The New Cold War

Chinese hypersonic weapon fired missile over South China Sea

Pentagon struggles to understand how Beijing mastered technology that tests constraints of physics

Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington YESTERDAY


China’s hypersonic weapon test in July included a technological advance that enabled it to fire a missile as it approached its target travelling at least five times the speed of sound — a capability no country has previously demonstrated.

Pentagon scientists were caught off guard by the advance, which allowed the hypersonic glide vehicle, a manoeuvrable spacecraft that can carry a nuclear warhead, to fire a separate missile mid-flight in the atmosphere over the South China Sea, according to people familiar with the intelligence.

Experts at Darpa, the Pentagon’s advanced research agency, remain unsure how China overcame the constraints of physics by firing countermeasures from a vehicle travelling at hypersonic speeds, said the people familiar with details of the demonstration.

Military experts have been poring over data related to the test to understand how China mastered the technology. They are also debating the purpose of the projectile, which was fired by the hypersonic vehicle with no obvious target of its own, before plunging into the water.

Some Pentagon experts believe the projectile was an air-to-air missile. Others think it was a countermeasure to destroy missile defence systems so that they could not shoot down the hypersonic weapon during wartime.

Russia and the US have also pursued hypersonic weapons for years, but experts say the firing of countermeasures is the latest evidence that China’s efforts are significantly more advanced than either the Kremlin or the Pentagon.

The White House declined to comment on the countermeasure, but said it remained concerned about the July 27 test, which was first reported by the Financial Times last month.

“This development is concerning to us as it should be to all who seek peace and stability in the region and beyond,” said a spokesperson for the National Security Council. “This also builds on our concern about many military capabilities that the People’s Republic of China continues to pursue.”

The NSC added that the US would “continue to maintain the capabilities to defend and deter against a range of threats” from China.

Pentagon officials have been increasingly public with their concerns about the July test. The hypersonic glide vehicle was propelled into space on an “orbital bombardment system” rocket that can fly over the South Pole, putting the weapon out of reach of US missile defence systems, which are focused on ballistic missile threats coming over the North Pole.

The orbital bombardment system gives China more ways to hit US targets. Moscow deployed a system called “fractional orbital bombardment system” during the cold war, but it was less advanced and did not carry a manoeuvrable hypersonic glide vehicle.

US officials are well aware that China is ahead of the Pentagon in hypersonic weapons. But the July 27 test showed that the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force was making even faster progress than many had projected. That has been reinforced by Beijing successfully combining an orbital system with a hypersonic weapon that can shoot a missile.

The hypersonic test comes as China rapidly expands its nuclear forces, in a way that suggests it is abandoning the “minimum deterrence” posture it has maintained for decades. The US recently said it would quadruple its nuclear warheads at least 1,000 weapons this decade.

The Chinese embassy said it was “not aware” of the missile test.

“We are not at all interested in having an arms race with other countries,” said Liu Pengyu, the embassy spokesperson. “The US has in recent years been fabricating excuses like ‘the China threat’ to justify its arms expansion and development of hypersonic weapons.”

Beijing dismissed the FT’s first disclosure of the hypersonic weapons test, saying it was instead a test of a reusable space vehicle. But a test of that space vehicle occurred 11 days before the hypersonic weapons test, according to people familiar with both launches. The FT has also reported that China conducted another hypersonic weapons test on August 13.

General David Thompson, vice-chief of space operations at the US Space Force, said the US was “not as advanced” as China or Russia in hypersonic weapons.

“We have catching up to do very quickly. The Chinese have had an incredibly aggressive hypersonic programme for several years,” Thompson told the Halifax International Security Forum on Saturday.

General Mark Milley, chair of the US joint chiefs of staff, recently called the weapons test close to a “Sputnik moment”, a reference to the Soviet Union becoming the first to put a satellite in space in 1957.

Lloyd Austin, defence secretary, this week said he would not use the same language. But earlier this week as he prepared to retire as vice-chair of the joint chiefs, General John Hyten voiced significant concern.

“Sputnik created a sense of urgency in the United States,” Hyten told CBS News. “The test on July 27 did not create that sense of urgency. I think it probably should create a sense of urgency.”

What is a hypersonic glide vehicle?

There are two kinds of hypersonic weapons. The first is a highly manoeuvrable missile propelled by an engine. The second is a glide vehicle.

The hypersonic glide vehicle is a spacecraft — not unlike the space shuttle — that is launched into orbit on a rocket. It then re-enters the atmosphere and flies towards its target at more than five times the speed of sound.

The HGV can act as a conventional weapon by using its speed to destroy a target on impact. But China is developing HGVs that can carry nuclear warheads.

https://www.ft.com/content/a127f6de-f7b1-459e-b7ae-c14ed6a9198c?accessToken=zwAAAX1GyQFwkdOhJ_be97FFntO3rsFO1qkZjA.MEUCIE_5vHa6US5uEG80YjsGnbUTShn4czDMC-deSYr-5Zw2AiEApVn8zjo3984Duzdb41cXxWvR_H_meClq9cZ0GQ880Iw&sharetype=gift?token=f4150f69-7051-4f14-a11a-7c941a7f9c22

Speaking at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum, Hillary Clinton admits there was an expectation in Washington Russia would have no choice but to become the West's junior partner due to the fear China could take over the Russian Far East. /1https://t.co/pJQeF0eCxf

— Artyom Lukin (@ArtyomLukin) November 20, 2021

As the US is losing its relative power vis-a-vis China, there may be an incentive for the US political class to get less arrogant -- and more intelligent. 3/3

— Artyom Lukin (@ArtyomLukin) November 20, 2021

Mór Thököly wrote:Samo je pitanje sta bi to ukljucivalo...pogotovu dok je Putin na vlasti

Here are five takeaways from the Biden-Putin call.

