Senate committee passes bipartisan bill to stop Trump withdrawing from Nato – The Guardian

Posted on by

Legislation to stop Donald Trump from withdrawing the US from Nato has been approved for a Senate vote, amid uncertainty over the presidents intentions towards the alliance.

The Senate foreign relations committee on Wednesday voted unanimously for the bipartisan bill which will now await a slot to go to the Senate. Senator Tim Kaine, the draft legislations lead Democratic sponsor, said it was a response to fears that the Trump administration is actively considering withdrawal.

Were aware that it has been seriously debated and seriously considered in the White House at the highest levels, Kaine told the Guardian. Trumps former national security adviser, John Bolton, reportedly warned last month that, if re-elected in 2020, Trump could go full isolationist and withdraw from the 70-year-old North Atlantic alliance.

Kaine predicted his bill to block a Nato withdrawal would gain overwhelming support from the House of Representatives and win a veto-proof majority in the upper chamber of at least 67 votes.

I dont think [Trump] would veto this bill if it came to his desk because of the signal that it would send would be such an unfortunate one, Kaine told the Guardian. It would be seen as so destabilizing by our allies that I dont think he would do it. And furthermore, I dont think the president would veto a bill if he thought hes going to be overridden, and I think he would be overridden on this one.

The bill aims to close a loophole in the US constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty, but is silent on what it takes to exit a treaty. Kaines bill requires the president to seek the advice and consent of the Senate to pull the US out of Nato. The president would have to notify Congress of any effort taken towards termination of US membership, and any no congressionally mandated funds could be spent on withdrawal. Congressional legal counsel would be authorized to challenge the White House in the courts over any presidential attempt to withdraw.

It specifies clearly, that the the law of the land will now be that a president cannot withdraw from Nato absent a congressional vote, Kaine said. So he could announce he was withdrawing, but that would be an illegal action, and we would feel completely confident that a court would uphold us.

Trump has raised doubt over whether he would order the US to fight if certain Nato allies were attacked, as required by article 5 of the alliances founding document. The president has suggested that collective defence should be made conditional on member states meeting the alliance goal of spending at least 2% of GDP on defence.

At a leaders meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Nato in the UK earlier this month, Trump defended Nato against criticism from the French president, Emmanuel Macron, but did little to allay fears that he did not fear bound by Natos collective defence obligations.

We may not change Donald Trumps minds about these things. But I think what our allies are looking for is some assurance that the American public still finds value in the alliance, Senator Kaine said. And I think a bill like this, in addition to having some practical effect, would start to answer that question positively.

Constanze Stelzenmueller, the Kissinger chair on foreign policy and international relations at the Library of Congress, said the legislation, if passed, might go some way to steadying European nerves ahead of the 2020 US elections.

For Europeans, its reassuring to know that there is support for Nato in Congress, Stelzenmueller said. But there is also a sense in Europe that if, if there is a second Trump term, then all bets are off. Secondly, the more important issue is how Trump is already changing the world in ways that make Natos work obsolete or impossible.

She added: There is still a strong feeling in Europe that his default attitude to Nato has been a sense that this is a con that attempts to take advantage of America.

Officials from some European Nato members privately voice concerns that, whatever the views of the Congress, a reluctant US commander-in-chief raised doubts over whether the US would come to their defence in a crisis.

Kaine acknowledged that it was a novel dilemma.

Presidents have sometimes wanted to go to war and Congress has said no, but if youve hardly had a situation where Congress was wanting to go to war and a president said no, the Virginia senator said. You could potentially foresee that here, although frankly, my worry about this president is more that he will blunder us into a war we shouldnt be in.

Originally posted here:

Senate committee passes bipartisan bill to stop Trump withdrawing from Nato - The Guardian

Stop The Madness of NATO Expansion Breaking Defense – Defense industry news, analysis and commentary – Breaking Defense

Posted on by

Secretary Pompeo meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, in Brussels in December 2018.

Little noticed amid the controversies President Trump sparked at the recent NATO summit, the United States will support North Macedonias membership in the NATO alliance. Although fewer than one in 100 Americans could find North Macedonia on a map, the United States will pledge its entire arsenal of ground, air, naval, and even nuclear capabilities to defend North Macedonia. In return, North Macedonia cant provide much. It has only 12,000 troops in its armed forces, using old equipment and possessing little military capability.

Its time to stop NATO expansion. A larger NATO embroils the United States in obscure regional disputes, commits it to defend exposed countries, and unnecessarily antagonizes the Russians. By incorporating weak states with short democratic histories, expansion also undermines public support for NATO, one of the worlds most successful military alliances.

Mark Cancian

NATO expansion began at the end of the Cold War, bringing the former Communist states of eastern Europe into the Western alliance. This made a lot of sense for countries like Poland, the former Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. But the process kept going, incorporating countries progressively weaker and closer to Russia. NATO came to be regarded like the United Nations, where broad membership was desirable, and anyone could join after meeting some minimal requirements. Thats how the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania and Balkan countries like Montenegro, Albania, and Croatia were able to join.

Lost in the good feelings of expansion was the alliances purpose: military security. Extending NATOs security guarantee to the Baltic countries, for example, later created a major new military challenge to prevent a Russian incursion. Meeting this challenge required greatly expanded deployments to Eastern Europe and billions of dollars of additional spending. Yet, expansion continues. At the 2018 Brussels Summit, the alliance invited the Republic of North Macedonia to begin talks to join NATO.On November 22 the U.S. Senate voted 91-2, with virtually no debate, to approve the accession.

North Macedonia is not a bad country. It has transformed itself from a communist economy and polity and has contributed troops to NATO. However, incorporating it into NATO creates several problems.

First, eastern expansion angers Russia. When the Cold War ended, Russia believed it was promised that NATO would not expand eastward. Whether the United States made such a promise is still hotly debated. What is clear is that Russia believes NATO made the promise. Now Russia sees a hostile NATO increasingly squeezing its periphery. It notes that, except for Belarus, NATO with its client state Ukraine is today at the Wehrmacht front line of 1942. That NATO might someday launch an attack on Russia seems ludicrous to us. NATO has a hard time agreeing on anything. If the United States said the weather was partly sunny, the French would say it was partly cloudy just to show they were an independent force. Russia, however, looks at military capability, not intentions, and sees an existential threat.

Source: DIA, current as of Oct. 2018

Expansion also inflames anti-NATO sentiment by feeding skepticism about its benefits. One of the strongest arguments for the alliance is that it is better to have lots of rich, powerful allies when facing threats. Adding weak nations undermines this argument. Thus, President Trump has regularly criticized NATO as a bad deal for the United States while French President Emmanuel Macron has called NATO brain-dead.Finally, expansion incorporates countries with short and shallow democratic traditions. North Macedonia, like the newly added NATO countries of Croatia, Montenegro, and Albania, has made great strides in improving governance, for which they all deserve credit, but they lack the robust institutions that justify military burdens to NATO publics.

Someday this over-expansion will produce a crisis. Perhaps the crisis will arise from an intra-NATO dispute; perhaps from a local dispute that involves, for example, long-standing tensions between Serbia and its NATO neighbors Croatia or North Macedonia; or perhaps the treatment of an ethnic minority like Russians in the Baltic countries.

If dragged into messy conflicts in which they have few interests, countries may come to openly question the entire NATO project and endanger a key element of European, indeed, global stability.

NATO needs to draw the line now. Behind North Macedonia are nearly 20 other partners who might also want to join NATO. And who can blame them. By joining NATO they gain security and status at little cost. Stopping expansion does not mean abandoning the many partner countries working with NATO. They can remain as partners, participating in military training and diplomatic coordination, but without the security commitment that is so costly to the United States and irritating to Russia.

Mark Cancian, a member of the Breaking D Board of Contributors and former senior OMB official, is a defense expert at theCenter forStrategic andInternational Studies.

See more here:

Stop The Madness of NATO Expansion Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary - Breaking Defense

News: Another milestone in enhancing defence education in Afghanistan, 24-Nov.-2019 – NATO HQ

Posted on by

The 2019 Executive Senior Leaders Seminar (ESLS) took place at SHAPE and at NATO Headquarters from 24 to 29 November. Fourteen executive-level officials and practitioners representing Afghanistans defence sector ministries participated. This year, for the first time, three women delegates took part and gender integration in defence and society was one of the subjects on the agenda.

ESLS has been a component of the defence institution-building portfolio of NATOs Defence Education Enhancement Programme with Afghanistan since 2010. It brings carefully selected Afghan civilian and military officials together with experienced academics, subject matter experts and senior officials from NATO countries in the setting of NATOs strategic headquarters.

The Seminar is unique and achieves impressive results over time by focusing on building strategic thinking and practical skills at the senior leadership levels and within the Marshal Fahim National Defense University.

Delegates form interagency working groups in an academic setting that is firmly grounded in Afghanistans strategic and operational circumstances. The methodology includes historic case studies, lectures, Socratic dialogue, practical exercises, engagement with subject matter experts and presentations by the Afghan participants.

ESLS is more than an academic endeavour promoting how to think strategically. It also embraces practical reality and fosters professional relationships and intellectual operability among the Afghan participants and between NATO and Afghanistan.

Original post:

News: Another milestone in enhancing defence education in Afghanistan, 24-Nov.-2019 - NATO HQ

NATO Conference Is Canceled After U.S. Ambassador Barred a Trump Critic – The New York Times

Posted on by

The United States ambassador to Denmark barred an American NATO expert critical of President Trump from speaking at an international conference hosted by the American embassy and a Danish think tank, prompting the events cancellation, organizers said.

The expert, Stanley R. Sloan, was scheduled to give a keynote speech at the conference, which was celebrating the 70th anniversary of NATO, on Tuesday.

Mr. Sloan, a visiting scholar at Middlebury College in Vermont, a fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency, planned to speak about the future of trans-Atlantic relations.

One day before he was set to leave for Copenhagen, Mr. Sloan was informed that the United States Embassy in Copenhagen had vetoed his participation because of his previous criticisms of President Trump, Mr. Sloan said on Facebook on Saturday.

Carla Sands, the United States ambassador to Denmark, did not want Mr. Sloan to participate, and the Danish Atlantic Council had no other option than to revoke his invitation to speak, Lars Bangert Struwe, the secretary general of the council, said in a statement.

Mr. Sloan said the decision had left him stunned and concerned about our country.

On Sunday morning, Mr. Struwe canceled the NATO conference.

After serious consideration, we have decided not to proceed with the conference, he said on Twitter. The progress of the process has become too problematic; and therefore, we cannot participate in the conference, let alone ask our speakers to participate.

From a Danish point of view, the decision to bar Mr. Sloan would turn the conferences focus to internal American politics and away from the future of NATO, Mr. Struwe said in an interview on Sunday. There were 12 people scheduled to speak, and about 100 attendees were expected, he said.

We have all the time known that Mr. Sloan has a critical approach towards President Donald Trump, Mr. Struwe said in the statement. That is no secret, especially when following his Twitter and Facebook profile. We have, however, never doubted that Mr. Sloan at our conference would deliver an unpolitical and objective lecture.

In his book, Defense of the West, published in 2016, Mr. Sloan discussed the impact that the Trump administration could have on the deterioration of trans-Atlantic relations, given its questionable support for NATO, its relationship with Russia and its response to threats from the Islamic State.

The United States Embassy in Denmark in a series of tweets on Sunday said Mr. Sloan had been added to the program at the last minute without the same joint decision-making used in recruiting the other speakers.

The events cancellation was unfortunate, the embassy said, as it would have provided speakers and attendees an opportunity to exchange views and strengthen NATO for the future.

Mr. Sloan posted the speech he had prepared for the conference on Facebook, in which he thanked Ms. Sands for her expression of support for the democratic values that the alliance promotes.

Ms. Sands, who previously worked in the entrepreneurial, investment and philanthropic sectors, was confirmed by the Senate in 2017, according to the embassys website. She also served as a board member of several arts and education institutions in California and has a doctor of chiropractic degree from Life Chiropractic College, now Life University, in Marietta, Ga.

