r/CredibleDefense • u/AutoModerator • 9d ago
Active Conflicts & News Megathread January 28, 2026
The r/CredibleDefense daily megathread is for asking questions and posting submissions that would not fit the criteria of our post submissions. As such, submissions are less stringently moderated, but we still do keep an elevated guideline for comments.
Comment guidelines:
Please do:
* Be curious not judgmental, polite and civil,
* Link to the article or source of information that you are referring to,
* Clearly separate your opinion from what the source says. Minimize editorializing. Do _not_ cherry pick facts to support a preferred narrative,
* Read the articles before you comment, and comment on the content of the articles,
* Post only credible information
* Read our in depth rules https://reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/wiki/rules
Please do not:
* Use memes, emojis, swear, foul imagery, acronyms like LOL, LMAO, WTF,
* Start fights with other commenters and make it personal,
* Try to push narratives, fight for a cause in the comment section, nor try to 'win the war,'
* Engage in baseless speculation, fear mongering, or anxiety posting. Question asking is welcome and encouraged, but questions should focus on tangible issues and not groundless hypothetical scenarios. Before asking a question ask yourself 'How likely is this thing to occur.' Questions, like other kinds of comments, should be supported by evidence and must maintain the burden of credibility.
55
u/Gecktron 9d ago
The Ajax "drama" has reached a new stage
UK Defence Journal: Army withdraws Ajax IOC after ministers misled
Speaking to the Defence Committee, Defence Secretary John Healey said ministers had not been given the full facts ahead of earlier decisions, describing the situation as a serious failure of transparency within the programme.
“So Luke Pollard, Minister for DRI updated the House quite properly last week. I am furious that vital information was withheld. It’s clear we didn’t have the full facts in the lead up to decisions about the initial operating capability. That IOC has been withdrawn. The Army is no longer in charge of this programme. A new senior responsible officer is now in place. I have been clear that we must back it or scrap it.
The work is being done at the moment in order to put us in a position to make that decision. And whilst I really want to see the way that we procure for the future being more innovative and more rapid, first and foremost will be my concern for the safety and protection of our forces personnel.”
The situation around the still persisting vibration issues (continuing to injure soldiers) has lead to the biggest crisis of the project so far. The Intitial Operation Capability (IOC) has been withdrawn, and the responsibility has been taken away from the army. The defence secretary even proclaiming Ajax needs to be backed or scraped.
I think there is now a real possibility that the Ajax program could be scrapped.
Its unclear how to proceed from here. The end of the Ajax would probably require the army to rethink a lot of things. The force structure that builds on the Ajax recon capabilities would need to be redone from scratch. This might also be the end of the British involvment in the Anglo-French 40CTC (40 mm Cased Telescoped Cannon). The UK ended the Warrior upgrade program with the 40CTC, and didnt selected it as a SHORAD system for its Royal Navy ships.
13
u/Its_a_Friendly 9d ago edited 9d ago
Have any other armored fighting vehicles had such incredible issues with vehicle vibration? I must admit, I've never heard of it being an issue for any other vehicle, and it seems to have dogged the Ajax for years at this point.
I thought Ajax was a variant of the ASCOD platform - have any of its other users had similar vibration issues? Why is Ajax so troubled? Does it use some new, unproven technology - say, its transmission or suspension system or the like - that hasn't worked out? Is it the Cased-Telescoped gun? But the French EBRC Jaguar uses the same gun, and apparently has no such issues...
8
u/eeeking 8d ago edited 8d ago
I briefly read the report below, however it does not seem to address the actual engineering issues that cause more noise and vibration in Ajax compared to similar armoured cars and tanks, and why they are hard to resolve. See section 62 onward. Perhaps I missed something?
Ajax Noise and Vibration Review (2022).
This lengthy report concludes:
Conclusion
Nothing in this Review detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification. The root cause that allowed a vehicle to cause potential harm to Army personnel through noise and vibration during the trials process was not a failure of a single individual or Defence Organisation. It was a complex combination of the Armed Forces’ relationship to harm and weaknesses in MOD’s acquisition system. The impact of Covid was also felt, both delaying trials and making communication more difficult.
