Chinese War Simulation Finds Top US Carrier Group Could Be ‘Destroyed With Certainty’
By Wyatt Reed – Sputnik – 25.05.2023
War games conducted by Chinese researchers found the US military’s most prized aircraft carrier could be reliably sunk with relative ease in the event of a hot war in the South China Sea.
A volley of hypersonic missiles could reliably sink the US military’s most powerful aircraft carrier group in a potential conflict, according to war game simulations carried out by a team of Chinese military planners.
Using 24 of their most advanced anti-ship missiles, Chinese forces consistently destroyed a carrier fleet led by the USS Gerald R. Ford over the course of 20 mock battles in simulations which were run on a war game platform employed by the People’s Liberation Army.
In the simulation, the US ships came under fire after ignoring multiple Chinese warnings not to approach an island in the South China Sea controlled by Beijing.
For test purposes, the war games’ designers used a carrier group made up of six surface ships which were selected for their “unparalleled strength and advanced technology.”
A major Hong Kong-based newspaper reported that the military planners “selected vessels deemed the US Navy’s most superior – the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford, accompanied by a CG56 Ticonderoga-class cruiser the San Jacinto, and four DDG-103 Arleigh Burke-class Flight IIA guided missile destroyers.”
Led by Cao Hongsong from the North University of China, the researchers found that virtually every US surface vessel was ravaged by the attack and eventually sank.
According to researchers, the Ford carrier group – which was once thought to be all but unsinkable – could actually be “destroyed with certainty” using just a handful of hypersonic missile strikes.
Chinese military planners placed a number of constraints on themselves in the simulation, including cutting their access to space-based spy satellites and limiting the number of hypersonic missiles available.
The basic principle underlying the exercise was to be “lenient with the enemy and strict with oneself,” Cao explained.
As the Hong Kong-based outlet explained, “during the simulation, the PLA used its sea-based surveillance network to detect and identify the US carrier group before firing eight of the less-reliable hypersonic missiles simultaneously from southern and central sites in China.”
Though “some of the missiles were intercepted, the attack depleted the US fleet’s SM-3 munitions, paving the way for the PLA to launch “eight of its more accurate hypersonic missiles from northern and western China, with four focused on the aircraft carrier while the others targeted the destroyers,” the outlet noted.
“After the attack, four ships survived from the blue [US] team, with the destroyers having the most remaining, on average.”
A “mop-up” operation with six of the less accurate hypersonic missiles was able to dispatch with the remaining vessels, the research paper determined.
After the simulation was run 20 times to allow for different variables which could affect the outcome of the engagement, the team’s strategy was ultimately able to eliminate an average of 5.6 out of 6 surface vessels – effectively meaning the “total destruction” of the carrier group.
The release of a paper detailing the war game in May marked “the first time the results of simulated hypersonic strikes against a US carrier group have been made public” by China’s military, the Honk Kong outlet noted.
But it’s likely to be seen as a warning to Washington against any provocations in the South China Sea.
An anonymous Beijing-based researcher interviewed by the outlet suggested that “greater transparency about China’s military capabilities and intentions could help to reduce misunderstandings and miscalculations on both sides, which could in turn help to reduce the risk of conflict.”
Biden’s Re-Election Hinges On The Success Of Kiev’s Counteroffensive
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | MAY 25, 2023
Senior Ukrainian presidential advisor Mikhail Podolyak told Italian media that his country’s much-hyped counteroffensive already began a few days ago, which is curious since that timeframe coincides with its proxy invasion of Russia’s Belgorod Region that was just copium for deflecting from Artyomovsk’s loss. That media-driven stunt tremendously failed to achieve any tangible gains, however, thus raising even more questions than ever before about whether the counteroffensive will succeed at all.
The Washington Post raised awareness in March about how poorly Kiev’s troops were faring in the NATO-Russian proxy war, which was followed by Politico citing unnamed Biden Administration officials a month later who worried about the consequences of it failing to meet the public’s expectations. Former Russian chess champion Garry Kasparov then concocted a conspiracy theory wildly speculating that Kremlin agents infiltrated the White House and sabotaged the counteroffensive before it even began.
This popular pro-Kiev figure seemed to have been spooked by Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Michael McCaul telling Bloomberg that “I think there’s going to be a lot riding on the line with this counteroffensive. If Ukraine is successful in the eyes of the American people and the world, I think it will be a game-changer for continued support. If they are not, that will also have an impact, in a negative way, though.” In other words, its failure could lead to the US severely curtailing aid to Kiev.