Original post:

NATO Conference Is Canceled After U.S. Ambassador Barred a Trump Critic - The New York Times

Turmoil at the NATO Summit Should Be a Wake-Up Call for Trump | Ivan Eland – The Beacon

Posted on by

Ivan Eland Thursday December 12, 2019 11:23 AM PST

Last weeks brief NATO celebratory summit meeting for the alliances seventieth anniversary displayed tumult and dysfunction. Three of NATOs crucial players proceeded to roil the proceedings. And such disruption is not all bad.

Before the meeting, French President Emmanuel Macronfurious at President Trumps lack of coordination with NATO allies in the U.S. troop pullback in Syria and other instanceslamented that NATO had suffered brain death, a clear jab at the alleged lack of U.S. leadership under Trump, and renewed his call for Europeans to augment their own alternative military capabilities. Unsurprisingly, Trump took personal umbrage at this remark aimed clearly at him, replying that Macrons comment was very insulting. Also, the two NATO allies got into a bilateral trade tussle that threatened to expand Trumps international trade war to yet another country.

Trumps The United States always get screwed complaint was also again heard in alliance burden-sharing, as the NATO bureaucracy crowed about alliance members contributing an added $130 billion in defense spending since 2016curiously the year that Trump was elected. The alliances effort to mollify Trump comes after previous summits in which he declined to reaffirm NATOs Article 5 mutual defense commitment and threatened that he might withdraw from the alliance unless other members stepped up their defense spending.

Meanwhile, the third recalcitrant alliance member, Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, held up a classified NATO military plan to defend the Baltic nations until NATO assumes tougher language against U.S.-allied Kurds in Syria, whom the Turks regard as terrorists. The Turks also bought an advanced Russian air defense system, which the U.S. claims could compromise the F-35 fighter. As a result, U.S. export of the aircraft to Turkey and Turkish production of parts for the plane both have been frozen.

NATO was originally created to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War, but after that ended, the alliance became a fig leaf for U.S. military interventions outside Europe, so they wouldnt seem unilateralfor example, in Afghanistan. The formidable Soviet tank army in central Europe has long resided in the dustbin of history, but the alliance just moved forward to Russias contracted borders while the Russians were weak in the initial years after the Cold War. Despite Trumps lukewarm rhetoric toward the alliance, U.S. troop deployments in Europe have been rising.

Although the threat from Russias undemocratic leader, Vladimir Putin, has been overhyped in the media, Russias military, except for its modernizing nuclear arsenal, is patchy at best in quality and would not, in most cases, be any match for the U.S. military. The exception might be in the Baltics, where Russia would have local superiority in its own back yard and NATO would have long, vulnerable supply lines. In addition, the U.S. Navy would not be happy about operating aircraft carriers in the confined waters of the Baltic Sea. So maybe the Turkish freeze on the NATO plans to defend the Baltic nations is not all bad. However, by foolishly letting the Baltics into NATO, the United States de facto obligated itself to lead an alliance in defense of them, approved plans or not.

President Trump has intimated here and there that it might be time for the U.S. to withdraw from the NATO alliance. French President Macron is either trying to use this U.S. unreliability to become the leader of a European substitute for NATO or is trying to shame the United States to reassume its leadership role in the alliance. Macron correctly has implicitly concluded that the Russian menace has been hyped because he said terrorism was the worst threat, which international law enforcement is a better tool against than is a military alliance. However, for once, Trump is right that the United States has not gotten much in political or economic concessions from the Europeans for pledging to defend them all these decades. However, Trumps solution to bully them into increasing their defense budgets is not the answer.

The answer is a long-overdue U.S. reassessment of what a Cold War-era alliance is now good for. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has said the preservation of NATO is as important, or more important than during the Cold War. Yet, although Putin invaded Crimea, the rich Europeans, with a combined GDP many times greater than that of Russia, could be the first line of defense against any Russian mischief. The United States could instead be the offshore balancer of last resort, the more traditional pre-Cold War U.S. policy used effectively during World Wars I and II. The main threats from Russia are the potential for a nuclear or cyber attack, neither of which the NATO alliance is well equipped to counter and the latter of which the last two presidential administrationsTrump and Obamahave failed to do much of anything about.

Trump was originally on the right track, questioning NATOs long-term relevance, but the resulting outrage from the U.S. security establishment has made him content with merely rattling a cup for a few more coins from his European allies.

See more here:

Turmoil at the NATO Summit Should Be a Wake-Up Call for Trump | Ivan Eland - The Beacon

NATO conference canceled after US ambassador Carla Sands blocks speaker critical of Trump – USA TODAY

Posted on by

President Donald Trump said that French President Emmanuel Macrons recent comments about NATO were very insulting. USA TODAY

A conference celebrating the 70th anniversary of NATO was canceled after the U.S. ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands, objected to a speaker who has made statements critical of President Donald Trump, the Danish think tank co-sponsoring the event announced Sunday.

Stanley Sloan, a former CIA analyst and author of "Defense of the West,"had planned to deliver an address on the challenges facing the transatlantic alliance, and the West in general, at the conference, which was scheduled to take place Tuesday at the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen.

A day before Sloan left for Denmark, he said he was informed by the Danish Atlantic Council thatthe U.S. Embassy "vetoed my participation due to my critical evaluation of Trump's impact on transatlantic relations."

"Stunned and concerned about my country," Sloan said in a tweet.

The next day, the Danish Atlantic Council announced the conference had been canceled altogether.

U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Carla Sands arrives for the New Year reception for the diplomacy at Christiansborg Castle, Denmark, Jan. 3, 2019.(Photo: Philip Davali, AP)

"We have all the time known that Mr. Sloan has a critical approach towards President Donald Trump. That is no secret especially when following his Twitter and Facebook profile," the Danish Atlantic Council Secretary-General Lars Bangert Struwe said in a statement.

But Struwe said they "never doubted" that Sloan "would deliver an unpolitical and objective lecture," as he promised he would.

When Sands objected to Sloan's appearance, Struwe said the council decided to pull the plug on the event because "the process has become too problematic."

In a series of tweets, the U.S. Embassy said it "supports freedom of speech as enshrined in the First Amendment" and that it was "unfortunate" the Danish Atlantic Council decided to cancel the conference.

"This event would have provided speakers and attendees an important opportunity to exchange views on security cooperation and strengthening #NATO for the future," the U.S. Embassy said.

The American officials objected to Sloan's "proposed last-minute inclusion in the program," which "did not follow the same deliberative process of joint decision-making and agreement that we followed when recruiting all other speakers."

But Struwe disputed that explanation and told The Washington Post that the U.S. Embassy, which was paying for the event, had not given any input on the other speakers.

"I'm sorry that you objected to my inclusion in the conference," Sloan tweeted in reply to the embassy. "I am an experienced public diplomacy lecturer who always represents his country well."

"I have given presentations during Republican and Democratic administrations that criticized to one degree or another administration policy," he said. "I have always praised the State Department for its willingness to display our freedoms to foreign audiences. I hope we can return to that."

Sloan posted the text of theaddress he had planned to give online. In the speech, he commendsSands for her "expression of support for the values on which the alliance is based as well as its strategic importance for both Demark and the United States."

And he planned to say the "current crisis" facing NATO "did not start with Donald Trump, even though he certainly has brought it to a head."

Sands is an entrepreneur,former chiropractor and former actress who appeared in the soap opera "The Bold and the Beautiful." She was appointed ambassador to Denmark by Trump and was approved by the Senate in November 2017.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/09/nato-event-canceled-after-us-ambassador-blocks-trump-critic/2631746001/

See the original post:

NATO conference canceled after US ambassador Carla Sands blocks speaker critical of Trump - USA TODAY

Getting Out of the NATO Nuclear Task Would Not Increase Dutch Security – War on the Rocks

Posted on by

Do the U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in the Netherlands keep the country safe, or do they make it the target of Russian nuclear forces? For some, the answer is obvious. One nongovernmental organization, PAX, has recently put out a report calling on the Dutch government not to allow the deployment of modernized American B61 bombs on Dutch territory. It argues that the [r]emoval of US nuclear weapons on our territory reduces the chance that the Netherlands will become a military target of preventive or retaliation attacks. This argument is not new. One of the first petitions with the same argument was launched by the Dutch Peace Council, with support from the Dutch communists, in 1958.

The argument to remove American nukes from the Netherlands is seductive, but its wrong. The Netherlands is a target of Russia because of its strategic location and its position as NATOs logistics hub. Thanks to its geography, the Netherlands has key relevance for NATO in case of future conflict. As long as the Netherlands remains a member of NATO (which even PAX supports), the country will be in Moscows crosshairs. As a recent report by the Dutch governments independent Advisory Council on International Affairs spelled out, the Netherlands continues to host U.S. nuclear weapons because successive governments have considered nuclear weapons to be a crucial part of NATO deterrence and defence. Furthermore, unilaterally giving up this task might lead to their transfer farther east within the alliance, which could be interpreted as provocative by Russia. Withdrawing U.S. nuclear weapons would not make the Netherlands safer, and would add instability to NATO at a time when that is the last thing it needs.

U.S. Nuclear Weapons in the Netherlands

American nuclear weapons have been deployed in the Netherlands since April 1960. At present, 1020 nuclear weapons are believed to be deployed to Volkel Air Base. Similar to the arrangements in other European countries that host American nuclear forces Belgium, Germany, Italy, and Turkey U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in the Netherlands are under the custody of the U.S. government. The U.S. president holds the control over their use in war situations. However, they would be delivered by Dutch dual-capable F-16 fighter aircraft flown by the Dutch airmen.

Yet the Dutch government aware of the strong anti-nuclear feelings among the Dutch, especially among civil society has never confirmed the presence of the nuclear weapons in the Netherlands. The parliament remains active on the issue of nuclear disarmament more broadly, and the societal relevance drives the continuing interest in nuclear disarmament. Therefore, whenever the Dutch government wants to even approach talking about the issue of nuclear weapons deployed in the Netherlands, it talks of either the NATO nuclear task or the dual-capable aircraft.

Most recently, the Netherlands justified its nuclear policy by arguing that NATOs deterrent contributed to stability and predictability in Europe. The cabinet also argued that while removal of non-strategic nuclear weapons from Europe (from the Atlantic Ocean till the Ural Mountains) is desirable, unilateral withdrawal of the U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe is politically and militarily imprudent. It added that future disarmament steps (including the withdrawal of non-strategic nuclear weapons from Europe) must be complete, mutual, verifiable and irreversible, and pointed to the unwillingness of Russia and other states possessing nuclear weapons to take such steps. This view clearly places U.S. non-strategic nuclear weapons within discussions about global arms control and nuclear disarmament.

What the Netherlands Gets Out of Hosting U.S. Nuclear Weapons

The Dutch government hosts U.S. nuclear weapons for political, economic, and strategic reasons. In the early years of the Cold War, the Dutch feared becoming a second-class ally and were deeply distrustful of schemes for a European deterrent between France, Italy, and Germany, as they saw it as opening doors to French hegemony over Europe. The obvious solution was, for the Dutch, to seek as close ties with the United States as possible. The stationing of U.S. nuclear weapons was a means to cement its relationship with Washington. The Dutch government was committed to rebuilding the armed forces after World War II, but it faced economic headwinds. Hosting Americas nuclear deterrent provided an option to save on defense expenditure.

A strategic rationale was also clear the NATO plan to defend Western Europe along the Rhine-IJssel line meant that the Netherlands would be divided into two in case of conflict. As a result, about two-thirds of the Netherlands would be left undefended from an invading Soviet army. This caused significant unease in The Hague. The deployment of nuclear weapons in the Netherlands, according to Dutch scholar Jan van der Harst, was seen by the Dutch political and military elite as moving the battlefield away from the Netherlands toward Germany (where the incoming Soviet forces would be engaged using nuclear weapons) and making the country safe from the nuclear fallout.

