Six Day War Alliance, Causes, Aftermath

The Muslim nations in the Middle East would not accept Israel's existence since its founding in 1948. 

They began amassing huge amounts of sophisticated weaponry and lobbying for the implementation of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions against the Jewish State. 

Six Day War Causes

On the 15th of May 1967, on Israel's Independence Day, a 3-week period began which was one of the tensest and fearful periods in Israel's history. In direct contravention of international agreements, Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser removed the UN peacekeeping forces and began moving tens of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of tanks into what was the demilitarized Sinai Peninsula towards Israel's southern border. 

Egypt also blockaded the Straits of Tiran, an open international waterway, which was essentially a declaration of war. Israel turned to the nations of the world, primarily to the United States, for assistance against Egyptian aggression but somehow all Western countries decided to remain neutral. Very quickly, it became apparent that the promises were all but forgotten. 

Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon Vs Israel

Israel, with 2.5 million Jews, was left alone to face the might of the Arab nations. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon formed a military alliance and began moving forces into Jordan towards Israel's borders. When the Arab countries realized that the world had abandoned Israel, many other Muslim countries were openly calling for the destruction of Israel. 

The will and means to murder millions of Jews were evident. Top IDF commanders expressed their concerns that the high price Israel was liable to pay in a war with the Arab world. Some military experts projected a toll between twenty and a hundred thousand lives. Israel prepared cemeteries all over the country ready to accommodate many expected victims. Massive parks were prepared in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and other cities, in case the cemeteries would have no more space. 

World governments, instead of defending Israel's right to exist, warned Israel continuously not to attack. However, the people of Israel had no choice but to go to war, to defend their country and their very existence. 

At 7:15 am on June 5th, 1967, the IDF launched operation "Moked"- Focus. Almost the entire Israeli Air Force was dispatched in a daring mission. Only 12 planes stayed behind. The risk of this operation was extraordinary as the fighter pilots flew at an unprecedented low altitude of fewer than 20 meters above the ground. Egypt had the most advanced ground-air missile defense systems in the Middle East. 

Most of the Israeli jets were old and outdated French planes. If the Israeli jets would've been detected, many would have fallen, and Israel would've been left with practically no air force. And then a miracle occurred: The most advanced Russian MiG jets that patrolled the airspace along the borders between Egypt and Israel were, for that one critical hour, grounded. Incredibly, at that very same time, the top commanders of Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq flew together to observe the Egyptian forces invading Sinai. The Egyptian officers had ordered all anti-aircraft units not to fire unless given a direct order as long as they were in flight. 

This created total confusion on the Egyptian ground as Israel struck exactly in that window of time. By 7:45 a.m. the High Hand of Providence resulted in the Israeli air force reaching all the Egyptian airfields without even one plane being detected. More than 200 Egyptian planes – almost half of Egypt’s fleet – were almost instantaneously destroyed, also bombing the runways and making impotent the mightiest air force in the Middle East. General Moti Hod, Commander of the Air Force said, The second wave of Israeli jets were directed to Cairo to confront the remains of the Egyptian Air Force. And here another miracle occurred, no less miraculous than the first. Even though Israel had lost the element of surprise, and the anti-aircraft systems were operating with full capacity, Egypt was only able to hit one Israeli plane. 

The Israeli Air Force went on to destroy a total of more than 300 Egyptian planes, and every airfield in Egypt was neutralized. It was nothing less than a military miracle... Seemingly impossible... And then another miracle occurred. It was as if God hardened the heart of Egyptian president Nasser who continuously gloated about his glorious military victory over Israel. 

In the Arab media, President Nasser spoke of the end of Israel's airforce and of the Egyptian tanks on their way to Jerusalem. Jordan, Syria, and Iraq believed these bombastic statements and wanted to join in the "great victory against the Jews". All the Arab airpower struck simultaneously on multiple fronts. In almost any other scenario, Israel would not have been able to respond as quickly as it did. 

The timing was seemingly orchestrated to position Israeli jets exactly where they should be. Not in six days, but in six hours the war was won. And then, perhaps, the greatest miracle of all... A miracle Israel never expected – Jerusalem. Again, it seemed as though it was a Divine appointment in time. Jerusalem was to be restored to the Jewish People, after 2,000 years. The enemies of Israel had twice as many soldiers as we did, three times as many planes, four times as many tanks. The odds were stacked against us on every military front. 

Aftermath of Six-Day War 

The love of Israel, self-sacrifice, and courage of the Israeli soldiers combined with Divine guidance and assistance made these miracles possible. Yitzchak Rabin, then Chief of Staff, was given the honor of giving the war its name. He chose the Six-Day War recalling the six days of creation as Israel too was created with the liberation of Jerusalem. As the center of gravity of the Jewish people has now returned to the land of our fathers, the Torah center of the world has once again returned to Jerusalem. 

The Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel has established the 28th of Iyar – a Day of Hallel and Hodaya, praise, and thanks for the salvation of our people and the liberation and return of our capital Jerusalem. Jews in Israel and in every country in which they reside come together in prayer and celebration. Similar to Chanukah and Purim, it sometimes takes many years for the miracles to be fully recognized and celebrated. 

The Mizrachi World Movement is involved in massive community-wide celebrations across the globe from London to Los Angeles, from Melbourne to Johannesburg, to Chicago and Toronto. For 2,000 years our hope never died. Our faith as a people never wavered. Wherever Jews were, whenever they prayed, they prayed to face Jerusalem. Whatever happened the night before, whether it was the Crusades, the Inquisition, Muslim oppression, or Nazis in Germany, the next morning, a Jew would wake up, dust himself off, put on his tallit, face Jerusalem and pray to come home, knowing somehow, someway, God would bring us back. 

This is our greatest celebration. To be alive in this generation, where the prayers of our fathers and mothers have finally been answered, to be alive and to take part in Jewish destiny. To experience miracles of Divine Providence, Bayamim Hahem Bazman Haze, like in those days but in our time. 

Books on six-day war 

Ukraine Crisis Explaination, Timeline

Introduction

Ukraine has never existed independently and its existence has always vacillated between Europe and Russia. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the centre of gravity in the region shifted to Moscow, and since then, Russia has been a force on the global scene. 

In modern times, Ukraine had an independent existence only for a limited period in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Post the Second World War in Europe, Ukraine has the second largest area and below Ukraine was the Crimean peninsula. 

Ukraine Crisis

In the period from 1853 to 1856, the region witnessed the Crimean War, in which the Russian Empire lost to an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain and Sardinia. 

The immediate cause involved the rights of Christian minorities in the Holy Land, which was a part of the Ottoman Empire. 

The French promoted the rights of Roman Catholics, while Russia promoted those of the Eastern Orthodox Church, The long-term causes involved the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the unwillingness of Britain and France to allow Russia to gain territory and power at the Ottoman expense.

From 1917 to 1921, Russia witnessed the Russian revolution, during which Ukraine vacillated and drifted under the control of Austria-Hungary Empire and the Polish empire. Post-1921, Ukraine again came under the control of Russia and remained there for some time Crimea was controlled by Russia, but in 1954, there was the transfer of power, annexing Crimea to Ukraine, Russia's Nikita Khrushchev decided to hand over Crimea to be controlled by Ukraine because Crimea was dependent upon Ukraine for all ts basic needs. Khrushchev was of the opinion that such a mechanism would be useful for the administration of Crimea and would not create an issue for Russia because Ukraine was under Russian control. This mechanism prevailed until 1991. 

After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the erstwhile Russian satellite states began to assert independence. Ukraine too asserted independence but was vacillating between having a pro-Russian or pro-eurozone regime. In the period after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, in a referendum in Ukraine, 90 per cent people voted in favour of separation from Russia. Since then, till 2004, Ukraine has vacillated and remained a state with loose control.

In 2004, Ukraine witnessed elections where Yanukovych won and initiated his rule. The election of Yanukovych was challenged by Yushchenko, who launched a protest against Yanukovych called as Orange Revolution. The Orange Revolution led to re-election in Ukraine where Yushchenko won. In 2010, Ukraine had the next election. In the 2010 election, Yushchenko lost while Yanukovych won.

Yanukovych was a pro-Russian leader, In 1994, Russia and NATO entered into an agreement that neither would resort to expansion in Europe. In 1998, Russia and Crimea entered into an agreement where Crimea agreed to allow Russia to station 25,000 Russian soldiers in Crimea near the Black Sea. This led NATO to initiate expansion and extend NATO membership to Poland and Hungary, In 2004, NATO expanded by offering memberships Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. 

Ukraine Crisis 2008

In 2008, the US initiated the process to bring Ukraine into the fold of NATO. In 2008, Ukraine has led b Yushchenko, who was a pro-US leader. As a consequence, the Russians entered into an agreement with Crimea where Crimea offered Russia access to a part of Sevastopol in the Black Sea region. 

As per the agreement, Russia would maintain a Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol and such Russian presence would remain undisturbed till 2042. 

Ukraine Crisis 2013

As this expansion and counter-expansion b NATO and Russia unfolded in 2013, the US-backed eurozone offered Ukraine a membership to the EU.