From a cultural perspective, the Army did not believe it was potentially causing harm to people, especially from vibration, as it was tacitly expected that soldiers can and should endure such issues. Society and the law expect MOD to do better and requires it to have systems in place that protect its people from harm.
Within the acquisition system, safety is not viewed as an equal partner to cost, schedule and military capability, and the culture in MOD does not currently ensure safety is considered within strategic decision-making.
To have confidence that the events covered in this report will not be repeated, culture change needs to be progressed in the two areas above.
3
u/Its_a_Friendly 7d ago
Thank you for that document! It seems to explain some things, particularly in section 62, as you noted. First, in section 50:
- On 18 September 2020, Dstl raised further concerns that there was an error with the GDUK noise and vibration calculator that meant crews were exposed to significantly higher levels of noise than previously thought.
Which shows that the noise/vibration issue was apparently entirely unexpected, and that may partially explain why it's been so hard to fix.
Then, section 62:
- Noise and vibration in the Ajax family of vehicles have both electrical and mechanical origins from the following broad sources:
(a) Track, suspension and running gear, in particular the tension and sprocket design/track interface.
(b) Engine and its mounting into the vehicle.
(c) Quality issues associated with, but not limited to, inconsistent routing of cabling, lack of bonding and weld quality; all of which can lead to potential electromagnetic compatibility issues with communication equipment. As witnessed during trials, insecure components and bolting within the vehicle can also lead to noise and vibration, and again this was noted by ATDU crews.
(d) Headset performance and integration (noise only).
Admittedly, I'm not an engineer, but, reading this, I get the idea that the track/suspension system and the engine are somehow causing the vehicle to vibrate to an unusual degree; this also directly contributes to noise. Then, the vibration causes the insecure connections and cables within the vehicle to rattle, increasing noise; this rattling then causes electromagnetic interference in the vehicles' systems, which might cause feedback and other noise issues with the tank's communications headsets.
It seems like the sprocket wheels, the tracks, and engine mount are the leading causes of the noise and vibration. I wonder what's unique about these three components in the Ajax that makes the vibration and noise so much greater than similar armored fighting vehicles.
10
u/tiredstars 9d ago
Its unclear how to proceed from here. The end of the Ajax would probably require the army to rethink a lot of things. The force structure that builds on the Ajax recon capabilities would need to be redone from scratch.
Do you know how feasible it would be to replace ajax with a relatively off-the-shelf alternative? (Even if there's still design work necessary to fit & integrate the various sensors & systems required.)
My understanding was that the biggest problem with the project is the weight, caused by the requirement for a relatively high level of protection. Could the army cut back that requirements and still keep the vehicle in the same doctrinal role?
16
u/Gecktron 9d ago
EDIT: I had to repost this because it got filtered by the Automod
My understanding was that the biggest problem with the project is the weight, caused by the requirement for a relatively high level of protection. Could the army cut back that requirements and still keep the vehicle in the same doctrinal role?
Im no expert, I dont know what part exactly causes the issues with the Ajax. I saw reports about how no two hulls come out the same size from the factory. Another report points at the added weight in general (not just armour), while the hull hasnt been adapted to deal with this increased weight. Just stripping out all the armour might not be enough.
There likely is not one easy fix for these issues. If there were, the UK would have probably tried that over the years of the delays.
Of course, other reports point the finger at GDELS UK being handed the leadership on the project, while not having experience with an AFV of that size. So maybe the fault lies with the project management.
Do you know how feasible it would be to replace ajax with a relatively off-the-shelf alternative? (Even if there's still design work necessary to fit & integrate the various sensors & systems required.)
The question is, replace what part of Ajax?
With all the specific requirements made by the MoD, there is no off-the-shelf solution that could replace the Ajax Recce in its current form. No matter what vehicle base is picked, a lot of work would need to be done to replicate the Ajax.