Although the nature of the threat has changed since the end of the Cold War, some of the benefits remain the same for keeping the nuclear task. This is particularly true with respect to the political benefit of being seen as a first-class NATO member, with special responsibilities (and, presumably, rights) when it comes to the NATO nuclear mission. The Dutch government also emphasizes that continuous participation in the NATO nuclear task brings tangible benefits to Dutch businesses, and helps prop up niche expertise, such as the aerospace industry. Most fundamentally, however, the Dutch government sees the nuclear deterrent as fundamental to the maintenance of European and Dutch security. The government speaks of taking responsibility for its own security, but also of having an enhanced role in the arms control discussions. In this way, the government attempts to bridge the difference between difference between its commitments to and interests in disarmament and nonproliferation (also widespread in the public), and the security needs perceived at the top. If the Dutch government were to renounce the nuclear task, the thinking goes, then other NATO members closer to Russia could become interested in picking it up. Such a step would, according to the Dutch governments Advisory Council for International Affairs, be probably interpret[ed] as a serious provocation by Russia. Unnecessarily irking the Russians would not contribute to peace and security, seen from The Hague. The contribution to the NATO nuclear task is therefore seen as the lesser of two possible evils.

From the perspective of the United States, the purpose of stationing U.S. nuclear bombs in Europe is to reassure European allies that Washington remains committed to their security, prevent allies from developing their own nuclear weapons, and deter aggression against NATO allies. Yes, its true that the presence of American nuclear weapons in the Netherlands makes it a potential target for a Russian nuclear strike in case of a future conflict. However, the Netherlands would be a target regardless of the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons.

The Netherlands Would Be a Nuclear Target No Matter What

The chief reason the Netherlands would be a target is not a few bunkers at Volkel Air Base it is the port of Rotterdam. The port is a logistical hub for U.S. reinforcements in case of future conflict. American materiel is already being supplied to the whole of Europe via Rotterdam, because of the excellent logistical network that the port of Rotterdam, and the Dutch railway (and road) system, offer. In case of future conflict, this is likely to be the spot where the reinforcements would arrive. And therefore, whether the Netherlands hosts B61s or not, it would still be a target for a potential nuclear strike. Of course, there is a way out, which would be for the Netherlands to step out of NATO. However, that option is extremely unlikely in the foreseeable future.

While we do not have any information about the Soviet, or later Russian, nuclear targeting practices, we do know something about the American plans from the 1950s. American targets included many smaller cities in Soviet satellites that had nothing to do with the nuclear enterprise. They were simply targeted because they were Soviet allies with some industrial value. The Soviets did, however, plan for a nuclear attack on France in case of war with the West. As the Czech historian Petr Luk wrote in his book Plnovn nemyslitelnho (Planning the Unthinkable), Czechoslovak forces were meant to fight in a war on French territory in which the use of nuclear weapons was contemplated. This is important, because although the plans were drafted when France was a full member of NATO, they remained in force even after France withdrew from the NATO military command structure in 1966, and thus was not a member of NATOs nuclear planning group or of NATO defense planning. In a way, France sought to distance itself from the NATO military mission including the nuclear mission to an even greater extent than some propose than some propose for the Netherlands. Yet in case of war, this would not have helped the French, as the Eastern blocs military planners considered them still a legitimate target.

Current Russian nuclear targeting plans are, of course, unknown. However, theres no reason to think that Russia would spare the Netherlands if the Dutch government would only remove U.S. nuclear weapons from its territory. A new Russian missile, SSC-8, which Russia developed in violation of the now-dead Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, is exactly the type of equipment that can target strategic facilities such as the port of Rotterdam.

Conclusion: No Safer Disarmed

As long as the Netherlands remains a member of NATO, it will be a possible target in the event of a conflict with Russia. Since NATO membership is considered vital to Dutch security, leaving the alliance is a non-starter. Refusing to allow the United States to deploy nuclear weapons at Volkel or signing disarmament treaties like the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, as some suggest would not protect the country. The idealism of anti-nuclear activists is understandable, but it does not make them right. The Netherlands a small, vulnerable, but strategically essential country cannot wish away threats from Russia. Getting rid of U.S. nuclear weapons on Dutch soil, or signing a disarmament treaty, will not make the Netherlands safer.

Michal Onderco is Assistant Professor of International Relations at Erasmus University Rotterdam and associate at the Peace Research Center Prague. He writes on the politics of nuclear nonproliferation regime.

Image: U.S. Air Force

Original post:

Getting Out of the NATO Nuclear Task Would Not Increase Dutch Security - War on the Rocks

Emmanuel Macron’s Strategy With NATO and the EU Is Disruption – Foreign Policy

Posted on by

The last few weeks have seen a flurry of diplomatic activity and disruptive new rhetoric emerging from Paris. In a blunt and wide-ranging interview on the future of Europe last month, French President Emmanuel Macron said NATO was experiencing brain death, a few weeks after starting a new diplomatic initiative toward Russia to design a new architecture based on trust and security in Europe and opposing the opening of European Union accession talks to Albania and North Macedonia. Just a few days after last weeks NATO summit in London, Paris hosted the first summit in three years with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to reignite peace talks about eastern Ukraine.

Why and how should Europeans respond to the French president? On trips over Europe in the last weeks, from Berlin to Budapest, Bratislava, and Athens, I repeatedly heard the same mixture of interest and puzzlement, if not outright distrust, about French intentions. Does the French president want to push the United States out of Europe? Is Macron trying to kill EU enlargement? Did he come to a secret agreement with Putin?

Europeans shouldnt read more than what Macron has actually said. Instead, they should seize Macrons comments as a provocationan opening bid intended to solicit their own views and red lines. Macron wants to seize Brexit and German paralysis as an opening for France to shake things up in Europe, but he knows he will need new partners. Macrons visionlike any ambitious proposalis riddled with blind spots that constructive partners can steer him away from. Europe should engage Macron to shape his agenda, rather than try to block or ignore him.

What is driving Emmanuel Macron? Traditional historical references are obsolete. Some have seen in Macrons NATO comments a resurgence of old-fashioned Gaullist nationalism or French anti-Americanism. But theres no way to reconcile that with Macrons history of campaigning with EU flags waving at his rallies and investing heavily in the relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump. Its no accident that France is the country that Trump has visited the most since his election, while Macron remains the only official state guest of the Trump presidency. The two men also led military strikes on Syria together. France is an active NATO member that General Mattis called Washingtons new partner of choice after Brexit. So much for anti-Americanism.

A closer reading of the Economist interview shows that Macrons main point was about Europe, not the NATO alliance. The French president is convinced Europeans are sleepwalking into strategic irrelevance, in a world dominated by the U.S.-China rivalry, where shifting U.S. priorities will move it away from areas critical to Europes interests. This is a shift that started before Trump and will likely outlast him.

Elected president on the ruins of a powerless French political establishment, Macron treats Brexit or the Trump election not as mere warnings or accidents but as symptoms of a fundamentally shifting international system in which Europe faces the threat of getting left behind. His bid for a sovereign Europe that protects its citizens is a direct response to the challenge. He believes Europe must make the case to its citizens that EU institutions can protect them from unruly migration waves, from terrorism, and from unfair international competition. Can Europe seize back the initiative from its adversaries and assume its power, control its borders, defend its economic interests, define the rules, make swift decisions: act like an actual polity?

The French presidents recent approach can be regarded as brutal and unilateral. Why the sudden change of tone, two and a half years into his presidency? In Paris, analysts and officials dont hesitate to clearly identify the culprit: Berlin. Early in his presidency, Macron invested heavily in the personal relationship with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, hoping that in her last term she would rise to the occasion and accept structural reforms to the EU, such as eurozone integration and stepped-up defense plans. The thinking was that Berlin would overcome its reluctance when it realized it had a partner in Paris willing to tackle structural reforms to the French economy, such as the famously rigid labor market or the pension system. The feeling in Paris is now one of betrayal: Not only did Berlin not follow through, it didnt even answer Macrons proposals in his Sorbonne speech on European sovereignty or his letter calling for renewal.

Thus the new method. Nothing in Europe moves without a crisis, so were engineering crises, someone familiar with the lyses thinking told me. Macron likely will continue seeking to disrupt the European status quo. The outcry provoked by his interview will no doubt convince him he has tapped into uncomfortable taboos and hypocrisies in need of dismantling. Despite the way Macron became an object of controversy during the most recent NATO summit, Paris believes it was a success. Macron was intent on forcing reflection on the future of the alliance, and thats what he got. Paris was especially pleased with NATOs format commitment to an expert panel to discuss the alliances future and the mention of terrorism as a threat in the summits final communique.

Similarly to its NATO provocations, France circulated a memo proposing a more gradual enlargement process a few days after opposing the opening of new enlargement talks with Albania and North Macedonia at the October European Council meeting. The proposal included more stringent conditions on the rule of law for applicant countries and the possibility to reverse the accession process given a lack of progress. If other EU member states wish to reopen the door to accession talks next spring, they should seriously examine and discuss Macrons proposals and make counterproposals of their own. While Frances partners rightly want to keep the EU open and engaged in its periphery and are eager to support North Macedonias courageous peace agreement with Greece, many EU officials also agree in private that the enlargement process had become too bureaucratic, running on autopilot. Candidate countries such as Serbia and Turkey had exposed the EUs ineffectual procedures by backsliding on democracy with little European reaction.

Other European countries should likewise reach out to Paris to shape Macrons renewed European agenda. Greece and Italy could seize on Macrons sovereignty rhetoric to ask for stronger support in carrying the burden of migration at the steps of the Mediterranean. Central and Eastern European countries could engage Macrons desire to rethink Europes security architecture, after the U.S. withdrawal from the INF treaty, by organizing a summit on the threats still posed by Russia and making clear their concerns over his attempt to engage Moscow. Instead of focusing on theological debates overs terms such as strategic autonomy or European pillar of NATOneither of which mean the same thing in Paris and Warsawthe debate could focus on developing actual capabilities and showing real solidarity.

France should itself take the lead here. If France thinks NATO is brain-dead, why doesnt it send troops to Poland to show Europeans can step up to defend each other? Frances relationship with Estonia could be a good precedent. While Estonian troops serve in Mali to fight al Qaeda, 200 French troops are stationed in rotation in Estonia within NATOs Enhanced Forward Presence.

Such steps could help assuage one of the blind spots in the French vision: its treatment of Central and Eastern Europe. French presidents since the fall of communism have generally shown little empathy for the historical experience of the nations that the writer Milan Kundera once called the kidnapped West. Macron has tried to assuage these tensions but comes with the baggage of his predecessors. A visit to Poland or Slovakia shows leaders have not forgotten then-French President Jacques Chiracs contemptuous Iraq War jab that they missed a good opportunity to shut up. Macrons opening to Russia, a long-term gamble to break the current impasse with Moscow, risks playing into that category. In a strong speech in Prague last week, French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian showed a shift in tone, reckoning that France had to listen and understand and that different national memories must be at the heart of European integration. Central European elites should read the speech as an invitation to engage.

Macron is right: The EU needs to seriously look at itself and prepare to compete in the new world. Amid rising international tensions, rising nationalist forces, and an increasingly vulnerable EU, denial is not an option. But the way forward cant be a French vision of Europe or further unilateral measures. But to prevent that, others will have to step up. Presented with the choice between Berlins offer of stasis and Macrons offer of disruption, Europeans should embrace the disruption and shape it.

See more here:

Emmanuel Macron's Strategy With NATO and the EU Is Disruption - Foreign Policy

Evolution of Higher Function May Have Set the Stage for Schizophrenia in Humans – Psychiatry Advisor

Posted on by

The cortical dysconnectivity characteristic of schizophrenia may result from evolutionary modifications that support higher brain function, according to study results published in Brain. The study, led by Martijn van den Heuvel of the Connectome Laboratory at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam in The Netherlands, examined in vivo neuroimaging data from adult humans and chimpanzees.