This offer was made to Yanukovych, a pro-Russia leader, in power since 2010. Russia saw this offer an indirect attempt by NATO to reach Russia borders. As Yanukovych rejected the deal to allow Ukraine to be a part of the EU, a crisis began to unfold. 

In the independence square in Kiev, massive protests took place to seek a pro-EU decision for Ukraine. Russia supported the counter-protests and this led to violence in Ukraine leading to the beginning of the Ukraine crisis in November 2013. 

Ukraine Crisis 2014

As the conflict intensified in February 2014, Yanukovych fled the country, signalling a victory for the rebels. Witnessing the situation turning in favour of the rebels, Russia, in March 2014, instigated Crimea to undertake a referendum. 

On 16 March 2014, Crimea ordered a referendum and 95 per cent people in Crimea voted in favour of Crimes joining Russia. 

On 19 March 2014, Russia took over Crimea and used Crimea to assert power in the region The 5 per cent people who did not vote in favour of Crimea joining Russia were the Tartars. The Tartars are ethnic Muslims in Crimea who have always been at the receiving end of repression by the Russians In the 1950s, Stalin had crushed the Tartars and even deported them to Bulgaria, Turkey and Romania. Post-Soviet disintegration, the Tartars settled back in Crimea again. 

Since 19 March 2014, Crimea is under Russian control. The US and other western states allege that Russia has illegally annexed Crimea, In October 2014, when fresh elections happened in Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko won the election. Poroshenko has favoured an equidistance policy and has maintained a distance from both Russia and the US. 

Over a period of time, the US to have realised its mistake of stirring up controversy in Russian backyard, Russia has tried to assert dominance on the entire issue. For Russia, Crimea and Ukraine are very crucial. The Russians get access to the warm waters of the Black Sea only through Ukraine and Crimea. Russia's northern stream and southern stream pipelines pass through there. These pipelines are lifelines for the European states of Germany, France and others. Russia supplies oil to the European states through these pipelines that pass through the region of Crimea and Ukraine. 

Ukraine Crisis 2015

The violence in Kiev, Luhansk and Minsk, along with other regions, has been under control since a 2015 ceasefire agreed upon between the rebels and others. However, the rebels who were armed by the CIA (which has pumped 5 million USD in the region) continue to possess arms as there has been no mechanism to take back the arms from the rebels

The Ukraine issue was a geopolitical conflict for dominance. The west has expanded through NATO aggressively and is at the doorsteps of Russia. An indirect attempt was made by NATO through the EU to penetrate into Ukraine. Russia lost its patience over NATO expansion and precipitated a crisis. Some scholars have observed that the crisis is only a beginning of a new energy war in Europe since the US is desperately looking for a shale gas market in Europe and wants to end the dominance of Russia in Western Europe. 

However, an assertive and rising Russia, as visible in Ukraine, Iran and Syria, is a pointer to the fact that the future could see the commencement of a new Cold War. The implications of the Ukrainian crisis on global politics are that Russia has tried to assert multipolarity and has conveyed to the US that it should learn to respect the opinions of others. Though India has not been a direct party to the dispute over the crisis in Ukraine, it has still maintained that it favours the Russian assertion of multipolarity. Multipolarity itself is a goal that the Indian foreign policy stands for. 

India has not condemned the Russian intervention in Crimea like most of the western powers as it believes that there are Russian interests in the region that need to be taken care of by Russia. However, nor has it openly supported the Russian invasion as stands for conflict resolution through positive dialogue.

Iraq War Causes and Remification, Sanction of USA

When we think about the Iraq invasion in 2003, it is very important to contextualize it and to do so, we need to go back in history.

Iraq was under the Ba'ath Party from 1968 until 2003 when the Iraqi state and the regime were toppled and the invasion took place.

Saddam Hussein was the president of Iraq since 1979.  He joined the Ba'ath Party and had a long history and life of being politically active. His coming to power and taking the presidency of Iraq changed not only the history of Iraq but, also even the ideas of the Ba’ath Party. 

There was a time, for example in the ’70s and the ’80s, that the Ba’ath Party had very good connections and relations with Western Europe and the United States. So the Ba’ath Party itself was a secular party. It wanted people to be just loyal to that party, that was the main criterion But if you have any separatist anti-party activities then many people suffered. 

Sanctions of the USA on Iraq

In the Iraq invasion of 1990, the Iraqi regime had decided to invade Kuwait to annex it to Iraq And then in 1991, the United States had the first Gulf War as a punishment for entering Kuwait. That was a shift also in Iraq's relationship with the West, including the United States. 

So, Saddam Hussein became suddenly a villain, and then it was followed by 13 years of sanctions which most of the victims were the Iraqi people. Hundreds of thousands of people. who died because of a lack of medicine and food and basic human needs. 