Therein lies the real reason why the counteroffensive is still going ahead despite the overwhelming odds against its success that were detailed in the preceding months by the Washington Post and Politico. Biden’s re-election hinges on the success of this campaign after NATO already sent over $165 billion in taxpayer-provided aid to Kiev, the vast majority of which came from the US. He needs anything that his perception managers can spin as a victory to justify this ahead of next year’s election.
It’s not just for the sake of placating taxpayers either in this increasingly partisan conflict that’s seen a rising number of Republicans calling for more pragmatism and restraint as opposed to their Democrat rivals who remain gung-go about going all in for as long as it takes. Biden presided over the US’ most humiliating military loss in history after August 2021’s chaotic evacuation from Afghanistan, which infamously resulted in leaving a large number of Americans and allied locals behind to an unknown fate.
He and his team don’t care how many tens of thousands of Ukrainians have to be sacrificed in this conflict so long as they can achieve something that the Democrats can distort as having made the most geostrategically significant conflict since World War II worth provoking. A failed raid into Russia and an unsuccessful assassination attempt against President Putin aren’t considered by most Americans to be worth the risk of a Third World War by miscalculation.
After 15 months of fighting, Kiev has only managed to reconquer part of the territory that it claims as its own, which is unimpressive when considering that it has the full backing of what the US portrays as supposedly being the world’s most powerful military alliance in history. The NATO chief’s self-proclaimed “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with Russia that he declared in February inadvertently proved that Russia’s military-industrial complex can compete with the entire West’s.
That was an unintended self-inflicted blow to this de facto New Cold War bloc’s reputation of being a military superpower and also thus discredited their information warfare narrative that the Russian economy is collapsing. In late January, the New York Times admitted that the West’s sanctions failed, and then they admitted at the end of February after the NATO chief’s dramatic declaration that they also failed to isolate Russia too.
The abovementioned facts already make Biden look like a bumbling fool for provoking this conflict, which only proved just how limited the US’ influence and power have become in recent years, but he looks even worse when considering the bigger picture. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, former US National Security Council member Fiona Hill, and Goldman Sachs’ President of Global Affairs Jared Cohen all acknowledged earlier in May that multipolarity is now a geopolitical reality as a result of this conflict.
It’s only the Biden Administration and allied propagandists abroad that remain in denial about this, which places even more pressure on their proxies in Kiev to achieve something tangible throughout the course of its counteroffensive that they can then spin as having made it worth provoking this conflict. The clock is ticking too since there’s a growing consensus across the globe that this is their side’s “last hurrah” prior to likely commencing ceasefire and peace talks by year’s end or early 2024 at the latest.
The West’s military-industrial crisis will inevitably limit the pace, scale, and scope of armed aid to Kiev, not to mention the US’ election season that’ll see this conflict unprecedentedly politicized. Instead of soberly admitting his side’s shortcomings and proactively trying to reach some sort of peace agreement that could then be exploited as the pretext for him winning the Nobel Peace Prize and thus boosting his re-election prospects, Biden is gambling against the odds that the counteroffensive will succeed.
Even Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley foresaw in late January that it’ll likely be impossible for Kiev to remove Russia from all the territory that it claims as its own by this year, which means that Biden and his team are trying to prove the US’ top military official wrong. This in turn confirms that they’re prioritizing politics over military advice, thus extending credence to the claim that this counteroffensive is all about Biden’s re-election and not pushing Russia back to its pre-2014 borders.
If it fails to achieve this maximum objective as expected by Milley and the earlier cited US media, then the Republicans will rightly pounce on Biden to accuse him of cooking up the worst conflict since World War II in a desperate bid to win re-election by deflecting from his humiliating loss in Afghanistan. With his back against the wall, it can’t be discounted that his team will advise him to escalate to unthinkable levels, though Russia’s hypersonic missiles will likely keep him from crossing the ultimate red line.
Whichever way one games it out, there’s close to no chance that Kiev’s counteroffensive will meet the Western public’s expectations absent some black swan event, which means that Biden will be running for re-election with two losses under his belt in Afghanistan and Ukraine. It’s difficult to imagine that Americans will give him and his team another four years in office after they humiliated the US so badly, but tens of thousands more might still die before these warmongers are removed from power.