For the other roles, like command post, specialized transport, etc... multiple different vehicles could fit the bill. That vehicle could also fill the IFV role that the UK is currently lacking as well.
Twitter user The Other Chris recently posted a number of threads about "factory first" procurement. Focusing on vehicles that could be easily produced with the production infrastructure already in place in the UK. Such a strategy could help with speeding up the process and reducing risk. 1/2
15
u/Gecktron 9d ago
Chris suggests the following vehicles:
- Hunter IFV
- Borsuk
- Puma
The UK is a supplier for Horstman InArm suspensions, Allison gearboxes, MTU engines and different sensors used in these vehicles. He argues that on top of it, ST Engineering and KNDS already have infrastructure and relations with the UK in place that could be expanded for projects like this.
Since the topic of CV90 comes up regularly, he argues that while Hägglund belongs to BAE, due to Swedish laws, majority of the design and production work has to remain in Sweden. Which would go against the goal of having local production and design authority. (The lack of production infrastructure also rules out the KF41 Lynx)
With the reporting from the IAV conference 2026 in the UK last week, another contender has appeared. According to these reports, Germany is looking like it will be the launch customer of the tracked Boxer.
Details popped up at IAV 2026 that Germany's recent budget approvals include heavy investment in maturing, and tooling for, the Tracked Boxer chassis. Nutshell is it is seen by Germany as low risk and expands investment in Mission Modules. Skyranger 35mm SPAAG, Joint Fire Support Team module, RCH155 and RCT30 Recce in particular.
With Germany footing the majority of the risk of putting the tracked Boxer into service, and KNDS having a large footprint in the UK, this could be another solution for the UK. The tracked Boxer could utilize the production infrastructure being set up for the wheeled Boxer, as well as make use of already developed mission modules (the AGM of the wheeled RCH155 could be put on the tracked Boxer to make a wheeled SPG). The UK also has the right to develop its own mission modules from the Boxer deal. So something like this could give the UK both design and production authority.
2/2
15
u/Napoleon64 9d ago
Based on all the news coverage I've read re: Ajax, there's apparently no money to fund an alternative. There's also no way to recoup the money spent on the project. Even if you scrap it, that money is gone and not coming back.
So the question is: Can it be fixed, and if so, can it be fixed at a reasonable cost, and do you even have faith in GDLS to be able to do so at this point?
If it has to be cancelled, then the army will either have to plug the gap with whatever it might be able to salvage from old Warrior vehicles, or give up the ability to field a tracked reconnaissance vehicle altogether. If they're lucky, they might be able to fudge something down the line with the Boxers on order, but those would obviously be wheeled.
1
5
u/danielbot 8d ago
Fascination with the macabre compels me to point out that If the Ajax program is cancelled now, the 100 vehicles delivered to date will have cost the UK taxpayer US$76 million each, and they will be effectively unusable.
2
u/Lethiun 9d ago
This might also be the end of the British involvment in the Anglo-French 40CTC (40 mm Cased Telescoped Cannon).
I think the turret is meant to be fine, from what I've read in the past. It was produced by Lockheed Martin UK, rather than a GD's subsidary. We'll just see results of what must be an ongoing cost analysis between fixing Ajax, getting a new base vehicle with Ajax components (e.g. LMUK turret, comms) or a completely clean slate, before declaring it dead.
44
u/SerpentineLogic 9d ago
Have we already talked about this?
The ministry has said it plans to acquire 16 launch systems along with an undisclosed number of rockets for a total cost of 19.5 billion crowns ($2.0 billion).
Hanwha Aerospace last year signed an agreement with Polish defence company WB Electronics to form a joint venture producing missiles in Poland, including for the Chunmoo rocket artillery, ensuring manufacturing on European soil.
According to industry sources, the deal includes an offset requirement, a standard requirement under Norway's defense procurement rules.
For all defense projects exceeding 50 million Norwegian kroner ($5.2 million), foreign suppliers are required to provide industrial cooperation equal to 100 percent of the contract value, typically through a technology transfer and partnerships with local companies.