The U.N. sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council, U.N.S.C  banned almost, you know, anything you could think of that is remotely close in quotation mark.

Weapon of Mass Destruction and Iraq

To manufacture weapons of mass destruction from entering Iraq. Iraqi people, especially thinkers and academics, saw those sanctions as a way that the West used to sort of, attain the consent of Iraqi people paving the way for the 2003 occupation.

Because only when you have disempowered, tired, hungry people who are dying and suffering only then will you be able to sort of guarantee their acceptance or welcoming of occupation.

The official reason that was given during the build-up to the Iraq War is that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and it was causing a threat to the world. And so that was the script that was in the media and the newspapers that people kept reading about And that Saddam is very dangerous. He was supporting, directly, and or indirectly all kinds of militant and terrorist groups Again, the region is politically important. 

Iraq was becoming more and more sort of not suitable partner in the Western plan in the region There are the economic reasons- that the oil, the need to have dominance over resources in places like Iraq is very important And the Ba'ath Party nationalized all its oil and resources from the 1970s. It kicked out all the foreign companies. 

Effect of Iraq war

The histories were already becoming intertwined between the United States and Iraq. 2003- The Iraqi government was toppled and Saddam's rule was over. The occupation of Iraq took place and between 2003-2004. there was a lot of hope in the Iraqi public. They were hoping that now that the single-party rule, the Saddam Hussein rule is over and it's time for another kind of start where there are more freedoms and better democracies and people will practice a lot of rights that they couldn't practice during that political system From 2003-2004.

we have the Coalition Provisional Authority, the C.P.A. that was ruling Iraq until the interim Iraqi government was formed A lot of problems started during that time, during this rule from April 2004 to June 2005 in Iraq And one of the biggest things they did was the so-called "de-ba'athification" which is all the higher up officials of the Ba'ath Party from all Iraqi institutions, public services, public servants.

It's a very complex thing because a lot of Iraqis had to sort of symbolically be in the Ba'ath Party in order just to live in the society because it was the party ruling and so the "de-ba'athification" affected huge sections of the Iraqi society. It removed a lot of people. And so what that did, it did leave not just simply vacuum of power. 

It sort of dismantled the society Now, when you disband the entire Iraqi army in this blanket collective punishment Where will they go? 

Well, some of them left the country. Some of them just find a way to live. But, some of them became very angry, and they had to find other ways including finding insurgency. And then the successive Iraqi governments sort of operated on of the things that were prepared or done, drafted by the C.P.A. but also adding their own touch to it. 

The effects of the Iraq invasion of 2003 are huge on the average Iraqi people. Most everyone in Iraq suffered, so since Iraqi people have been sort of leaving the country from the '90s During the '90s.

The first Gulf War led to a lot of Iraqi people leaving the country to refugee camps and different places. Then the sanctions, many people for economic reasons, some for political reason, they were leaving. So the country has been bleeding its own people for a very long time. But the peak, the most difficult point that affected a lot of people and forced them to leave was after 2003. 

Iraq is a divided zone. You have one place under ISIS. You have the Kurdish region. You have the government in Baghdad. And all of these zones are friendly to some people and not friendly to others. You have the internal displacement. Not just they are leaving out - leaving within. 

The effects of this war on the American public have been huge. People either didn't understand how big this was going to be or they were simply misinformed. The question is that what were people told about this war?  What kind of information did they have before they even decided that they were pro or against the war? Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. And so what we know today is that was a false claim. that the war took place because of weapons of mass destruction What we are not sure about is whether that was known to those in power or not. 

In terms of how the Iraq War affected the region, Iraq has been seen as a strong country as a very important country in the region. at many levels. Before the war, it was seen as a military power, and intellectual power. 

Many people came to Iraq to study to learn. It was a very important place for a lot of Arab people. As soon as Iraq collapsed and was dismantled as we knew it before The affected how the people in the street of many Arab countries, Middle Eastern countries felt It was a very demoralizing kind of effect. So, when Iraq is totally sort of disempowered and turned into a malleable dismantled state that of course affects the whole region. 

Comments your thinking on this !!

Yemen Crisis Shia Sunni Conflict | Strange Military Stories

Yemen is an Islamic nation with 65 per cent Sunni and 35 per cent Shia population. It is a fertile territory which also receives adequate rainfall due to its mountainous terrain. The population of Yemen is relatively noor as the natural resources of Yemen are declining. Historically, Yemen had a Zaydi Mutawakkilite Kingdom from 1918 to 1962 which ended with the reign of Mohammad-al-Badr. The conflict in Yemen is primarily between Houthis and Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi. The Houthi's belonged to a Shia sect called Zaydis and were organised as the Jund Ansar Allah.