US military aid to Ukraine could be suspended due to debt ceiling – media
By Ahmed Adel | May 25, 2023
The Hill reported that US military funding to Ukraine could be suspended indefinitely due to proceedings in Washington over the public debt ceiling. Effectively, the public debt situation will force the US to reduce its financial support to Ukraine since it is no longer possible to expect as much support as before.
Congressman Andy Kim, a House Armed Services Committee (HASC) member, was quoted by The Hill as saying that lawmakers had conversations about what needs to be a part of the following package but expressed doubts about the timing of the legislation and highlighted that the ongoing fight over the debt ceiling was putting Ukraine aid at risk.
“It’s delaying our ability to focus on these issues,” Kim said. “That really shows that it has national security implications because we’re not able to have that kind of earnest conversation about Ukraine or the [National Defense Authorization Act] until they’re done with that.”
For his part, Congressman Bill Keating said aid to Ukraine would ultimately depend on its counteroffensive, something that will seemingly miss its long-anticipated spring deadline.
“It’s not a precise science to say what because it could be gains that were made that make more support less necessary,” Keating said. “Or there could be damage inflicted where there has to be more” assistance.
Ukrainian authorities have been promoting its upcoming counteroffensive, and NATO officials have indicated Ukraine has nearly all the promised weapons and equipment needed. Last year’s support was phenomenal, but sustaining such aid at this level is difficult. The public debt situation has affected and will continue affecting public opinion because out of all the spending, people will sacrifice those least sensitive to American society, and not such huge expenses as funding a war in Eastern Europe.
Congress is determined to cut spending, making funding difficult for Ukraine. The only thing that was announced by Congress Speaker Kevin McCarthy and confirmed by the White House was the spending cuts. Military spending is not discussed, but the funding for Ukraine now is many times less than last year. Ukraine can hardly expect the same funding it received as in the past.
The Treasury Department warned in a letter to Congress that as early as June 1, the US may not be able to fully meet its obligations if lawmakers do not authorise an increase in the borrowing limit by that time. Normally, Congress almost automatically raises the borrowing limit, but this time, the Republican opposition, who controls the House, has demanded that it reduce spending by several trillion dollars. The Republican bill passed the House of Representatives but has no chance of being approved in the Senate by Democrats, and even if the document reaches Biden, he will most likely veto the bill.
At the same time, the US finds it very difficult to accept the loss of Artemovsk (Bakhmut). With Ukrainian forces losing control of Artemovsk, the long-mooted counteroffensive becomes more politically urgent than ever for Kiev.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tried to keep his promise to launch a counterattack and for this reason, he continually requested the West for more weapons. As they lost control of Artemovsk, launching an offensive operation is the best way for Kiev to restart its plea for weapons from its NATO allies.
Zelensky is clearly in a difficult situation because the Ukrainian army is not ready for a counterattack and desperately needs ammunition. However, the Russian army almost immediately destroys any weapon concentration, which is starting to raise a series of questions about the success or failure of the Ukrainian counterattack.
This comes as many high-ranking military officials, including Polish Chief of the General Staff Rajmund Andrzejczak and US General Christopher G. Cavoli, acknowledged Russia’s ability to continue fighting without significant loss. Meanwhile, 40% to 60% of Ukrainian soldiers who completed their training in France in 2022 have no contact with their trainers and have likely died in battle or abandoned the battlefield.
Despite the propaganda pushed by the Kiev regime and Western media, Ukraine is clearly unable to launch its long-awaited spring offensive, and instead this is all a show to procure more weapons. The desperate situation for Ukraine coincides as Republicans and Democrats face off over the debt ceiling, proving problematic for Kiev’s quest to rearm.
House Republicans insist on spending cuts before they approve raising the nation’s debt ceiling past $31 trillion. Democrats claim Congress has already spent the money and must be allowed to repay America’s debtholders without leading to an economically disastrous default.
Negotiations are continuing to unfold to reach a debt limit deal, but the US default clock is ticking down despite it not being entirely clear when the US will officially run out of cash. When seen through this context, it is understandable why massive and reckless funding of the Ukrainian military is increasingly scrutinised.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
MISSOURI VS BIDEN: “ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT LAWSUITS OF OUR LIFETIME”
The Highwire with Del Bigtree
HighWire Editorial Contributor and Editor-in-Chief at UncoverDC, Tracy Beanz, describes Missouri vs. Biden as, “one of the most important lawsuits of our lifetime.” Attorney General of Missouri, Andrew Bailey, and Attorney General of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, take on the Office of the President and other federal offices for colluding with social media to suppress speech countering their narrative regarding COVID-19.