Investigators compared the species connectome layouts based on magnetic resonance imaging data in 58 humans (mean age, 42.59.8 years) and 22 chimpanzees (mean age, 29.412.8 years). In addition, the study analyzed 3 schizophrenia datasets with 118 patients and 113 healthy controls total. To ensure specificity given overlapping neural phenotypes in psychiatric disorders, datasets for 7 other brain disorders were also included.

Scans were processed in FreeSurfer and parcellated according to the Desikan-Killiany atlas. Connectivity was then reconstructed with deterministic fiber tracking, and the investigators used fractional anisotropy as a measure of connectivity strength and tract integrity. To assess brain dysconnectivity, they performed edgewise comparisons of connectome maps and determined t-statistics. Connections were considered specific to humans if they were seen in more than 60% of human subjects and 0% of chimpanzees, whereas shared connections had to be observed in 60% of both groups.

To determine whether connections seen in humans were unique to the evolution of homo sapiens, investigators also conducted post hoc analyses comparing human and chimpanzee connections with those of the brain in rhesus macaques (n=8).

The chimpanzee and human brain networks showed a strong binary connectome overlap of 94% (P <.001) and an overall correlation in connectivity strength (r = 0.93; P <.001). Investigators observed 27 human-specific connections (3.5% of the total connectome) compared with 7 chimpanzee-specific connections (1.1%), and the 2 groups shared 428 connections.

Evaluations of schizophrenia-related brain dysconnectivity demonstrated human patient-control differences of lower fractional anisotropy in the isthmus, parietal and temporal cortices, insula, and precuneus, among others.

Subsequently, when exploring schizophrenia-related dysconnectivity and human evolutionary modifications, human-specific connections displayed a significantly higher level of congruence with the pattern of schizophrenia dysconnectivity compared with the set of human-chimpanzee shared connections in all 3 schizophrenia datasets (P = .019, P =.012, and P =.005). The level of human-chimpanzee connectivity difference was also moderately correlated with schizophrenia dysconnectivity in all 3 datasets (r = 0.17; P =.021; r = 0.22; P =.001; and r = 0.17; P =.034). Second to human-specific connections, shared connections more common in humans demonstrated high levels of schizophrenia-related dysconnectivity (P = .0020, P =.004, and P =.010).

The investigators found no significant involvement of human-specific connections in other brain disorders. In the post hoc analysis comparing human and chimpanzee connections with those seen in rhesus macaques, the set of connections unique to humans showed significantly greater involvement compared with the set of species-shared connections in the 3 datasets (P <.001, P =.031, and P =.0020).

The investigators noted that modifications in brain circuitry in service of developing more complex brain functionality in humans may have potentially also shaped aspects of human-specific brain dysfunction. Study limitations included the relatively sparse availability of connectome data from different primate species and the variety of employed methodologies and experimental conditions used to derive connectomes.

Our findings suggest that evolutionary modifications to connections of the human cerebrum are associated with the pattern of cortical dysconnectivity in schizophrenia, the investigators wrote, Compared to our closest living relative the chimpanzee, connections present only in humans showed on average a higher involvement in schizophrenia pathology than the majority class of connections that are shared between the two species.

Reference

van den Heuvel MP, Scholtens LH, de Lange SC, et al. Evolutionary modifications in human brain connectivity associated with schizophrenia [published online November 14, 2019]. Brain. doi:10.1093/brain/awz330

View original post here:

Evolution of Higher Function May Have Set the Stage for Schizophrenia in Humans - Psychiatry Advisor

A Mic Drop on a Theory of Language Evolution – The Atlantic

Posted on by

Read: A rare universal pattern in human languages

LDT told people, basically, dont bother to go look for speech abilities in anything other than modern humans, says Thomas Sawallis, one of the authors of the new paper. Those speech abilities could include distinct vowels and consonants, syllables, or even syntaxall of which, according to LDT, should be impossible for any animal without a human vocal tract. There was always this idea, says Greg Hickok, a cognitive-science professor at the University of California at Irvine who was not involved in the study, that there was one thing that had to happen and that released the linguistic abilities. For Noam Chomsky and his followers, that thing was the invention of syntax. For proponents of LDT, it was the reshaping of the human throat.

Part of the reason LDT caught on to begin with is that language evolution, as a field, lacks concrete data. As John Locke, a linguistics professor at Lehman College, put it, Motor control rots when you die. Soft tissues like tongues and nerves and brains generally dont fossilize; DNA sequencing is impossible past a few hundred thousand years; no one has yet found a diary or rap track recorded by a teenage Australopithecus. So the anatomical argument presented by LDT gave researchers something to latch on to. Until the 60s, people who studied language evolution were considered crackpots because they didnt have any data, Locke says. When youve got nothing on the table, a little something goes a long ways.

The researcher generally credited with developing laryngeal descent theory is Philip Lieberman, now a professor at Brown University. He called the new paper just a complete misrepresentation of the entire field, among other things. One of the quantitative models the new study relies on, he says, doesnt properly represent the shape of the larynx, tongue, and other parts we use to talk: It would convert a mailing tube into a human vocal tract. And according to Lieberman, laryngeal descent theory never claimed language was not possible prior to the critical changes in our ancestors throat anatomy. Theyre trying to set up a straw man, he said.

Yet other experts I spoke with told me that setting an upper bound on when speech, and therefore language, could have possibly evolved was exactly the effect that LDT had on anyone studying language evolution. Hickok said that when he was being trained in linguistics, this was an established, almost dogmatic idea. The new study is a dramatic reversal of the status quo, he said: The phrase that came to mind when I finished it was mic drop.

Read: How F sounds might break a fundamental rule of linguistics

Still, he doesnt agree entirely with Sawallis and his co-authors conclusions. Rather than 27 million years, Hickok proposes that the earliest bound on any sort of speech ability would be nearer to human ancestors split with the Pan genus, which includes chimpanzees and bonobos, our closest living relatives. That split happened about 5 million to 7 million years agocertainly longer than 200,000 years, but a far cry from 27 million. Lieberman argues that the precursors of speech might have emerged about a little more than 3 million years ago, when artifacts like jewelry appear in the archaeological record. The idea is that both language and jewelry are intimately related to the evolution of symbolic thinking.

Read more from the original source:

A Mic Drop on a Theory of Language Evolution - The Atlantic

New fossils provide evidence about the evolution of walking – Quartz

Posted on by

Its not often that a fossil truly rewrites human evolution, but the recent discovery of an ancient extinct ape has some scientists very excited. According to its discoverers, Danuvius guggenmosi combines some human-like features with others that look like those of living chimpanzees. They suggest that it would have had an entirely distinct way of moving that combined upright walking with swinging from branches. And they claim that this probably makes it similar to the last shared ancestor of humans and chimps.

We are not so sure. Looking at a fossilized animals anatomy does give us insights into the forces that would have operated on its bones and so how it commonly moved. But its a big leap to then make conclusions about its behavior, or to go from the bones of an individual to the movement of a whole species. The Danuvius fossils are unusually complete, which does provide some vital new evidence. But how much does it really tell us about how our ancestors moved around?

Danuvius has long and mobile arms, habitually extended (stretched out) legs, feet which could sit flat on the floor, and big toes with a strong gripping action. This is a unique configuration. Showing that a specimen is unique is a prerequisite for classifying it as belonging to a separate, new species that deserves its own name.

But what matters in understanding the specimen is how we interpret its uniqueness. Danuviuss discoverers go from describing its unique anatomy to proposing a unique pattern of movement. When we look at living apes, the relationship between anatomy and movement is not so simple.

The Danuvius find actually includes fossils from four individuals, one of which is nearly complete. But even a group of specimens may not be typical of a species more generally. For instance, humans are known for walking upright, not climbing trees, but the Twa hunter-gatherers are regular tree climbers. These people, whose bones look just like ours, have distinctive muscles and ranges of movement well beyond the human norm. But you could not predict their behavior from their bones.

Every living ape uses a repertoire of movements, not just one. For example, orangutans use clambering, upright or horizontal climbing, suspensory swinging, and assisted bipedalism (walking upright using hands for support). Their movement patterns can vary in complex ways because of individual preference, body mass, age, sex, or activity.

Gorillas, meanwhile, are knuckle-walkers and we used to think they were unable to stand fully upright. But the walking gorilla Ambam is famous for his humanlike stride.

Ultimately, two animals with very similar anatomies can move differently, and two with different anatomies can move in the same way. This means that Danuvius may not be able to serve as a model for our ancestors behavior, even if its anatomy is similar to theirs.

In fact, we believe there are other plausible interpretations of Danuviuss bones. These alternatives give a picture of a repertoire of potential movements that may have been used in different contexts.

For example, one of Danuviuss most striking features is the high ridge on the top of its shinbone, which the researchers say is associated with strongly developed cruciate ligaments, which stabilize the knee joint. The researchers link these strong stabilizing ligaments with evidence for an extended hip and a foot that could be placed flat on the floor to suggest that this ape habitually stood upright. Standing upright could be a precursor to bipedal walking, so the authors suggest that this means Danuvius could have been like our last shared ancestor with other apes.

However, the cruciate ligaments also work to stabilize the knee when the leg is rotating. This only happens when the knee is bent with the foot on the ground. This is why skiers who use knee rotation to turn their bodies often injure these ligaments.

We have not seen the Danuvius bones in real life. But, based on the researchers excellent images and descriptions, an equally plausible interpretation of the pronounced ridge on the top of the shinbone could be that the animal used its knee when it was bent, with significant rotational movement.

Perhaps it hung from a branch above and used its feet to steer by gripping branches below, rather than bearing weight through the feet. This could have allowed it to capitalize on its small body weight to access fruit on fine branches. Alternatively, it could have hung from its feet, using the legs to maneuver and the hands to grasp.

All of these movements fit equally well with Danuvius bones, and could be part of its movement repertoire. So there is no way to say which movement is dominant or typical. As such, any links to our own bipedalism look much less clear-cut.

Danuvius is undoubtedly a very important fossil, with lots to teach us about how varied ape locomotion can be. But we would argue that it is not necessarily particularly like us. Instead, just like living apes, Danuvius would probably have displayed a repertoire of different movements. And we cant say which would have been typical, because anatomy is not enough to reconstruct behavior in full.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Follow this link:

New fossils provide evidence about the evolution of walking - Quartz

Top 6 Discoveries in Human Evolution, 2019 Edition | PLOS SciComm – PLoS Blogs

Posted on by

Once again, as we wind down another year, weve invited Ella Beaudoin and Briana Pobiner from the Smithsonians National Museum of Natural History to update us on what is new in the area of human evolution. Read on to see why it is our pleasure to showcase these authors insights year after year. JMO

By Ella Beaudoin, BA, and Briana Pobiner, PhD, Human Origins Program, Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History

It almost seems like every year is a new, incredible year for human evolution discoveries! There was no exception in 2019, keeping human evolution researchers (and students) on their toes. This years blog post is going to focus on discoveries that give us a new twist on old ideas from previously unknown hominin species to other evidence that sheds new light on old questions. If you want to learn more about our favorite discoveries from previous years, read our 2017 and 2018 blog posts.

1) The human family tree gets another branch: Homo luzonensis

Whereas the march of progress an iconic image of human evolution moving from chimp to upright human is a common image when it comes to human evolution, it reinforces a few misconceptions. One is that there was a simple progression from more primitive forms to more advanced forms, with modern humans at the pinnacle of evolution; another is that there was only one species or type of early human around at any one time. Nope! The best way to understand evolution is to imagine a short tree or bush: the leaves at the top outside edges of the tree are those lineages that have evolved from earlier lineages and are still around today (like modern humans and other living primates), and all of the branches lower down, that twist and turn and end without leaves, are extinct species. Some of these branches are part of the same overall branch that led to us, so they are our ancestors. Others are branches near ours which end before they reach the top of the tree; theyre essentially our evolutionary cousins.