The problem in Yemen began for the first time in 2004 when Hussein Badr-al-Houthi began an uprising against the Ali Abdullah Saleh government in Yemen. The root cause of the uprising was the demand by the Houthis for more autonomy with an aim to protect Houthi Shias from cultural invasion by Sunni Muslims. This conflict lasted from 2004 to 2010. In 2011, as the Arab Spring gripped the entire Arab world, the Houthis participated against the Saleh government, which was being led by Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi as a de facto head. 

In 2012, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi came to power. In February 2014, the National Dialogue Conference happened in Yemen.In the conference, the Houthis also participated. The conference spoke about dividing Yemen into a federation of six regions. The Houthis opposed the idea, saying that with the forming of such a federation, violence shall begin all over again. The Houthis, being Shias, receive support from Iran and at present, control northern Yemen and the capital Sana. In the southern part of Yemen, since 2007, there has been a secessionist movement called al-Hirak or South Yemen Movement which also poses threat to Yemen's sovereignty. 

In the Southeast part of Yemen, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and Ansar-al-Sharia are active as Sunni extremists. As there are Indians in Yemen, the Indian government has stationed naval ships-INS Sumitra, INS Mumbai and INS Tarkash in on standby by any immediate evacuation in for future. The conflict, at the regional level can be pursued through the prism of the Shia Sunni axis, with group supported by both Iran and Saudi Arabia.

German tactics in world war 2

German squad tacticsin World War II 

Two important points: First, a squad rarely acted alone on the battlefield... It was used in coordination with other squads of its platoon and/or company. Second, the main source for this is the US manual 'German Squad in Combat' from The Military Intelligence Service. 

The German infantry squad in World War II for the most part consisted of: One squad leader and nine infantry men, thus a total of ten men. Initially, all men besides the machine gunner and his assistant were equipped with the Karabiner 98 kurz, the German standard rifle in World War II. Even the squad leader was equipped with that rifle. Yet around 1941 he was issued an MP40 submachine gun with 6 magazines, 32 shots each. The machine gunner was equipped with an MG34, and later on with an MG42. He was also issued a pistol and an ammo drum with 50 rounds. The assistant gunner carried 4 ammo drums with 50 shots each, additionally 1 ammo box with 300 rounds. He was also issued a pistol. There was also an ammo carrier assigned to the machine gunner, whose job was to carry and supply ammunition. He carried 2 ammo boxes of 300 rounds each. Unlike the assistant he was issued a rifle, not a pistol. Note that the 'German Squad in Combat' indicates a pistol instead of a rifle as a weapon for the ammo carrier. But, it seems this is incorrect and is probably from an old layout of the squad, which was used in 1937. Now, each rifleman had around 9 clips for his rifle with 5 shots each, thus 45 rounds... This was the regular amount. According to Buchner more rounds were issued in case of a combat situation. Also, the second in command was armed the same way as the regular riflemen. Hence in total, the squad had: 1 light machine gun, 1 submachine gun, 2 pistols, 7 rifles, and several hand grenades, which were issued depending on the situation. Now the rolls and responsibilities of each squad member were as follows: The squad leader was commanding the unit. He directed which targets the LMG should engage and if the combat situation permitted, also the rifle fire. His responsibilities outside of the combat included that the equipment of the unit was in order, and that enough ammunition was available. The second in command was his assistant, and was in command during the absence of the squad leader. His responsibilities were to communicate with the platoon command and also adjacent squads. Thus he was vital for the coordination. Next is the machine gunner... He operated the light machine gun and was responsible for taking care of the weapon. His assistant would help him setting up the MG, supply ammo, and assist him in combat. Usually he would be positioned left of the gunner, or to his rear. He had to be ready and close enough to support the gunner with tasks like changing the belt or fixing jams. And in case the gunner couldn't continue operating the MG, he would take his roll. The ammo carrier was responsible for inspecting the ammo refilling fired ammo belts, and checking for left ammunition. He usually stayed in the rear and in cover, but could act as a rifleman if necessary. The regular rifleman's duty was to participate in combat with his rifle and bayonet. The riflemen formed the assault part of the squad thus if necessary assaulting the enemy position with grenades and bayonets. Although not officially designated they would also serve as ammo carriers to varying degrees. 

