.@EsperDoD - #NDS says priority is first China then Russia. Must shift away from low intensity conflict to preparing for high intensity. Rogue states are secondary. Terrorism enduring background problem. 🎯 1/ #MSC2020
Speech will focus on Pentagon’s top problem: China. 2/
Xi is leading China faster and farther in wrong direction including more aggressive military posture. Intl community must wake up to what China presents. 3/
PLA increasingly operating well beyond its borders including Europe. (My take: Next 10 years we’ll be taken aback how far flung PLA will operations will be. WestPac remains priority theater though.) 4/
Beijing’s military expansion must be Europe’s concern too. 5/
PRC seeks to militarily modernize by 2035 and dominate Asia from a position of global preeminence by 2049. 6/
US seeks open and fair competition with China not conflict. All China needs to do is respect the rules and treat other countries w fairness and respect. 7/
.@DeptofDefense is implementing #NDS. W 21 budget DOD will make biggest RDTE investment ever while divesting from ill suited legacy systems. Also investing in AI, space, and other high tech 👍 8/
Not asking partners to reject engagement w China but that they hold China to right standards and be realistic. Short term costs for long term benefits. 9/
.@EsperDoD gives clear, strong speech on China & strategic vision and first question from moderator is on Afghanistan and Iraq. Perfect example of why strategic prioritization is hard. Why doesn’t media ask about PLA or 5G? 🙄 10/
Second question by other moderator on Huawei and European reaction. 👍 11/
.@EsperDoD : Bipartisan consensus on Huawei took time in US. Will take time in Europe. But optimistic. But can’t afford to ignore the threat. 12/
Oh wait ANOTHER question on Afghanistan. Seriously? And then a follow up!!! 13/
In response to good question from @IlvesToomas about what’s alternative, @EsperDoD admits a good point. Working on it! 14/
#NATO should focus on security or continent. Alliance has hit 30s targets. My take: That’s exactly right. NATO should hold down the fort in Europe by denying RF fait accompli option in East. Don’t lose the bubble.) 15/
Great stuff from @EsperDoD. Polite but to the point. Focused. China first. Europe should do its part by backing Econ and political efforts to induce good Chinese behavior while ensuring NATO security. 👍
Also great point from @EsperDoD when asked what NATO should do in Asia. His answer: Basically nothing. Focus on Europe and your region. Exactly right. 🎯
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Pre-Ukraine, we had munitions requirements that were in almost every important case — particularly for the Indo-Pacific — not even close to being met For the most important [Pacific] munitions, we haven’t hit the total munitions requirement.” 1/ defensenews.com/pentagon/2024/…
“At times, those stocks don’t have any margin — and in some cases, the U.S. is even dipping below minimum inventory requirements, according to congressional staffers and former Pentagon officials.” 2/
Indeed.
“In addition to Israel, the Biden administration has sent an enormous quantity of materiel to Ukraine since Russia’s 2022 invasion. Meanwhile, the U.S. is gearing up to rush an influx of arms to Taiwan.” 3/
“What does seem clear, however, is that China is deliberately stockpiling at speed, part of a much wider national effort to accumulate essential raw materials and resource.” 1/
“What is clear, Western experts and officials say, is that the government in Beijing has learned multiple lessons from Russia’s troubled experience in Ukraine.” 2/
The fait accompli:
“These include the desirability of managing any military takeover extremely quickly, presenting the outside world – and particularly the U.S. – with a lightning change of government in Taiwan’s capital Taipei before anyone can truly react.” 3/
"According to Pistorius, Russia is producing weapons and ammo beyond the needs for the offensive war against Ukraine...with increasing military spending and a war economy, “a large part of newly produced no longer goes to the front lines but ends up in the depots." 1/
"He also warns of further military ambitions from Putin. Pistorius remarked, “One could be naive and say he is doing this out of caution. I, as a more skeptical person, would say in this case, he is doing this because he might have something in mind.” 2/
"Earlier it was reported that Russia’s defense industry significantly increased its production output in 2023. This expansion included growing the workforce to approximately 3.5 million people, implementing increased shift patterns, expanding existing production lines, and bringing idle production capacity back into service." 3/
Malcom Kyeyune goes a lot farther than I would here, but there's a lot to chew on.
The disconnect between the power centers and the foot soldiery of society just seems yawning - and the elite doesn't seem to be trying to grapple with why. 1/
"Ordinary American voters are no doubt starting to feel what the put-upon Romans did: the empire is no longer working for them." 2/
"Previously, such measures would have been justified with bromides about freedom and democracy, but such rhetoric no longer commands the same authority." 3/
Former CSAF Goldfein said. “And while these missions have been growing, our Air Force has been getting smaller. ... We’re actually the smallest Air Force we’ve ever been.”
Since then, it has shrunk further and is now on track to get smaller still.” 1/
“The fleet already totals less than one-fifth of its size during its fiscal 1956 peak, when the service had 26,104 aircraft.” 2/
“@ToddHarrisonDC said that while modern aircraft do offer more speed, range, stealth and other advantages over previous generations of technology, “the reality is that one plane can only be in one place at a time.” 3/
I consider @RepGallagher and Matt Pottinger to be good friends. Each has a distinguished record of service to the country, above all on China. I agree with them about a great deal.
But I fundamentally disagree with their core argument here.
1) We do not need their goal of full regime change and liberalization in China to achieve core American national interests vis a vis China.
2) Pursuing that goal against China greatly raises the risks of cataclysmic war, which we must try to avoid. 2/
As to 1, Americans can sustain their security, freedom, and prosperity so long as there is a balance of power with China. This requires a favorable balance of power in Asia.
With this, we can negotiate the terms of China's continued growth from a position of strength. 3/