Now enter Homo luzonensis, fossil remains of at least two adults and one child of a new hominin species found in Callao Cave on the island of Luzon in the Philippines dated to between 50,000-67,000 years old. This discovery was announced in April of this year by a team led by Florent Dtroit from the Muse de lHomme in Paris, France, and its exciting not just because its a new species, but because of how it changes our earlier understanding of the first hominin migrations out of Africa and into Asia. Homo luzonensis was around at the same time as Neanderthals, Denisovans, Homo floresiensis, and our own species, Homo sapiens, but it displays a unique mosaic of physical characteristics unlike any of these other hominins. Some of its features look very ancient for instance, the small size and simplified crowns of its molars and the 3D shape and curvature of its finger and toe bones look most similar to australopiths whereas other features of its teeth are more similar to Paranthropus, Homo erectus, and even Homo sapiens! Since its hands and feet have features that are even more ancient than those of Homo erectus, does this mean that its ancestor is an even earlier hominin that migrated out of Africa? Only the discovery of more fossils will answer this question. This question of whether an even more ancient species than Homo erectus migrated out of Africa was raised with the discovery of Homo floresiensis in 2004 (as this species also has some anatomical features similar to early species of Homo), and this question seems even less settled now with the discovery of another late-surviving island-dwelling species outside of Africa.

2) Australopithecus anamensis gets a face

Another really exciting fossil find from this year was not a new species, but a new body part of a previously known species: Australopithecus anamensis. First named in 1995, this species was known from teeth, jaws, and some postcranial bones from the sites of Allia Bay and Kanapoi in northern Kenya dated to between about 4.2 and 3.9 million years ago. But in September of this year, a team led by the Cleveland Museum of Natural Historys Yohannes Hailie-Selassie made a stunning announcement: they had found a nearly complete 3.8 million year old Australopithecus anamensis skull, MRD-VP-1/1, at the site of Woronso-Mille in Ethiopia. This extremely well-preserved skull meant that researchers could finally characterize the face of the earliest known species of Australopithecus. Furthermore, the age of the MRD cranium indicates that A. anamensis overlapped in time with A. afarensis, the species that the well-known fossil partial skeleton nicknamed Lucy belongs to. Why is that important? Until this year, most researchers had thought that A. anamensis gradually evolved into A. afarensis, with no overlap in time. While Hailie-Selassies research team say this could still be the case, they think instead its more likely to have occurred through a speciation event, in which a small group of genetically isolated A. anamensis rather than the entire species A. anamensis evolved into A. afarensis, which then lived side by side for at least 100,000 years.

3) DNA of diverse Denisovans

Aside from the discovery of fossil remains of an entirely new species, or the discovery of previously unknown skeletal elements of other species, ancient DNA is among the most cutting-edge tools that paleoanthropologists have to investigate our origins. In fact, in 2010, ancient mitochondrial DNA was extracted from the 30,000-50,000 year old fossil finger bone of a young woman from Denisova Cave in Siberia, where both modern human and Neanderthal fossils had been discovered. But she was neither human nor Neanderthal she was from an extinct population which before then had been unknown to scientists. Though their still fragmentary fossil record has meant that scientists have not designated them as a new species, they are called Denisovans after the place where their remains were first discovered. Scientists have since determined that Denisovans interbred with both modern humans and Neanderthals.

In April of this year, a new study of 161 modern human genomes from 14 island groups in Island Southeast Asia and New Guinea region led by Murray Cox of Massey University in New Zealand was published. The results indicate that modern humans interbred with at least three Denisovan groups that were geographically isolated from each other in deep time. One of these Denisovan lineages is found in East Asians, whose DNA indicates a close relationship to the fossil remains found in Denisova Cave. The other two Denisovan lineages diverged from each other around 363,000 years ago and split off from the first lineage about 283,000 years ago. Traces of one of these two lineages is mainly found in modern Papuans, while the other is found in people over a much larger area of Asia and Oceania. The implication? Denisovans are actually three different groups, with more genetic diversity in less than a dozen bones that currently comprise their entire fossil sample than in the >7.7 billion modern humans alive today.

4) Necklace-wearing Neanderthals

Early depictions of Neanderthals, our short, stocky now-extinct relatives who were built for the cold and lived in Europe and western Asia between about 400,000 and 40,000 years ago, portrayed them as brutish and unintelligent but subsequent research indicated they were accomplished hunters who made complex tools, buried their dead, and may have taken care of the sick and injured. But were they capable of creating symbolic culture, like the early modern humans who ventured into Neanderthal territory in Europe and left behind a swath of cave paintings and cultural artifacts that could be considered art? In November of this year, a research team led by Antonio Rodrguez-Hidalgo from the Institute of Evolution in Africa (IDEA) in Madrid swooped in with an answer. They studied imperial eagle talons from Cova Foradada Cave in Calafell, Spain and concluded that since theres hardly any meat on eagle feet, the cut marks on these talons must mean that the Neanderthals were using them as jewelry! While a handful of previous examples of Neanderthals making necklaces from the bones of birds of prey have been found, this is the first evidence of the use of personal ornaments among Iberian Neanderthals, and at 44,000 years ago, among the most recent evidence of this behavior in Neanderthals in general. This discovery revisits questions about Neanderthal self-expression, community identity, cultural complexity, and how they signaled their social affiliation to outside groups.

5) Bendy-backed bipedal apes

Bipedalism was one of the earliest hominin traits to evolve. But among primates, is bipedalism unique to hominins? In November of this year, a team led by Carol Ward from the University of Missouri reported on their study of a recently discovered 10 million year old pelvis of a medium dog-sized fossil ape species Rudapithecus hungaricus from Rudabnya, Hungary. After using 3-D modeling techniques to digitally fill in missing parts of the pelvis, they determined that it probably moved around in tree branches like modern apes do, climbing with its arms and holding its body upright. But this species had a much more flexible torso than any of todays living apes, who have short lower back and longer pelves and it might have been able to stand upright when it was on the ground, like modern and ancient humans. This suggests that a Rudapithecus body plan might be a better model for the body plan our earliest ancestors than the body plan of modern apes who have all been evolving for just as long as we have.

6) Ape teeth, ancient proteins, and orangutan relatives: Gigantopithecus!

Speaking of fossil apesour last discovery for this year features an ape fossil, ancient proteins, and a link to living orangutans. In November of this year, a team led by Frido Welker from the University of Copenhagen published a paper on their analysis of proteome (ancient protein) sequences they retrieved from a 1.9 million year old Gigantopithecus blacki molar from Chuifeng Cave, China. They concluded that the enormous Gigantopithecus blacki, which probably stood nearly 10 feet tall and weighed over a thousand pounds (although it is only known from teeth and lower jaws), is most closely related to living orangutans with whom it shared a common ancestor between about 1210 million years ago. One of the most exciting things about this research is that up until now, the oldest genetic material (namely, DNA) from subtropical areas like where Gigantopithecus blacki lived in Asia has only been about 10,000 years old. The fact that this team was able to retrieve ancient proteins from nearly two-million-year-old fossils in China makes us optimistic about the possibility of doing the same with hominin fossils in the future!

Ella Beaudoin is a Paleolithic archaeologist whose research interests span from cultural adaption and resistance to colonialism, to early hominin cultural evolution and landscape use. She has conducted fieldwork in the US, Kenya, and South Africa. She was previously a student at American University and staff member of the Koobi Fora Field School. She joined the Smithsonian in 2017.

Briana Pobiner is a paleoanthropologist whose research centers on the evolution of human diet (with a focus on meat-eating), but has included topics as diverse as human cannibalism and chimpanzee carnivory. She has done fieldwork in Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, and Indonesia. Since joining the Smithsonian in 2005 to help put together the Hall of Human Origins, in addition to continuing her active field, laboratory, and experimental research programs, she also leads the Human Origins Programs education and outreach efforts and is an Associate Research Professor of Anthropology at the George Washington University.

Want to stay connected with #SciCommPLOS or pitch an idea for a blog post? Tweet us at @SciCommPLOSor email us atscicommplos@gmail.com.

Continued here:

Top 6 Discoveries in Human Evolution, 2019 Edition | PLOS SciComm - PLoS Blogs

Cresswind Leads Evolution of Active Adult Product – Patch.com

Posted on by

Kolter Homes a leader in developing next-generation, highly-amenitized, master-planned active adult communities in the Southeastern U.S. continues to evolve its active adult product to meet the changes and needs of the 55+ market. When Cresswind Georgia at Twin Lakes, located in Hoschton, Georgia, opens for sales in spring 2020, homebuyers will experience the next evolution in homes, amenities, landscaping and lifestyle.

"When the active adult market started in the 1940s and 1950s, it wasn't at all lifestyle-focused," Kolter Homes President Robert Rademacher said. "The main focus was to get out of the big house. Homes typically included two bedrooms, a dining room and living room, and they were more cut up as far as the flow from room-to-room."

As the active adult market has evolved, propelled by the Boomers, homes and clubhouses evolved with it. Over the past 20 years, home plans have changed drastically. Both the living room and formal dining room have become ideas of the past. Homes have become more open concept. Whoever is doing the cooking doesn't want to be cut off from the family during holidays and family gatherings.

"When designing homes, we pay attention to everything including the shortest distance from the garage to the kitchen," Rademacher said.

Additionally, today's active adult doesn't want lawn work, they want to travel. They aren't focused on a big lawn, but instead, they are focused on the rear of the home where they can have privacy on a covered patio or porch to entertain family and friends.

Cresswind plans offer the ability to add an 8- to 16-foot covered porch on the back of the home. Having a big front porch was a 1960s and 1970s concept, and now homebuyers would rather spend the money on outdoor living with privacy.

"Meeting your neighbors and seeing everyone is done at the clubhouse now," Rademacher said. "We include streetlights and wide sidewalks in our communities to encourage and support walkability."

Storage space is another popular necessity for homes. By including plenty of flexible space, such as garage extensions or a bonus loft, buyers gain choices on how to make the home live for them. For example, having permanent storage space is important.

"At some point in life, you don't want to crawl through a hole in the ceiling to get to the attic and the decorations that are stored there," Rademacher said.

As a solution to this, Cresswind communities offer bonus lofts with permanent staircases. These lofts can be used in a variety of ways, for storage, as a finished secondary bedroom or even as a craft space that is out of the way. Loft areas offer expandability and an area that you don't have to clean every day.

"A loft is an inexpensive way to expand a house to meet our buyers' needs, without going into a huge second story," Rademacher said. "This meets their needs and keeps the price of the house down."

In Georgia, homebuyers can often add a basement, and this offers additional flexibility. Whether they want to add a complete guest quarter and still have a ton of space left over for storage, a living room with a guest room or an entertainment room, buyers like the options and flexibility that are available.

According to Rademacher, active adults do not always need or want a large home. In response, Kolter is introducing a new collection of homes for Cresswind Georgia at Twin Lakes to cater to a new group of homebuyers. These 30-foot-wide homes will be situated on 40-foot homesites and mixed in among the bigger homes and lots.

The lifestyle component of active adult communities has become more important and more dynamic. Where bocce ball and horseshoe pits used to be the craze, today's clubhouses are more like a cruise ship on land with programmed activities, clubs and plenty of amenities. Kolter Homes employs a full-time Director of Lifestyle, Mark LaClaire, who focuses on the residents' experience, as well as furthering the amenity-rich environments and award-winning quality of all Kolter lifestyle facilities, programs, staff and operations.

Pickleball has become the hot amenity at active adult communities, and Cresswind Georgia at Twin Lakes will be one of the largest facilities available.

"It is very fast growing and has been so successful that we are offering a lot of courts," Rademacher said. "This means there will be less wait time on the courts, and we can work to attract national tournaments to Atlanta.

"People like pickleball because it is more social, there are fewer injuries and pretty much everyone can play this sport. It is a great exercise option," Rademacher concluded.

Clubhouses have also become more flexible than ever. At Cresswind, clubhouses are expansive spaces with tons of flexibility for multiple activities.