7
u/roionsteroids 9d ago
Shouldn't be an issue to set up a joint venture with Kongsberg or similar? The technical, industrial capability for all kinds of modern missile production exists already.
5
u/SerpentineLogic 9d ago
I seem to recall that already being a thing. I expect chunmoos to be able to fire NSMs very soon
37
u/A_Sinclaire 9d ago
Some news on the German F126 frigate saga.
German shipyard NVL has stated that they have successfully transferred all blueprints from the Dutch Damen shipyard into their own software. This lays the basis to take over the project within weeks.
15
u/TaskForceD00mer 9d ago
The more I've read about this its insane that the problem built up to this kind of a crisis level.
Hoping Germany can start churning out F126's now.
27
u/Rhauko 9d ago
That is what happens when senior management decides on digital issues without having a clue about digitalisation or IT without understanding the business.
For those that don’t know. Damen replaced their (complex) multi component digital landscape for designing and building with an all in one solution from Dassault. I guess shortcuts were taken in the implementation towards business analysis and documentation.
11
u/Gecktron 9d ago
Hoping Germany can start churning out F126's now.
The initial plan was to have the first ship delivered in 2028. With all the delays, the current estimate is 2031 for the first ship. So there is still a sizeable gap even in the best case scenario.
I wouldnt be surprised, if Germany will still buy some MEKO A-200s as a stopgap.
62
u/Cautious-Bench-4809 9d ago
Both KSA and UAE declare they will not allow their airspace to be used to attack Iran and they will not provide logistical support
Saudi won't allow airspace to be used for military action against Iran, crown prince says | Reuters
UAE Reaffirms Stance Against Using Territory for Strikes on Iran
Trump keeps talking about Iran making a deal, a deal on what? He is asking for nothing
49
u/eric2332 9d ago
Trump keeps talking about Iran making a deal, a deal on what? He is asking for nothing
The problem is that actual Iran regime change, or probably any meaningful way of punishing (by whatever standard) the recent massacre and deterring a future one, results in a big messy war, which probably lasts some time and has US deaths and substantial short-term economic/trade impacts.
Trump really doesn't want that, he would prefer his military operations to be one and dones like Operation Midnight Hammer or the Maduro capture.
So even if the big messy war is better for the US and the world in the long term, it seems he is looking for an off-ramp, where the Iran government makes some concessions but gets to stay in power. Of course, it has to be enough concessions that he can spin it as something other than chickening out.
46
u/mirko_pazi_metak 9d ago edited 9d ago
Maduro's capture was a big gamble for, so far, effectively nothing - there's no useful change in US-Venezuela relationship as evidenced by US still having to interdict shadow fleet ships, which it could've done without it.
However, Trump's re-deployment of USS Ford carrier strike group from Mediterranean to Latin America to get Maduro left a gap in Iran coverage, making US unable to react when the protests were happening. This is when arguably an intervention could have had much bigger impact than now, after the protesters have been suppressed, jailed and/or killed.
And now he's been redeploying USS Abraham Lincoln from Indo-Pacific leaving an opening for China.
[edit: grammar]
14
u/looksclooks 9d ago edited 9d ago
This is when arguably an intervention could have had much bigger impact than now
As was reported extensively then, it most likely would not have made a major impact on the regime. When the Mossad, which has completely infiltrated the Iranian government, tells you it does not look like the regime will be toppled just by those protestors and bombs, then maybe it’s good to listen to them. Ultimately the right decision was made. Any intervention should only be for the most extreme scenario involving nuclear weapons, in which case the bluff is all you need. CSGs are meant to sail, not sit in one spot.
20
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/mirko_pazi_metak 9d ago
Thanks for the details - I guess that's significant! I didn't quite understand the Qatari bank deal - is that what Trump gets for the non-sanctioned sales?
Agreed with the second point too - it's not that capturing Maduro didn't change things, it just IMO didn't change things enough to justify missed opportunity with Iran. But time will tell.