German Sqaud formation

Now, let's take a look at formations... The basic close order formations were the squad line or "Reihe", the squad collumn or "Kette", which was basically a 90 degree turn of the previous, and of course, the squad march order. As you can see, the machine gunner with his assistant is always at the very front. He was the key member of the squad, which was also indicated by his designation, "Schutze 1": Infantryman number one. These were close order formations, that were not suited for dangerous situations. Close order formations were abandoned if the situation changed due to terrain, hostile activity, or other circumstances. The basic extended order formations were the squad column or "Schutzenkette", and the skirmish line or "Schutzenreihe". The squad column in extended order was not a straight line. Instead, the soldiers used terrain for cover, although the principal order of the line remained. Note that the second in command was at the end ensuring that the squad stayed together. The skirmish line was used if the firepower of the whole squad was necessary. In this case, the riflemen moved to the left and right of the machine gunner, who remained at the central position. The forward half of the infantrymen moved to the right, and the other half to the left. Alternatively, an echelon right or left deployment was also possible. In this case, all of the men moved to the right or left of the machine gunner. The distance between the men was about 3.5 meters. Yet, this was only a guideline. Note that the squadron leader had no fixed position in this formation. In terms of leadership, the translated manual states: that leading by example is essential. It is explicitly stated. 

It is very important to note that the squad in offensive combat would not act alone, but as an element of its platoon. Note that each platoon contained usually four squads. So let's look at the different stages of offensive combat. The stages are as follows: Development, deployment, advancing, attack, and penetration. Note that most other sources use less stages, and the transition from one stage to another can be quite fluent or blurry. The development phase is the first step in the preparation of an attack. The rifle company left the marching route and broke up into three platoons. Those platoons themselves separated into four squads. Yet the squads remained in close formation. The machine gun and other important equipment was now carried by hand and not on carts anymore. Next was the deployment phase, which was about organizing the troops into combat formations. The squad leader may have received his orders directly from the platoon leader, or acted independently based on the mission of the platoon. Since the units were now in battle formation, the advance phase began. The advance was ideally performed in squad column, with the light machine gun on the front. This would allow rearward supporting machine guns and other weapons to fire safely past the advancing squads. If the squad was under effective enemy fire the squad needed to use its own fire to support its movement by achieving temporarily fire superiority. Fire and movement should be employed, which means that one part of the squad fires to cover the movement of other part of the squad. This principal can also be used in a larger scale, where one squad covers another squad. If areas were covered by enemy artillery fire they would have been avoided if possible. if not, these areas needed to be crossed during firing pauses in quick rushes. Generally it was recommended to use rushes when the situation and enemy fire did permit them. Following a successful advance of the squads far enough, the attack phase commenced. Although the difference is not so obvious at first since both stages include firing upon the enemy and also advancing. Yet during the advance phase, firing is only used if its necessary. whereas in the attack phase, firing was usually a crucial element. Initially, the firefight was started by heavy weapons from supporting units like artillery, infantry cannons, and heavy machine guns. These weapons focused on the destruction or neutralization of strong points.Hence at this point the squad still advanced. Generally the squad should move as much forward without firing as possible... Only if this wasn't possible anymore it should engage the enemy. 

The final phase is the penetration into the enemy positions. It is usually initiated around 100 meters away from the enemy positions. It is important that the maximum amount of fire is provided during an assault. For this reason, the LMG should be positioned to fire into the enemy position without risking friendly fire. If such a position is not attainable the LMG should be used directly in the assault and fired from the hip. Furthermore, neighboring units could provide additional firepower and/or support the assault by complementary attack from another direction. Once the riflemen closed in on the enemy position The designated grenade throwers, on command, would use their grenades, and after the detonation, the squad stormed the positions under the lead of the squad leader.

Based on an original German manual, the German position on the left side, and the fictional enemy on the right. Both positions were reinforced by barbed wire. There is a German mortar pit with a light mortar, and in the visible rear positions another light and heavy mortar are available. The mortars would attack the following areas of the enemy positions to prevent reinforcements. To support the attack, two heavy machine guns would be positioned on the flanks. In the center, a squad with a light machine gun would fire at the enemy positions to support the attack. The assault itself would be performed by two assault squads that were supported by light machine guns. The first squad would directly assault the enemy position whereas the second one would attack the rear, and cut it off from any reinforcements. Once the assault was successful the squad leader would ensure discipline, and prepare against a potential counter attack.

Cyber war | what is cyber warefare| cyberspace

Cyber warfare

Actions by a nation-state actor to attack and attempt to damage another nation's computers or critical infrastructure is known as cyber warefare.

Cyber crime

Somewhere in the South China Sea, a US and European missile cruiser on joint patrol stray too close to one of China's many man-made islands. Illegally built and hardened with military facilities- despite a ruling to their illegality by The Hague in international court- China has warned repeatedly that it will not tolerate any other nation's military presence near the controversial islands. 