"Where previously we had an aerobics room, craft room, fitness room, pools inside and out, we now build much larger fitness centers and create the maximum amount of open space as possible allowing the absolute most use of the space," Rademacher said. "For instance, we might host a big concert Saturday night and then Sunday pull in dividers for six or eight clubs to meet. We can give people the space they want and serve a multitude of functions."

Amenities also include event lawns, indoor and outdoor pools and more. At all Cresswind communities, close attention is paid to the grooming and landscaping throughout. Homebuyers might not realize it at first because it just looks right, but the communities always look terrific because the landscaping is generous and well maintained.

By comparison, it is easy to see the fantastic evolution that active adult communities have made over the years. To learn more about the unbeatable active adult lifestyle coming soon to Cresswind Georgia at Twin Lakes, visit http://www.KolterHomes.com/new-homes/active-adult-community-cresswind-georgia.

*See an SR Homes specialist for complete details.

This post is an advertorial piece contributed by a Patch Community Partner, a local sponsor. The views expressed in this post are the author's own.

For more about Community Partner, click here.

See more here:

Cresswind Leads Evolution of Active Adult Product - Patch.com

Conspiracy theories: how belief is rooted in evolution not ignorance – The Conversation UK

Posted on by

Despite creative efforts to tackle it, belief in conspiracy theories, alternative facts and fake news show no sign of abating. This is clearly a huge problem, as seen when it comes to climate change, vaccines and expertise in general with anti-scientific attitudes increasingly influencing politics.

So why cant we stop such views from spreading? My opinion is that we have failed to understand their root causes, often assuming it is down to ignorance. But new research, published in my book, Knowledge Resistance: How We Avoid Insight from Others, shows that the capacity to ignore valid facts has most likely had adaptive value throughout human evolution. Therefore, this capacity is in our genes today. Ultimately, realising this is our best bet to tackle the problem.

So far, public intellectuals have roughly made two core arguments about our post-truth world. The physician Hans Rosling and the psychologist Steven Pinker argue it has come about due to deficits in facts and reasoned thinking and can therefore be sufficiently tackled with education.

Meanwhile, Nobel Prize winner Richard Thaler and other behavioural economists have shown how the mere provision of more and better facts often lead already polarised groups to become even more polarised in their beliefs.

The conclusion of Thaler is that humans are deeply irrational, operating with harmful biases. The best way to tackle it is therefore nudging tricking our irrational brains for instance by changing measles vaccination from an opt-in to a less burdensome opt-out choice.

Such arguments have often resonated well with frustrated climate scientists, public health experts and agri-scientists (complaining about GMO-opposers). Still, their solutions clearly remain insufficient for dealing with a fact-resisting, polarised society.

In my comprehensive study, I interviewed numerous eminent academics at the University of Oxford, London School of Economics and Kings College London, about their views. They were experts on social, economic and evolutionary sciences. I analysed their comments in the context of the latest findings on topics raging from the origin of humanity, climate change and vaccination to religion and gender differences.

It became evident that much of knowledge resistance is better understood as a manifestation of social rationality. Essentially, humans are social animals; fitting into a group is whats most important to us. Often, objective knowledge-seeking can help strengthen group bonding such as when you prepare a well-researched action plan for your colleagues at work.

But when knowledge and group bonding dont converge, we often prioritise fitting in over pursuing the most valid knowledge. In one large experiment, it turned out that both liberals and conservatives actively avoided having conversations with people of the other side on issues of drug policy, death penalty and gun ownership. This was the case even when they were offered a chance of winning money if they discussed with the other group. Avoiding the insights from opposing groups helped people dodge having to criticise the view of their own community.

Similarly, if your community strongly opposes what an overwhelming part of science concludes about vaccination or climate change, you often unconsciously prioritise avoiding getting into conflicts about it.

This is further backed up by research showing that the climate deniers who score the highest on scientific literacy tests are more confident than the average in that group that climate change isnt happening despite the evidence showing this is the case. And those among the climate concerned who score the highest on the same tests are more confident than the average in that group that climate change is happening.

This logic of prioritising the means that get us accepted and secured in a group we respect is deep. Those among the earliest humans who werent prepared to share the beliefs of their community ran the risk of being distrusted and even excluded.

And social exclusion was an enormous increased threat against survival making them vulnerable to being killed by other groups, animals or by having no one to cooperate with. These early humans therefore had much lower chances of reproducing. It therefore seems fair to conclude that being prepared to resist knowledge and facts is an evolutionary, genetic adaptation of humans to the socially challenging life in hunter-gatherer societies.

Today, we are part of many groups and internet networks, to be sure, and can in some sense shop around for new alliances if our old groups dont like us. Still, humanity today shares the same binary mindset and strong drive to avoid being socially excluded as our ancestors who only knew about a few groups. The groups we are part of also help shape our identity, which can make it hard to change groups. Individuals who change groups and opinions constantly may also be less trusted, even among their new peers.

In my research, I show how this matters when it comes to dealing with fact resistance. Ultimately, we need to take social aspects into account when communicating facts and arguments with various groups. This could be through using role models, new ways of framing problems, new rules and routines in our organisations and new types of scientific narratives that resonate with the intuitions and interests of more groups than our own.

There are no quick fixes, of course. But if climate change were reframed from the liberal/leftist moral perspective of the need for global fairness to conservative perspectives of respect for the authority of the father land, the sacredness of Gods creation and the individuals right not to have their life project jeopardised by climate change, this might resonate better with conservatives.

If we take social factors into account, this would help us create new and more powerful ways to fight belief in conspiracy theories and fake news. I hope my approach will stimulate joint efforts of moving beyond disputes disguised as controversies over facts and into conversations about what often matters more deeply to us as social beings.

Continue reading here:

Conspiracy theories: how belief is rooted in evolution not ignorance - The Conversation UK

Gene editing will let us control our very evolution. Will we use it wisely? – The Guardian

Posted on by

We live in a time when science and technology are having an impact on our society in more and more ways. And the decisions that shape how these new fields of knowledge develop ultimately affect all of us.

When I studied biology in high school, I didnt learn about DNA for a very simple reason. The work of Francis Crick, James Watson, Rosalind Franklin and others who unlocked the structure of the basic code of life was still years away. The idea of engineering human beings? Well, that was firmly the stuff of science fiction, like Aldous Huxleys dystopian novel Brave New World (published a year after my birth). It seemed as likely as, say, going to the moon.

There are a few inferences you can make from this framing of my life. One is that I have been on the planet for a while. The other is the speed of change in what we know about what life is, and how we can control it, has accelerated at a rapid rate. Now we as a species are on the precipice of being able to manipulate the very building blocks of human evolution, not to mention wield unpredictable change on the greater world around us. Even as I commit that thought to paper, I pause in awe at its implications.

I have lived through eventful times and my job as a journalist has been to chronicle wars, presidents and sweeping social movements such as civil rights. I have seen a world in flux, but when I try to peer into the future I come to the conclusion that this story of humankinds ability to understand life on its most intimate level and be able to tinker with it for our benefit or detriment is likely to be the biggest one I will ever cover.

We are living in one of the greatest epochs of human exploration and it will shape our world as profoundly as the age of the transoceanic explorers. It is just that the beachheads on which we are landing and the continents we are mapping comprise a world far too small to see with the naked eye. Some of it is even invisible to our most powerful microscopes.

This brings me to a term that has become a big part of my life over the last few years: Crispr. Perhaps you know of it. Perhaps you dont. When I first heard of it, I thought it might be a new brand of toaster. I now know its an extremely powerful tool for editing genes in seemingly any organism on Earth, including humans. Scientists doing basic research have been uncovering the mechanisms of life for decades. They have been creating tools for modifying individual genes but Crispr is one of those revolutions where what researchers thought might be possible in the distant horizon is suddenly available now. Its cheap, its relatively simple and its remarkably precise.

I immediately knew that this was a story that needed telling. Human Nature, the resulting film full disclosure, I am executive producer came out of our conversations with scientists. They tend not to be the type of people who hype things but when they talk about Crispr you can feel the urgency in their voices. This is something you need to know about. All of you. If you are worried about your health or the health of your children. If you are concerned about how we might need to engineer our planet in the face of the climate crisis. If you are in finance, law or the world of tech. This will shape all of it.

And as we grapple with the unintended consequences of the internet and social media, as we try to make progress against a heating planet, I humbly submit that we as a species tend not to be good at thinking through where we are going until a crisis is already upon us. I fervently hope with Crispr that we can start the conversation sooner. That we can start it now. Thats why we made the film.

To be clear, we are probably a long way from designing babies to be more intelligent or more musically inclined. Life is just too complex for that, at least right now. More immediately, there is so much about this technology that is very exciting. As someone who remembers a time when my classmates were struck down with childhood diseases for which we now have vaccines, I know science can have profound applications for human health. Crispr could cure genetic diseases such as sickle cell and Huntingtons. It is being tested against cancers and HIV. It could also potentially be used to make crops more drought-resistant or food more nutritious.

On the other hand, we are walking closer to a world Aldous Huxley foresaw. What does it mean to be human? Where should we draw the boundaries beyond which we dare not cross? The inspiring researchers we talked to for the film know that the ethical and moral questions this technology raises are not for them to decide. Science has given us the tools, but not the answers. This is up to us, all of us. We need to be informed. We need to be honest with whats real and whats not. And we need to add our voices to a global conversation. Thats part of our responsibility as humans living on Earth today.

Dan Rather is one of the USs most feted journalists. He anchored CBS Evening News for 24 years

Human Nature is in UK cinemas now before a university town tour in the new year, wondercollaborative.org/human-nature-documentary-film/#screenings . It will be shown on BBC Storyville in spring/summer 2020

See the article here:

Gene editing will let us control our very evolution. Will we use it wisely? - The Guardian

7 things that will affect next stage of banking’s evolution – American Banker

Posted on by

Many technologists at financial services firms are concerned about how to advocate for the high cost of tech investment in the face of potential economic downturn.

I feel like I always operate in a recession, Robert Candler, the head of digital client strategy at Bernstein Private Wealth Management, told the audience at InVest|West.

Ron Shevlin, managing director of fintech research at Cornerstone Advisors, estimates U.S. banks have spent $67 billion overall on tech budgets.

Meanwhile, integrating increasingly advanced technology onto existing bank infrastructure is getting tougher.

Kabir Sethi, director of digital wealth management at Merrill Lynch, provided an anecdote to the audience to explain: The project to build a new onboarding system for its digital platform at his firm took more than a year and 130 staff.

No financial services firm can avoid such investment, though, as it will be critical to leaner and more efficient operations, according to a new study from Accenture.

U.S. and Canadian banks could save more than $70 billion through 2025 using technology to automate jobs or assist employees, the firm found, according to Bloomberg News.

As part of tackling costs and investment, banks will have to rethink the resource allocation discussion, said Anton Honikman, chief executive of MyVest, an enterprise wealth management platform provider owned by the insurance giant TIAA.

"It's a real challenge," Honikman said. "They must ask, does our organizational design and structure hold back progress? Firms not only are organized a certain way, but their budgets are allocated in that same way, teams are formed that way, and data structure is ordered to support those fiefdoms."

Read more:

7 things that will affect next stage of banking's evolution - American Banker

Pokemon Sword and Shield evolution items: All the items you can use to evolve Pokemon in Galar – GamesRadar

Posted on by

There's a lot of Pokemon Sword and Shield evolution items you can use to evolve all sorts of Pokemon in the game, and understanding what each of them does is crucial to completing the Pokedex. From the Razor Claw and the Sun Stone to the Protector and Reaper Cloth, all manner of Pokemon require special items to evolve. We've got the low down for every single one right here, including all of the different stones in Pokemon Sword and Shield.

If you're looking to evolve a female Snorunt or male Kirlia, you'll want to get your hands on a Pokemon Sword and Shield Dawn Stone.

The Pokemon Sword and Shield Dusk Stone can be used to evolve both Lampent and Doublade into Chandelure and Aegislash respectively, and we know where to get them.