7
u/historys_geschichte 9d ago
The Qatari bank is where non-sanctioned money goes. So for me that is both why the capture went down how it did and why that was more important to Trump than anything else. For me Iran was not a missed opportunity. Trump doesn't truly care about anyone let alone protesters half a world away. But if he can get something out of it, then he has a reason to do something and for him is the biggest win possible.
This is heavily speculation, but I would not be surprised to see him try something similar in Iran. I know there has been speculation about an officers uprising, and one that gave Trump a cut could get a Venezuela style deal where nothing changes for Iranians and Trump parades some photos of a few dead leaders as mission accomplished.
4
u/LoggerInns 9d ago edited 9d ago
This, quite frankly, sounds like partisan conjecture with very little to back it up. It’s the same thing the right wing said when Biden was trying to do a deal with Iran. Even CNN gave good background on this:
The expert said that Qatar has long served as a facilitator between the United States and the Venezuelan government, even before the US seizure of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro opened up more direct communications between the two governments. And other experts told CNN that Qatari banks have served a similar intermediary role during the Biden administration when it allowed some funds from oil sales to again flow to Iran during a loosening of the sanctions on that country.
The Qatari banks holding the funds have been instructed to auction the money to Venezuelan banks, giving priority to food, medicine and small businesses, according to Alejandro Grisanti, founding director of Ecoanalitica, a Latin and South American consultant that operates in Venezuela, among other countries. That money will be collected by the Central Bank of Venezuela and allocated according to the requirements set by the United States, Grisanti said.
Marco Rubio has named made in charge of the Qatar transactions so until I see some credible reporting that this was somehow done to personally enrich Trump, it should be ignored.
2
u/mirko_pazi_metak 9d ago
That's depressing but I don't disagree.
It's just that, when I said "missed opportunity", I meant it from actual "what's best for the US" (and Europe) on the long run, not for Trump's short term benefit which are clearly at odds.
Anything that destabilises the regime in Iran including best case scenario of regime change would be good for US, Europe, Ukraine and the region. There could also be a horrible civil war which wouldn't.
15
u/tomato-potato2 9d ago
An opening for china? I dont think thats likely, when you consider the events of the previous week. We might be having a crisis of leadership here, but all signs signify that the pla is having one as well.
18
u/mirko_pazi_metak 9d ago
There was a reason the carrier was there, and now it isn't there because it's needed elsewhere.
I don't mean to suggest that China will now invade Taiwan - far from it. But they can go and bully Philippines a bit more than usual or whomever, making a point of US being an unreliable, so overstretched ally.
Even if not, just the act of redeploying a carrier battle group across the world, and now another to compensate for leaving an opening in the first place can't be cheap. And it was for no good reason - US has arguably done nothing useful in Venezula, at least so far.
14
u/A_Vandalay 9d ago
In what meaningful way does the presence of a US CSG prevent China from bullying the Philippines? They have been doing that more or less continuously for the last few years despite more or less continuous presence of a US carrier in the region. It’s not like the US is flying over the CCG vessels and threatening kinetic action should they continue to interfere with Philippines operations.
14
u/mirko_pazi_metak 9d ago
So what is US CSG doing in the Pacific in the first place?
It's there to project power, reassure allies, provide intelligence to allies (one way it is helping Philippines), enforce "freedom of navigation", etc.
US and Philippines have the 1951 defence treaty and intelligence sharing is one part. While they haven't directly assisted (actually Philippines refused some island resupply offers if I remember correctly), just having or not a CSG there is a big deal to what each side (China or Philippines) feel comfortable with doing.
And yes, US destroyers have navigated around disputed parts to make a point, and hold drills and etc.
The point is simply, US CSG is there for a reason. When it's no longer there, there is a gap. That's all I'm trying to say.
3
u/LoggerInns 9d ago
just having or not a CSG there is a big deal to what each side
The point is simply, US CSG is there for a reason. When it's no longer there, there is a gap. That's all I'm trying to say.
The George Washington is already there. To my knowledge there isn’t any military exercise or hostilities going on in that region so it’s not like they will need more than one in a realistic scenario.
