election results should be adhered to I think we would all agree to that. The American people elected a candidate who indicated that he’d alter the course of our country domestically and internationally. It’s a tall order, but it’s how he was elected and we should not be surprised by his swift and decisive actions.

Not surprisingly, America has spoken as there are unintended consequences to each. Not only are American citizens nervous and, in some cases, boisterous about these executive declarations, there are reactions that we must be prepared for internationally. Inconceivable as it may seem, consider the following: Could we have another ground war in Europe?

Since the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), we’ve prepared for the eventuality of ground combat in Europe. Why shouldn’t we? In the arc of less than 30 years, Germany’s adventurism, exploitation, and butchery of its neighbors were the norm. Europe planned for the best and was unprepared for the worst. Two generations of European youth suffered unimaginable horrors and lost faith in their neighbor’s intentions.

After World War II, NATO provided for the common defense of Europe. This effort was led by American values, goodwill, and extreme military capacity to counter the Soviet threat of military and economic intrusion and coercion. It worked. For the next 67 years following the end of World War II, Europe had been at peace. The Balkan crisis of the mid 90’s revealed the worst case of European recidivism, but total collapse of a united Europe was averted.

What’s next for Europe? International attention, resources, and commitment for the past 20 years have been laser focused on challenges of radical Islamic terrorism. It’s a scourge that has its roots in the Middle East but affects all geographies with its ideology of barbarism and loose interpretation of the Koran to suit extremist views. It’s cynical yet effective.

While the world has paid almost exclusive attention to attacking radical Islam, trying to deal with the aftershocks of missed opportunities and an inability to abort or limit its reach, cracks in our common defense have surfaced.

An open and free Europe Union (EU) is rightfully challenged. BREXIT, the United Kingdom’s populist decision to exit the EU, was the first step of many that will follow. What has been an open Europe defined by a common history and currency is now at risk. Gates have replaced bridges. Refugees wait for months or longer for admission to the EU. Camps in northern Greece grow in
size and squalor. Syria’s largest export is its people.

The chaos in the Middle East and North Africa has propelled refugee migration levels to numbers not seen since the end of World War II. Not unlike the period following World War II, tolerance and understanding for the human condition of the displaced and disadvantaged are in short supply. Europe is a mess; BREXIT was the logical result of an island nation tired of dealing with the in-exactitude of policies not aligned with their national best interest.

The Russian Federation, meanwhile, is taking a century’s-long view and behaves not dissimilarly to Czarist Russia.  Crises elsewhere distract the world’s attention while Russia marches forward to ensure its place as a world power. The Romanovs have been replaced by Vladimir Putin, but he won’t suffer a similar fate.

Most assuredly, Russia has its host of problems, including a fledgling economy, but its national prestige has never been more robust and its leader more revered. A bare-chested Putin rides a horse and it’s followed by fireworks, a national celebration, and a media campaign. Putin knows exactly who and what he’s feeding: the nationalistic pride of the Russian people and the fears of Russia’s neighbors, both near and afar (i.e., the EU).

The EU and the United States have been distracted. We’ve been fighting extreme Islamic radicals who have a singular mission to destroy western modernism. It doesn’t matter what we do; these radicals want us dead. Hence, we’ve been busy. The window of opportunity was opened. Russia walked through.

Russia annexed Crimea with ground troops and we watched. Russia attacked the Syrian resistance with fighter aircraft and we watched. Russia attacked our Presidential election via cyber-tactics and we watched. Russia says it’s acting in its own national self-interest, but Moscow’s bad behavior is reinforced by our acquiescence. Russia can and will do what it wants while will watch.

Maybe not. Russian adventurism may be stopped. The Trump administration wants to improve relations with Russia, but we cannot tolerate this behavior. President Putin does not have a preexisting relationship with President Trump, so the choreography of their diplomatic dance has not yet been set in determining acceptable standards of conduct.

Who leads and who follows? Who tests the limits of tolerable behavior? These are unknowns with these two international leaders. It’s not outside the realm of the possible to see a provocative move by Russia in the Baltics or an increase in military undertaking in Syria to spark a series of events on the ground that neither the U.S. nor Russia are in a position to modify or mitigate.