The United States and the European Union meanwhile have both taken the side of many of the South China Sea's lesser nations, such as Vietnam and the Philippines, who see the military build-up as an incursion into their sovereign water  and an attempt to bully them into submission. Refusing to bow before Chinese aggression,the US and European militaries have routinely engaged in freedom of navigation exercises through the disputed man-made island chains. Yet this patrol is different. The local Chinese commander- acting on his own or perhaps with authority from his chain of command- orders a Chengdu J-20 combat patrol into the air. Armed with anti-ship missiles, the jets super cruise to within a few dozen miles of their targets, but this time instead of warning off the European and American ships, they are ordered to retaliate for the incursion. 

On board the European cruiser, alarms soundas three of the four Chinese aggressors loose a volley of anti-ship missiles. Immediately the ship syncs up with its American counterparts via a wireless communications link, and together the two ship's powerful AEGIS systems track the incoming missiles and fire off countermeasures. One ship protecting the other, supersonic interceptors fire off from the decks of both ships, eight tasked with intercepting the incoming missiles and another eight screaming into the night sky to take out the Chinese jets. The exchange between the two sides lasts just forty five seconds, at the end of which three Chinese planes are fiery wrecks, with one having landed a hit on the European cruiser and killing dozens of sailors.

Military comm networks relay news of the confrontational light speed to commanders around the globe, and within minutes air, sea, and ground forcesacross Asia, Europe, and America are gearing up for World War III. Yet within just seconds of the news of the attack on the European and American ships, a new generation of weapons have already been deployed. Less than a minute after news of two dozendead European sailors and three downed Chinese pilots reach the desks of their respective military commanders, cyberweapons have already gone on the offensive, a digital war sweeping across the internet at the speed of light, and catching the entire world in its wake.

Such a scenario may seem a bit far-fetched,yet it's an eventuality that every day militaries all over the world prepare for. In fact, every single day a digital war takesplace amidst the background chatter of daily internet use, with nations attacking each other's critical infrastructure looking for vulnerabilities. Considered a 'soft war', these attacks aremeant to look for and stockpile potential vulnerabilities in the digital systems that are the lifeblood of modern nations. Energy grids, communications and financial networks are the primary targets, and while no nation is yet launching an offensive to actually cripple these systems, they instead stockpile vulnerabilities so that they can exploits them in a time of war. 

Yet other nations, such as Russia, carry out more overt and hostile attacks such as against a nation's political systems. Best seen in the 2016 US Presidential election,during which Russia hacked the DNC to favor the Donald Trump campaign, Russia has in fact been carrying out cyber attacks against the political systems of NATO and Baltic nations for at least a decade. Russia has regularly used its cyber muscle to favor far-right politicians while attacking centrists and liberal candidates. They use their cyber influence to stoke dissent amongst a country's citizens, and to stoke fear and xenophobia which they can channel towards the far-right, nationalistic candidates that they prefer and can thus manipulate on selected into office.

Russia's reach is indeed far, and while their influence on the 2016 election was significant, their best success to date so far may be Britain's Brexit vote, during which they ran disinformation campaigns online to stoke xenophobia. With Brexit being a widely recognized political and economic disaster for Britain, Russia has found great success in its cyber offensive operations. Yet if cyber warfare is so prevalent and has obviously hostile intent, why don't nations react the way they would to kinetic attacks? That's partly to do with the fact that cyber warfare itself is a very new development, and so the international community is at a loss as to how exactly respond to the cyber offenses of another hostile nation. In Russia's example, NATO could react witha kinetic attack against Russia, but politicians must ask themselves if cyber operations aretruly threatening enough to warrant an all-out kinetic war.

When a hostile nation has so clearly meddled in your politics and perhaps set the course of your nation's political leadership, the question may indeed need to be considered a strong yes- after all, just how sovereigns nation are you really if your elected leader is a tool of the Kremlin, or routinely takes action on the international stage that benefit the very nation that is hostile to you and is attacking you every day? There simply exist no clearly defined boundaries between what constitutes a hostile military attack against a nation, and what is simply cyber crime. Currently cyber attacks by hostile nations are lumped together with espionage, crime, and hactivism, and realistically you wouldn't call for an airstrike against a teenager hacking into Papa John's to get themselves free pizza delivered.

You wouldn't do such a thing because it would've an over-reaction, but also because it's completely unrealistic: nobody wants PapaJohns pizza- even if it's free. On a serious note though, our current lack of political will to classify hostile cyber attacks as military actions only leaves nations even more vulnerable to being further attacked.