A classic, the Pokemon Sword and Shield Fire Stone evolves three Gen 1 Pokemon; Vulpix, Growlithe, and Eevee.

You can evolve Eevee into Glaceon and Galarian Darumaka into Galarian Darmanitan with a Pokemon Sword and Shield Ice Stone.

Get your hands on a Pokemon Sword and Shield Leaf Stone to evolve Nuzleaf, Gloom, and Eevee (into Leafeon).

Another classic first discovered in the series in Mt. Moon, the Pokemon Sword and Shield Moon Stone can be used to evolve Clefairy into Clefable and Munna into Musharna.

Ooh, shiny! The Pokemon Sword and Shield Shiny Stone will evolve Minccino, Roselia, and Togetic.

Gloom gets another evolution in the form of Bellossom with the Pokemon Sword and Shield Sun Stone, and you can also evolve Cottonee and Helioptile.

Use the Pokemon Sword and Shield Thunder Stone to evolve everyone's favourite mouse, Pikachu, along with Eevee (into Jolteon) and Charjabug.

The Pokemon Sword and Shield Water Stone can be used to evolve Lombre into Ludicolo, Shellder into Cloyster, and Eevee into Vaporeon.

On to non-stone evolution items now, and the Pokemon Sword and Shield Metal Coat is what you need to evolve Onix into Steelix.

If you want to evolve Pokemon Sword and Shield Feebas into Milotic, you'll need to get your hands on a Prism Scale and trade it.

The Pokemon Sword and Shield Protector is used to evolve Rhydon into Rhyperior, but only when you trade it while it's holding one.

The ominously named Pokemon Sword and Shield Reaper Cloth will evolve Dusclops into Dusknoir when traded.

Get your hands on a Pokemon Sword and Shield Sachet and you'll be able to evolve Spritzee into Aromatisse when it's traded.

To evolve Swirlix into Slurpuff, you'll need to trade it while it's holding a Pokemon Sword and Shield Whipped Dream.

Go here to see the original:

Pokemon Sword and Shield evolution items: All the items you can use to evolve Pokemon in Galar - GamesRadar

The Evolution of China’s Great Power Competition – The National Interest Online

Posted on by

Great-power competition was the central organizing principle of the just-concluded December 2019 sessions of the Loisach Group, the track 1.5 German-American security dialogue co-hosted by The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies and the Munich Security Conference. Yet while there was unanimous agreement that both China and Russia are revisionist powers seeking to alter, redefine or even abolish the rules that have governed the international system since the end of the Cold War, as part of their efforts to reduce the overall influence of the Euro-Atlantic world in global affairsgreat power competition does not automatically lend itself to shared solutions.

Part of the problem is that all three words of the bumper sticker are open to major differences in interpretation. First and foremost, what constitutes competition? Which sports metaphor best describes what sort of competition we are discussing? Is this a sudden-death, single-game match where winning and losing are zero-sum in nature, like a game of football (in either its international or American variants)? Is it more akin to a tournament like the Tour de France where winning individual races matters less than overall performance? Is it like the golf circuit where winning conveys more prestige and prize money but where other finalists can still walk away with substantial prize purses? To put in more bluntly, there is a major difference between great power competition where the goal is to eliminate rivals versus one where all the great powers are still standing at the end of the day and the focus is on their standing in the international system.

Second, who are the powers that are competing? The default assumption of the U.S. national security community is that we are focusing attention on the big three revisionists of Russia, China, and Iran. Yet among a large swathe of the populist base, security allies but economic competitors like Japan and Germany are also equally the subject of competition. And who are the technological powers against which the United States must either partner or compete? I recall clearly a fascinating session at the Center for the National Interest some fifteen years ago where former National Security Advisor Robert Bud McFarlane made the point that the country which succeeds in breaking dependence on hydrocarbons to power its vehicles and transport infrastructure will become the major winner of the twenty-first century. During the Cold War, we tended to think of the technological and industrial powerhouses of East Asia, Western Europe and North America as forming a unified conglomerate under the rubric of the Free Worldbut is that going to remain operative as we move into the mid-twenty-first century?

Finally, what makes a power great? Nuclear weapons (so does this induct Pakistan and North Korea into the ranks of the great powers)? Global power projection capabilities? Economic and financial resources? Soft or sharp power tools to influence other societies? Under some rankings, Russia falls off the list of great powerscertainly not the perspective of many in the U.S. national security community who routinely include Russia as one of the great powers with which the United States is in competition.

We also cannot ignore the geographic question. Much to the chagrin and confusion of some in the U.S. national security community, Central European states who vigorously resist the expansion of Russian influence also eagerly accept Chinese investment and loans and the introduction of Chinese telecommunications technology. In part, this is because countries like Poland have a clear historical experience of occupation at the hands of different regimes centered to the east (Russian Empire and the USSR), but no worries of domination from Beijing (short-lived Mongol incursions in the thirteenth century notwithstanding). Similarly, Americas East Asian allies are well aware of the threat posed by a rising Chinaand do not trust Xi Jinpings win-win formulationsand, conscious of the need to keep Russia as a balancing factor in northeast Asian politics, are less inclined to join Western sanctions measures imposed on Moscow over its incursions into Ukraine.

One solution would be to force the spring in terms of pushing Moscow and Beijing into each others arms to such an extent that Moscow and Beijing become equal problems for Central Europeans and East Asian states alike, marrying Chinas economic and military potentials with Russias energy and sharp power tools. This would also entail resurrecting concepts of a global NATO based less on shared values and more on the perception that durable trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific coalitions would be needed to contain and balance both China and Russia. Another approach would be to disaggregate Russia and China in such a fashion so that regional balances can be preserved. Vietnam and India have traditionally maintained their security relationships with Moscow for precisely such reasons, while Central Europeans see Chinese investment in Ukraine as a way to counterbalance Russias geoeconomic pressure.

One thing is certain, however. Key European and Asian allies and partners of America have embraced the language of great power competitionbut still have divergent definitions, not only with Washington but with each other. And the acceptance of a term at dialogues and security conferences does not change Elbridge Colbys observation: We now live in a world of multiple powers with divergent interests and objectives. The task is to ensure that the analytic tool of great power competition helps to illuminate rather than obscure this reality.

Nikolas K. Gvosdev is a contributing editor at the National Interest.

Image: Reuters

Read the original here:

The Evolution of China's Great Power Competition - The National Interest Online

The Premier League’s next evolution: Is the obsession with possession coming to an end? – ESPN

Posted on by

In "The Mixer," Michael Cox tells the story of Manchester United winger Andrei Kanchelskis (1991-95) muttering "English football is s---" as he stormed off the practice field, protesting what he felt were pointless crossing drills. Kanchelskis wasn't wrong. In the years following the Heysel ban, as English teams were reintegrated into European football competitions, it had quickly become clear that English football was stuck in the dark ages. No team advanced beyond the second round of the European Cup from 1991 to '93, and when the competition became the UEFA Champions League and introduced group play, nobody made it out of the group stage in 1994 or 1995.

While the game was evolving into something more controlled and creative in other parts of Europe, English football was still pretty reliant on long-bomb passing, hopeful crosses and hard tackles.

Alex Ferguson, Kanchelskis' manager at the time of "s---," took these failures to heart. Long considered a "man-manager" (the soccer way of saying "players' coach") more than a master tactician, his biggest strength ended up becoming his adaptability. He brought more creativity to the club and he expanded his tactical repertoire. Both he and United evolved. They not only dominated the Premier League (eight titles between 1993 and 2003), but in 1997, they broke through to the Champions League semifinals. Two years later, they won the whole thing.

2 Related

United served as a bellwether of sorts for the rest of the Premier League, giving other clubs a template from which to work, and the combination of tactical awareness and increasing money from TV rights -- which allowed top clubs to import choice playing and coaching talent from all over the globe -- would turn the league into a juggernaut. Liverpool won the Champions League, with Chelsea reaching the semifinals, in 2005. Arsenal made the finals in 2006, and three English teams made at least the semifinals in 2007, 2008 and 2009. United won its second title in 2008.

But innovation never stops. It is a constant race to stay ahead. Ferguson was kept from two more European crowns by Pep Guardiola and Barcelona in 2009 and 2011, and by the end of Ferguson's United tenure in 2013, the Premier League had again lost its edge. From 2010 to '13, English teams made only two combined semifinal appearances (United lost in the 2011 finals, Chelsea won an unlikely title in 2012) and in 2013, no team made it out of the Round of 16. Ferguson's retirement left a void not only for United but also for this rich but increasingly directionless league.

It was somewhat symbolic that Barcelona was the team to hold Man United back. Those Barca teams, along with the Spain squads (loaded with Barca players) that won Euro 2008, the 2010 World Cup and Euro 2012, did more to redefine the game of soccer than any in recent times. Barca showed the world the platonic ideal of an ultra-patient, possession-first, kill-the-body-and-the-head-will-follow squad. By the time of Ferguson's retirement, Guardiola had left Barcelona and was preparing for three seasons at Bayern Munich. And by the time Guardiola came to England to coach Manchester City in 2016, the league's re-evolution had taken hold.

It has only picked up speed since.

Here are a few stats for the average Premier League team in different ranges of seasons:

*Direct speed is an Opta measure that defines how quickly you are attempting to advance the ball vertically, presented in meters per second.

The average Premier League team is far more pragmatic than it was a few years ago. There are fewer wasted possessions (and fewer possessions overall), fewer low-percentage shots and fewer low-percentage passes. There are fewer long balls, too, and more commitment to passing triangles and retention. The data was already trending in this direction before Guardiola's arrival, and it went into overdrive after. In short, English teams - in particular, the Big Six (Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham) -- have more control over the ball than they used to.

Taking Guardiola's average-skewing City out of the equation, average possession for the five other members of the Big Six only went up from 57% before Fergie's retirement to 58%. Still, while possession itself didn't change, teams' tendencies in possession did: the Big Six Sans City have gone from 503 passes over 103 possessions per 90 minutes before Fergie's retirement to 557 in 97 since. Their percentage of forward passes has dropped, and their direct speed has fallen from 1.8 meters per second to 1.5. (For context, 1.8 would have ranked 10th in 2013 but would rank second today. The league is far less "vertical" now.)

Adapting in this way, and continuing to spend on big talent, helped open the spigot for European wins again. After claiming just two of 16 Champions League semifinal spots from 2014 to '17, Liverpool made the finals in 2018, then Liverpool beat Tottenham in the finals in 2019. (City, though dominant, have fallen short thanks to back-to-back quarterfinal upsets against Premier League rivals: Liverpool in 2018, Spurs last year.)

It's too early to know what to make of this Premier League season; the teams are not yet through half of their 38 games and there's plenty of time for regression to the mean. But things have changed this fall.

Here is the same chart as above, but with 2019-20 data included:

Until this fall, almost any English team attempting to play the possession game like the "big boys" was rewarded with defeat. Over the past five seasons, only 11 teams outside of the Big Six have enjoyed a rate of possession over 50%: Everton (four times), Southampton (three), Bournemouth (two), Leicester City (one) and Swansea City (one). They averaged a ranking of 10.5 in the final league table but never finished ahead of any Big Six teams while doing it.

Granted, no strategy was likely to regularly get you ahead of those six, but a lesser form of the possession game didn't always do much for these teams in the standings. Bournemouth finished 16th in 2016, for instance, and Southampton 17th in 2018. Meanwhile, the 10 most successful non-Big Six clubs of these five seasons (according to average points won per match) included the direct, vertical and 43% possession Leicester squad that won the league in 2016; the 2018-19 Wolves squad that had 46% possession, played bend-don't-break defense and allowed almost no clean shots on goal; and the definitively old-school 2017-18 Burnley team that enjoyed 43% possession, threw bodies in front of every opposing shot and attempted mostly forward passes, take-ons and crosses on offense.

Possession has primarily been the favorite's tactic, not the underdog's. But that has not been the story in 2019-20.