By Michael Crowley
Dec. 7, 2021

President Biden and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia spoke for roughly two hours by videoconference on Tuesday in an effort to defuse a growing military crisis along Ukraine’s borders, where tens of thousands of Russian troops have massed in what U.S. officials say could be the prelude to an all-out invasion.

The meeting was one of the biggest foreign policy tests of Mr. Biden’s presidency to date, with consequences for the stability of Europe, the credibility of American threats and the future of a country the United States has spent years trying to defend from Mr. Putin’s aggression. Here are five takeaways from the day.

Ukraine’s fate still hangs in the balance.

The leaders’ videoconference did not resolve the crisis along Ukraine’s borders, and neither the Kremlin nor the White House reported substantial progress.

Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, said after the meeting that Mr. Biden had offered Mr. Putin the choice between a diplomatic solution and the severe economic and political consequences that would follow a Russian invasion of Ukraine — but he did not say whether Mr. Putin had made any commitments.

Putin is standing firm.

Whether Mr. Biden’s threats will deter the Russian leader from invading Ukraine is unclear. But Mr. Putin was not conciliatory. A Kremlin readout of the meeting said that Mr. Putin blamed the tensions on the West, which he said was building up its military capability in and around Ukraine. And Mr. Putin demanded legal guarantees that NATO would not expand eastward toward Russia’s borders or deploy offensive weapons systems in Ukraine.

Although the Kremlin said that Mr. Biden agreed to continue discussing Mr. Putin’s demands, U.S. officials rejected Mr. Putin’s analysis of the situation and said they would never make promises about possible NATO expansions.

A major energy pipeline from Russia to Germany faces new risk.

The Biden administration and Congress have been at odds over a new pipeline between Russia and Germany that critics say is an unacceptable political and economic boon for Moscow. It is now in danger.

Russian companies have spent several years building the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline to Germany, a project that the Biden administration officially opposes, because it could deprive Ukraine of revenue from another pipeline that runs through its territory and would give Mr. Putin added leverage over Europe’s energy supplies.

But to avoid a rift with the German government, Mr. Biden has deflected congressional sanctions on Germany aimed at stopping the project, angering many Republicans and some Democrats.

During testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, however, Victoria S. Nuland, a top State Department official, told senators that if Mr. Putin attacked Ukraine, “our expectation is that the pipeline will be suspended.” That suggests private U.S. diplomacy had won such a commitment from Germany, which would suffer financially if the pipeline were delayed or scrapped.

A brewing conflict. Antagonism between Ukraine and Russia has been simmering since 2014, when the Russian military crossed into Ukrainian territory, annexing Crimea and whipping up a rebellion in the east. A tenuous cease-fire was reached in 2015, but peace has been elusive.

A spike in hostilities. Russia has recently been building up forces near its border with Ukraine, and the Kremlin’s rhetoric toward its neighbor has hardened. Concern grew in late October, when Ukraine used an armed drone to attack a howitzer operated by Russian-backed separatists.

Ominous warnings. Russia called the strike a destabilizing act that violated the cease-fire agreement, raising fears of a new intervention in Ukraine that could draw the United States and Europe into a new phase of the conflict.

The Kremlin’s position. President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, who has increasingly portrayed NATO’s eastward expansion as an existential threat to his country, said that Moscow’s military buildup was a response to Ukraine’s deepening partnership with the alliance.

A measured approach. President Biden has said he is seeking a stable relationship with Russia. So far, his administration is focusing on maintaining a dialogue with Moscow, while seeking to develop deterrence measures in concert with European countries.

Biden needs his allies.

Immediately after concluding his meeting with Mr. Putin, Mr. Biden spoke by phone with the leaders of France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom, whose support U.S. officials say will be crucial to deterring the Russian leader. Mr. Putin has sought for years to drive wedges between America and its allies in the hope of weakening resistance to his actions and undermining NATO and the trans-Atlantic alliance. “We have experts from the Treasury Department, the State Department and the National Security Council in daily contact with the key capitals and with Brussels” to discuss what punitive steps could be taken jointly against Russia, Mr. Sullivan said.

It’s not personal.

There is little evidence of any personal hostility between Mr. Biden and Mr. Putin. In a brief video clip of the virtual meeting’s start posted online by Russian state media, the two leaders appeared to exchange friendly greetings, with the American president, who prides himself on his rapport with foreign leaders, smiling and waving to his Russian counterpart and telling him, “Good to see you again.”

“There was a lot of give and take, there was no finger wagging,” Mr. Sullivan told reporters. “This was a real discussion,” he added, “it was not speeches.”

The Kremlin called the conversation “honest and businesslike.” An adviser to Mr. Putin, Yuri V. Ushakov, later told reporters that Mr. Biden brought up the shared sacrifice of the United States and the Soviet Union during World War II, and that the two leaders even made occasional jokes and “exchanges of compliments.”