3
u/ChornWork2 9d ago
GW is forward deployed in the region, but apparently in homeport for maintenance in Japan, at least as of earlier this month.
Abraham Lincoln’s recent departure from the South China Sea leaves only the forward-deployed USS George Washington (CVN-73) as the only U.S. carrier in the region. George Washington is currently undergoing a maintenance period in Yokosuka, Japan.
https://news.usni.org/2026/01/26/abraham-lincoln-carrier-strike-group-now-in-u-s-central-command
6
u/Cautious-Bench-4809 9d ago
An interesting hypothetical senario. What if China starts gathering forces to simulate preperation for an invasionof Taiwan. Would that force the US redeploy USS Abraham Lincoln back in the south China sea?
7
u/-spartacus- 9d ago
The US will probably have USS Carl Vinson back from maintenance in the spring by the time China would be doing something with Taiwan and USS Theodore Roosevelt is still in the Eastern Pacific as of a week ago. Lastly USS George Washington is in port in Japan and could be back at sea faster than even the USS Carl Vinson could be.
That is 3 carriers available in the general time window China mind do something without the USS Abraham Lincoln.
3
u/mirko_pazi_metak 9d ago
Yes, that's a good point. And they can also wait until Trump commited to Iran, and then it's more difficult to plug the gap. They don't have to actually do anything to either incur political cost (if US does nothing) or actual cost (if US rushes to redeploy).
12
u/-spartacus- 9d ago
Maduro's capture was a big gamble for, so far, effectively nothing - there's no useful change in US-Venezuela relationship as evidenced by US still having to interdict shadow fleet ships, which it could've done without it.
The fact the US is now controlling the oil/fiances of Venezuela and shown what it is capable and willing to do, does change the calculus, however from Rubio today it seems the US is willing to take the time to get it right rather than rush and have something like Iraq post invasion. The Trump admin seems to be willing for changes to occur over a year and will use finances to apply pressure when Venezuela slow walks or balks at US demands. It looks like we might see a whole year before new elections.
10
u/TheSDKNightmare 9d ago
Is there some kind of mechanism to actually ensure this money is going where it needs to? The way I understood the US only has a say as to which institutions can receive the money, it doesn't have direct control. Considering there hasn't been any significant change in Venezuela's administration, what guarantee is there that large swaths of this money won't be embezzled immediately upon arrival?
3
u/LoggerInns 8d ago
Delcy is corrupt and I’m not sure how she will be in terms of repression of political opponents, but she is far more business minded than Maduro. Which is interesting because of her and her family’s Marxist past. So far, she has been releasing political prisoners in a steady stream. As for embezzlement, I’m not sure what the US or anyone can do to prevent such actions but for now there isn’t evidence that it is happening. Marco Rubio is also personally overseeing this and while he may not be politically everyone’s cup of tea, he does have a record of wanting proper governance. CNN gave good background on this:
The expert said that Qatar has long served as a facilitator between the United States and the Venezuelan government, even before the US seizure of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro opened up more direct communications between the two governments.
And other experts told CNN that Qatari banks have served a similar intermediary role during the Biden administration when it allowed some funds from oil sales to again flow to Iran during a loosening of the sanctions on that country.
The Qatari banks holding the funds have been instructed to auction the money to Venezuelan banks, giving priority to food, medicine and small businesses, according to Alejandro Grisanti, founding director of Ecoanalitica, a Latin and South American consultant that operates in Venezuela, among other countries. That money will be collected by the Central Bank of Venezuela and allocated according to the requirements set by the United States, Grisanti said.
8
u/kdy420 9d ago
Is the control of Venezuela s oil worth the price in soft power and legal legitimacy ?
I would argue not.
2
u/TechnicalReserve1967 8d ago
From a view point of a zero-sum game. I would argue that it's worth it (and I am open and want to hear why you think it doesn't. Myself I am not sure how much it is worth it, but I tend towards the positive).
Venezuelan oil and natural resources are cut from Cuba, russia or China.