1. There are a few identity crises within the Big Six. I have mostly spoken in this piece about the six richest clubs as a monolith, deploying the same strategy and equally sharing the top six spots in the table among themselves. That, of course, is not how things have played out, especially since Guardiola's second season. The 2017-18 and 2018-19 City squads dominated the Premier League at a level rarely seen, with Jurgen Klopp's Liverpool joining them in an all-time, one-on-one race last spring. Their runaway success appears to have led to identity crises and increased managerial churn at their immediate rivals

Arsenal just fired manager Unai Emery and were, until Monday's win at West Ham, closer to the relegation zone than fifth place. Spurs ran out of gas under manager Mauricio Pochettino and recently handed the reins to former Chelsea and United manager Jose Mourinho. They are seventh. Manchester United finished sixth last season and have had to deploy a solid recent run of form to get back to that level now. City have lost some of their form, too.

It's a bit of a chicken-or-egg situation here. Did slippage from a few big clubs open the door for others, or did familiarity and the rise of certain clubs and tactics speed up the slip? Or is it both? Teams definitely adjust over time no matter what your style: you have to get better at the style to retain the same level of success. Some members of the Big Six most certainly haven't gotten better.

Also, the possession game has been a bit more egalitarian this fall. At 58%, Brendan Rogers' Leicester have the best possession rate for a non-Big Six team since Southampton in 2013-14, while Brighton, Everton and Norwich City are all at 50% or higher. That none of those last three are higher than 12th in the table tells us something about possession's slipping correlation with winning, though Leicester are second heading into the festive period. They're a special case, perhaps reaping the financial dividends sown from Champions League participation and the sale of some star players (N'Golo Kante, Riyad Mahrez and Harry Maguire).

1:34

Craig Burley thinks Pep Guardiola might have lingering doubts about staying for another rebuild at Manchester City.

2. Teams appear more capable of following the "Beating Man City" blueprint. Guardiola's side look downright mortal in his fourth season. While Liverpool has managed to somehow upgrade last year's form (2.9 points won per match currently), City are 14 points back. Granted, City's "mortal" is most clubs' "fantastic." They are averaging two points per match and have once again advanced to the Champions League last-16 with ease. Still, slippage is slippage.

So what's gone wrong? Offensively, not much of anything. City have scored 44 goals in 16 matches, which projects to 105 for the season. Only one club (2017-18 Manchester City) has scored more. They are taking possession in their opponent's defensive third more than ever, and more sequences of play are leading to shots than ever. While their 65% possession rate is their lowest in three years, it's still the highest in the league.

No, their main problem is in defense, as Premier League opponents appear more capable than ever of exploiting the vulnerabilities of Guardiola's high-line system. They've given up at least two goals in all six league "non-wins" (two draws, four losses), and their 1.19 goals allowed per game belies that of an eighth- or ninth-place team, not a contender. These issues have been twofold. First, despite having more money at their disposal than most nation-states, City have personnel problems. Club icon Vincent Kompany is gone, center-back Aymeric Laporte is out with a long-term knee injury and another center-back, John Stones, missed more than a month with a muscle injury. The closest thing to a steadying presence in the back is Nicolas Otamendi, and he's three years past his peak.

Beyond that, the back line is always going to be the most vulnerable spot for a Guardiola team. Back in his Barca days, he famously said, "Without the ball, we are a disastrous team, a horrible team, so we need the ball."

The keys to beating a Guardiola team are, and have always been, transition opportunities and set pieces, and while opponents are generating only slightly more chances via set pieces, they are advancing the ball far more directly and effectively. Whether opponents have adjusted to take better advantage of this (both in terms of tactics and personnel), or whether City just isn't as good at transition defense, the table has shifted a bit out of their favor.

Let's look at some sequence data. Opta defines sequences as "passages of play which belong to one team and are ended by defensive actions, stoppages in play or a shot." (They differ from possessions in that possessions can make up a series of sequences.)

- Sequences ending in a shot: 6.2 in 2017-18, 6.3 in 2018-19, 7.3 in 2019-20 (to date)- Sequences ending in a shot and featuring fewer than six passes: 5.6 in 2017-18, 5.4 in 2018-19, 6.3 in 2019-20- Sequences featuring only one player: 1.9 in 2017-18, 1.6 in 2018-19, 2.1 in 2019-20- Average sequence time: 12.8 seconds in 2017-18, 12.4 in 2018-19, 11.7 in 2019-20

So what happens now? Is this a shift toward a new, evolved tactical landscape or a brief, confused interlude? For all we know, City buys a couple of A+++ defenders in the upcoming transfer window and never loses again. They still have all the money in the world, after all, and from an expected goals perspective, they have been a bit unlucky: their xG differential is an otherworldly +1.87 per match compared to their current goal differential of +1.56. The universe could right itself pretty quickly.

If nothing else, though, we may have caught a glimpse of what said landscape could resemble.

Is Liverpool the template? They benefit from talent most other clubs won't have: one of the greatest managers in recent history (Jurgen Klopp), a high payroll, and perfect-for-the-system players like tireless ball-recovery masters Sadio Man and Roberto Firmino.

Is Leicester the template? Expected goals suggest their form could regress soon (their goal differential is +1.81 goals per match, but their xG differential is just +0.89), but Brendan Rodgers has crafted a nice balance of possession and generally combative play (lots of ball recoveries, lots of take-ons), with strong execution on set pieces.

Is the template overseas? In Spain, where possession play has reigned for a longer period of time and almost everyone is pretty proficient, more old-fashioned tactics like winning duels and aerials (and executing on set pieces) have begun to correlate more strongly with wins and losses again.

In conclusion, teams and leagues are always evolving. City took possession play to extremes, and in response, the Premier League shifted into a more modern, possession-based league. Now, the top teams are again championing speed in transition to catch opponents out. Something will shift this status quo. We just don't know if it will happen first in England or elsewhere.

Excerpt from:

The Premier League's next evolution: Is the obsession with possession coming to an end? - ESPN

Going Cashless? 10 Things To Know About The Evolution Of Digital Payments – Forbes

Posted on by

As digital payments evolve and become more commonplace, an increasing number of businesses are accepting them, with some businesses rejecting cash payments entirely. While digital payments can certainly be convenient for customers and businesses alike, its important to understand the integration process and avoid any potential pitfalls.

We asked the members of Young Entrepreneur Council for their takes on digital payments. They shared 10 things you should keep in mind as digital payment options evolve, and how those offerings will impact your business in the future.

Young Entrepreneur Council members discuss key considerations for adopting digital payments.

1. Anticipate Integration Into Daily Life

The emergence of smart appliances shows just how much payments will be integrated into daily life in the future. For example, Samsung's Family Hub refrigerator uses an app from MasterCard that allows families to order groceries directly from the fridge. Additionally, Whirlpool has a dishwasher that can order detergent from Amazon when current levels run low. What does this mean for your business? It means that consumers will expect shopping and purchasing to be as seamless as possible. As a business owner, you should expect to deal more with artificial intelligence, biometrics and increased integration of payment systems with smart devices. - Shu Saito, Godai

2. Go Digital, But Don't Discredit Cash Completely

There will always be something new. Digital wallets and mobile payment methods are rapidly evolving. This means that updates are constantly needed if businesses want to stay up to date with the latest and greatest. Constant updates to all the POS systems used by a company is no small task, especially for larger corporations. Be prepared to find what works best for your business and stick with it. Dont discredit cash; there will always be people that want to pay with cash. Some people use only cash to help them manage their finances better. Some people work in industries where they are tipped out in cash and therefore receive the bulk of their income that way. If you remove paying in cash entirely, you will likely miss out on some customers along the way. - Jared Weitz, United Capital Source Inc.

3. Listen To Your Customers

Keep in mind that there are more and more digital payment systems available, all with different benefits and attributes. Before deciding on one, make sure you have your customers' payment preferences in mind. You might want to send out a survey if you don't have this data. Choose a product that doesn't fit your needs and you won't be getting all you can get out of this payment option. - Andrew Schrage, Money Crashers Personal Finance

4. Focus On Security

Staying on top of digital trends in e-commerce is necessary for survival. However, due diligence and security measures should always be in place. It's important to protect your customers' information and your own with the right software and protocols. Make sure that you keep your software updated to patch any vulnerabilities. Stay on top of any data threats and monitor your third-party software for potential risks. Always ensure that you work with reliable and trustworthy applications that have data privacy and security measures in place. It's also a good idea to stay informed about the best practices in cybersecurity. Make sure that you inform your visitors and customers about your privacy policy. Also, ensure that you have systems in place to inform them about data breaches. - Blair Williams, MemberPress

5. Choose Your Vendors Carefully

If you decide to work with payment vendors that customers don't use or like, you hurt your chances of being seen as a credible and reliable business. People take security very seriously, and if they feel the options you provide don't keep their information safe, they'll refrain from doing business with you. Research your payment vendors to ensure you want to work with them. What do their reviews say? If they lack reviews, it means that they're either new or people don't like them. Consumers always have something to say about their purchasing experiences, so few to no reviews might be a red flag. - Stephanie Wells, Formidable Forms

6. Embrace The Trend

As time goes on, the world evolves and we find new ways to solve problems and get things done faster. Part of this is implementing more digital payment options and getting rid of time-consuming practices such as writing checks or wiring money. Just because things are changing doesn't mean it has to be a negative thing. Instead, you can take advantage of this upcoming trend by embracing it. It's about what works best for the consumer. Not every consumer is going to agree, but if the majority say that digital payments work fine and that's where the payment process is headed anyway, then it makes sense to go with the flow. Every day, more and more businesses switch to more modern solutions that resolve customer pain points, and you should, too. - Jared Atchison, WPForms

7. Consider Your Location

While it is true that digital payments are becoming the norm, it isn't wise to assume that this is the case in every part of the world. If you have a product that caters to people in different regions and countries, you have to be prepared for differences. What is well established in your location may not be the case elsewhere. There are several countries in which credit card penetration is still low. There may also be a reluctance to use online payment options as they are considered unsafe. For example, in India, cash-on-delivery is popular and a preferred method of payment. It's important to do research on the types of payments that are common in your customers' locations. You can then offer different payment options that allow them to easily buy your product. - Syed Balkhi, WPBeginner

8. Accept Cryptocurrencies Cautiously

More businesses are accepting alternative forms of digital payments than ever before, the most common being cryptocurrencies. Popular coins like Bitcoin are gaining momentum in the mainstream, but they are far from ubiquitous. One advantage of using cryptos is that you can send payment across borders without worrying about exchange rates. Cryptos also have lower fees and faster transmission speeds than traditional payment forms. They also have many disadvantages with extreme price volatility being the main one. A coin could lose half of its value overnight. Its difficult to collect payment based on a currency that unstable. For this reason, unless you are in tech or have many international clients, you should think twice about accepting cryptos until they become more stable and mainstream. - Shaun Conrad, My Accounting Course

9. Don't Miss Out On Future Opportunities

Even if your business is currently based entirely online and has no physical storefronts, you should avoid implementing payment systems and processors that completely eliminate the ability to process cash payments. You don't know if you'll be interested in pursuing physical retail locations in the future, and thats not to mention appearances at expos and other live events. Fully embracing digital payment options can still be viable in these environments thanks to services like Stripe and Venmo, but they still permanently bar access for some customers which can affect your growth. - Bryce Welker, Accounting Institute of Success

10. Be Prepared To Educate Customers

Digital payments are becoming more and more popular, but not all customers are on board yet. Before you decide to implement digital payment options, consider what your customers want. For example, maybe many of your customers are just using old-fashioned credit cards and aren't familiar with digital payment options like PayPal yet. Get feedback from your customers on what digital payment options they're interested in using before making the decision. Also, consider that when you add a new digital payment option, you need to spend some time educating your customers about the option, why you've added it and how it will benefit them. - David Henzel, LTVPlus

See original here:

Going Cashless? 10 Things To Know About The Evolution Of Digital Payments - Forbes