It’s not unrealistic to assume Russian intervention in the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Kaliningrad is a port city in Russia, but it is cut off and geographically isolated from the rest of the federation by Lithuania and Poland. The Baltic states have the largest Russian-speaking populations of all NATO countries and share a common border with Russia. Direct land access to Kaliningrad is governed by treaty, but remains a clear and present irritant to Moscow.

We should not be surprised to see another “Crimealike” “soft invasion” by Russia in order to protect “ethnic Russians” outside the federation. Soldiers and special operators dressed in mufti one day, could suddenly appear in uniform the next once across the border into the Baltic states. That is exactly how Putin invaded Crimea three years ago.

The difference between what happened in the Ukraine and this possible scenario is stark. Unlike the Ukraine, the Baltic states are members of NATO. Article V of the NATO charter stipulates that an attack, regardless of how it’s executed, on one NATO member is an attack on all. The taking of Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, is the equivalent of an attack on Munich or Tampa or Milan. NATO would immediately be involved to forcibly remove Russian troops.

I’ve been trained my entire life to rely little on hope and to plan for the worst possible outcome. This would be the worst possible outcome, but I sure would be looking for a nice inventory of hope. Russia would claim sovereign rights to protect its “citizens” on its near border. Their actions would be swift, precise, and, very possibly, virtually nonlethal.  It would be over before the first alert of an incursion or a demand to invoke Article V of the NATO charter could be executed.

So, what happens then? Article V would guide and govern NATO’s actions. The treaty’s teeth have never really been stressed; this would stress every aspect of NATO and European solidarity. Most assuredly, military action would follow. Europe would be at war again, and America would be involved deeply, inexorably, and making the necessary sacrifices that our international partners expect of American leadership.

No one wants this. All would lose…a provocative Russia, a European Union struggling with its identity, and a NATO alliance exhausted after 15 years of combat in the Middle East. It is, however, a real possibility.

Our new administration, we must assume, is no doubt engaged in the necessary planning to anticipate this possibility and is creating the engagement steps to build trust among the Russian Federation, our European allies, and ourselves. We should all ask to know what those steps are. How can we contribute to them? How can we measure their success?

Hope, most assuredly, is not a methodology to achieve success. We can hope that Russia will not use “ethnic minority” grievances in the Baltics as a pretext to an invasion, but we will plan otherwise. In this case, we will conduct exhaustive, pressure-tested planning, but hope must be present as well and in equal supply.

Winter is Coming

 

Let’s start with what we know.  Russia hacked into both the Democratic and Republican National Committees before the U.S. Presidential election.  We can safely assume that it’s still happening.  How and what Russia specifically accomplished are unknown, but Russian cyber capabilities are without a doubt well-advanced and U.S. intelligence analysts were not surprised.  There is ample speculation as to why Russia did what they did and it leads to the same conclusion…to influence the U.S. election in favor of President-elect Donald Trump.

 This as a Russian “influence operation” – an effort to send information or disinformation to a target audience, in this case U.S. voters, to cause doubt or worry about the resilience and legitimacy of the U.S. electoral system.

 The argument that now dominates the analysis is whether Russia was actually able to produce their desired outcome…to help get Donald Trump elected.  If the premise is that Russia preferred a Donald Trump presidency to a Hillary Clinton presidency, then the conclusion can be easily if not accurately validated.  Russia’s hacking helped give us President-elect Trump.  However, we will never be able to draw that conclusion, albeit many have already proclaimed it the new “slam dunk.”  President-elect Trump’s victory is not in question, but the fact that we are talking about its legitimacy means Russia’s influence operation was a success.  Russia gets a win here.

 Taking a step back, the broader strategic is not the legitimacy of the outcome of our election or Russian intrusion into it via the internet.  The issue with the internet is that it is a new domain of competition that remains largely ungoverned.  In military terms, cyber is the new domain of war.  The law of war is a legal term describing and legitimizing war and the justifications for it.  These laws address how wars are declared, military necessity and proportionality, and prohibitions on certain weapons.  From these, we’ve derived the laws of land warfare, armed conflict at sea, and air war legitimacy.  By contrast, there are no similar rules prescribing behavior in cyberspace.  There should be.