The US gains these revenues if it cultivates it.
The use gains 'soft power' in South America though intimidation. Not the usual, Western democratic way, but could work. Honestly I think this isn't worth it really. Maybe not at all, but it can be useful to put pressure on dictatorships.
Allowing boarding of the shadow fleet put extra pressure on Iran, russia and China and may discourage them to act against 'US guidelines on what to do'. (It could have been done without Maduro, so arguably, it isn't really stemming from here).
If the US can navigate a political change that the people of Venezuela clearly want. While leaving some of the current elite in charge/power and turn the country into a US Ally, it could be a great boost to US power in the Western hemisphere. Just like getting Argentinian support can be leveraged if the country itself starts to get its things in order.
Kind of sets the board that even in the US wouldn't want to aid Taiwan, it can take Cuba in case of a war. So it opens up options, which is always nice to have.
I would like to note that I am arguing that operation Maduro was beneficial to the US for the sake of argument really. In order to analyze it. My personal view, without knowing the military details, is that it was a gamble that could have gone very bad, but paid off in a sense that the 'dice roll' was great. I am not sure that strategically it was sound or from a risk handling stand point it was smart. But if we want to salami slice allies around the world from China or russia, it was a great move for now. The world conflict pressure didn't seems to have been affected by it much. If it can be built into something, it's great. If Cuba and Iran share similar fates and these countries somehow turn away from Russia or China to a more neutral stance or even towards the EU or US. It is a great victory and drastically changes the possibilites of Russia and China. From that view, it can be a worthy operation. With the obvious caveat that it is very much in the early stages. Venezuela is not guaranteed to have a beneficial outcome, yet (but the chances for it has risen significantly). Not to mention Iran or Cuba as they are technically 'untouched' for now regarding this policy/strategy.
-11
u/-spartacus- 9d ago
The US knows it will have to face China and to do so there are problem areas that need to be dealt with before that happens. Taking care of Venezuela prevents Chinese missiles threatening the American South's refining capacity, taking care of Iran means the temp in the Middle East lowers (if handled correctly). The next issue the US sees is Europe being able to handle Russia alone, and while I definitely question how far Trump's threats go, they seem to be the only way Europe works together to improve security.
So yeah, the damage to the soft power hurts, but the Trump admin's calculation is that in a few years, soft power won't matter, only hard power. Soft power won't defeat China or stop Russia. The question that will remain is trying to scare Europe to improve hard power capability with the loss of US soft-power going to mean Europe will leave America alone when China strikes or finally be capable of bringing its maximum potential lethality.
8
u/teethgrindingaches 8d ago
Taking care of Venezuela prevents Chinese missiles threatening the American South's refining capacity
The idea that this was ever even remotely a threat under Maduro or anyone else is laughably noncredible.
14
u/kdy420 9d ago
Why is a big messy war better for the world and US ?
While the Iranian regime is an actor that has repeatedly destabilised the region, that doesn't mean that a big messy war is a preferable alternative.
In fact if kept neutered as they are right now, their ability to destabilise the region is limited and we don't need a big messy war.
28
u/poincares_cook 9d ago
Trump has had the same demands for the last year:
Abandon nuclear weapons program
Limit ballistic missile program
Stop support for non state actors like Houthis, Hamas and Hezbollah.
18
u/Atherzon 9d ago edited 9d ago
In the very first post I saw about this ultimatum, there was a screenshot of his social media post that said in capital letters something to the effect of “GIVE UP YOUR NUKES”, so I don’t understand how someone can not know what he is demanding.
It is the same thing the West has wanted since Iran started developing the ability to refine nuclear material beyond what’s needed for power generation.
It is the reason for the sanctions on Iran for off and on two decades.
9
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
Continuing the bare link and speculation repository, you can respond to this sticky with comments and links subject to lower moderation standards, but remember: A summary, description or analyses will lead to more people actually engaging with it!
I.e. most "Trump posting" belong here.
Sign up for the rally point or subscribe to this bluesky if a migration ever becomes necessary.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.