 Anyone can do just about anything online.  We know that.  Cyber presence affords an anonymity that sadly, but predictably, encourages bad behavior.  Its prevalence and routine make the risks of misuse personal.  Currently, the misuse by Russia is political and we are right to be outraged.  However, the risk of a directed cyber operation to create an outcome has a consequence far greater than personal or political.  The risks are existential.  If not addressed, 300 years of U.S. history are at risk and this experiment of democracy teeters.

 After the Soviet’s successful nuclear test in 1949, nuclear competition with the U.S. created a coerced (thank goodness!) and cooperative understanding between Moscow and Washington that unchecked nuclear development was both limitless and pointless.  Mutually assured destruction, or “MAD”, convinced us both that something had to be done to reduce the threat of complete annihilation.

 Capabilities online to conduct both offensive and defensive computer operations put us at risk not dissimilar to a cyber MAD.  As we’ve witnessed, there is an increasingly precise capability to have a persistent presence online, to move anywhere, to linger anywhere, to peer over the shoulder, and to gather intelligence.

 This can be done by the voyeuristic or the trained.  The tools and skills are available to either.  Not surprisingly, we respond only to pain…far more than pleasure.  The pain right now is political meddling by the Russians in our Presidential election through a very prescribed computer operation.  It’s bold, intrusive, disruptive, and many have labeled it an “act of war.”  That may be a stretch, but it is where we are.

 Russia and many other nations and non-state actors use the internet to conduct their business…whatever that business is – legal, illegal or illicit.  The skills of these cyber warriors persistently grow asymptomatically, yet the competition is undefined.  There are no lanes, no finish line, no prescribed number of participants, no rules.  It’s time we create some.

 Unchecked cyber operations can and have gotten well beyond individual criminal malfeasance or political influence operations.  We are on the edge of a “cyber winter” where financial systems are at risk.  Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems that use computers and networked data communications to interface with machinery like electric grids, power plants, dams, traffic lights and emergency communications are at risk.  We don’t have enough hand pumps to draw water from underground wells.  We don’t even use underground wells anymore!  Traffic pile ups will occur; there will be a rush for gas; food on store shelves will spoil.  What access there is to the internet will be tightly controlled.  We won’t be able to stay in simple communications with each other.

 We will be out of touch and we will panic.

 This is a nightmare scenario, but it’s our next reality if we choose the easier wrong and not the harder right.  The harder right requires us (in this case the U.S. and Russia) to acknowledge the enormous cost of inaction.  The United States and Russia must cooperate and agree that we have everything to lose if we don’t govern our actions online.

 In 1929, the USSR and the U.S. agreed that the threat of nuclear war was existential and real.  Left unchecked, the effects were irreversible.  The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and II) were followed by the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START I and II).  Signed in 2011, New START governs the nuclear “relationship” between the U.S. and the Russian Federation.

 Today, we need to have the same diplomatic resolve to recognize and proclaim the menace of cyber terrorism and the existential threat of coordinated cyber-attacks.  Forty years ago, a nuclear winter was a shared picture of a real threat.  A similar “winter is coming” if not interrupted now.

 We used to call cooperation with the Soviet Union détente.  No panacea but détente provided codified and accepted rules to govern behavior…even bad behavior.  There were limits.  We need limits today.

 A new administration will establish new norms in our relationship with Russia.  There are many areas where trust-building measures can be prescribed and tested.  Syria is not one of those.  There’s too much at immediate risk by trying to coordinate tactical military operations with the Russian military in a hot war in the Middle East with no previous experience of cooperating on even the simplest of military tasks.  Not a good idea.

 However, the U.S. and Russia can and should embrace the chaos and real danger of ungoverned cyber activity.  This is our shared burden, a place to start our new relationship.  We can work our way through the protocols and construct an agreement that minimally sets some boundaries.  Forty years ago, we were equally incentivized to control the risk of a nuclear world that was a miscalculation away from disaster.  We need to find the incentive to do the same today.

 The threat is no less significant.