Russia, emboldened by their 2016 success in the US election, has for instance been widely reported by intelligence agencies around theworld as gearing up for an ever greater campaign against the American voter in 2020. Yet the US has largely been silent in itsresponse to Russian aggression- despite President Obama's expulsion of several Russian diplomats known to be active spies, and an alleged brief cyber attack against Russian systems that led to some Russian computers overheating and melting down.

 Sadly the Trump administration has shown little willingness to punish Russia for its attacks against the US, and not only is the lack ofthe political will to strike back suspicious, but it is also dangerous for the world at large. If the world continues down the road we areon, cyber attacks will only escalate until ending disastrously in an attack that's finally large enough to warrant a military response, starting a large scale war. Yet such an attack will likely be completely devastating to the victimized nation, resulting in major disruptions to its power grid or financial and communication systems, bringing its economy to a screeching halt. 

Perhaps what would be best instead is if cyberattacks were at last met with a significant response, thus marking a clear line in thesand for just how far cyber warfare can be taken before military retaliation is inevitable. But just how deadly could a cyber war reallybe? The answer to that question is in our ownnot too distant past. In the early 2000s before the Iran nuclear deal, Israel was reaching a political crisis point. For its own continued survival it could notallow Iran to develop nuclear weapons, yet with the expansion of several enrichment facilities iran was poised to do just that in a matter of years.

Many inside of Israel saw a preemptive strikeas the best course of option, yet each time Israeli jets had strayed into Iran, they had brought up the possibility of major retaliation. An all-out war between Israel and Iran would have quickly spilled over into other Arab countries, leading to yet another Jew-Arabwar which would have in turn brought in Israel's American and European allies. For the US this situation was completely unacceptable,as was a nuclear Iran. Not only was there the risk of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel, but if Iran was allowed to develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia andJordan both had already stated that they would immediately begin developing their own nuclear weapons as well. 

In short a nuclear iran would lead to a nuclear middle east, the single most volatile region in the entire world. Yet allowing Israel to kick off another majorwar by invading Iran was not a good option either, and with Iran digging its enrichment centrifuges deep underground, simple military strikes would prove fruitless. That's when US and Israeli computer scientistscame forward with a solution. They believed they could infect Iranian computer with a worm that could in turn destroy the Iranian centrifuges, and leave the Iranians one the wiser as to what exactly happened.

 The plan was immediately ok'ed, and working together, US and Israeli engineers developed the Stuxnet virus. However, the centrifuges and the computer network they were linked to were not connected to the internet for obvious security reasons. This means that the virus would have to bebrought in physically and uploaded directly to the secure computer network, and to dothis several Iranian nuclear scientists were singled out and targeted digitally. Eventually the team managed to infect thelaptop of one of the scientists while he was connected to the internet, and when he brought the laptop into the nuclear facility and connected to the network there, the worm hopped inside the secure computer systems and began to wreak havoc.

 Centrifuges began to spin wildly out of control,causing massive destruction and bringing the Iranian nuclear program to its knees. In the end thousands of centrifuges were destroyed,all by the simple click of a button. A modern cyber war could have just as dire,and physical consequences. If infected, the computer systems of nuclear power plants could be shut down, or hijacked completely- hackers could for instance orderthe release of all water in the plant's cooling system, which would lead to a nuclear meltdownof the overheated reactors and regional disasters all across the land. With hundreds of nuclear power plants aroundthe world, this could devastate major portions of most modern nations. 

After the Russians cyber attack

Even conventional power systems could be affected theough with the physical infrastructure overloaded to the point of causing significant structural damage across a nation's power grid. Such a disaster would take weeks, or monthsto repair, and if it happened during winter could lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable segments of a population. Dams could be hijacked as well, and emergency slices meant to help deal with rising water levels during heavy rains could be forced to remain closed, leading to a collapse of the entire damn. 

This would bring untold devastation as hundreds of millions of gallons of water rushed downstream to overtake the communities living in theshadows of large dams such as the three gorges dam or the Hoover dam. Luckily for us, no nation has yet dared to launch any such attack against the other- save for some cases of tampering of Ukraine's energy grid by Russia. Yet the reality is that in the case of another major war, these types of attacks would be the first to be launched by a hostile power.

 The option is especially attractive for nations such as Russia and China, who find themselves at a considerable military disadvantage against Europe and its American ally, and in the case of war, it's a certainty that some degree of major attack against a nation's digital infrastructure would take place. The unknown question to many though is justhow severe an attack will take place, and how well could a nation weather such an attack. Even more troubling is the fact that many of these attacks could result in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions,and yet these cyber weapons are not yet considered weapons of mass destruction.

 If caught unawares and the US is crippled by a cyber attack that leads to millions of incidental deaths, are the leaders of Russia and China confident that American leadership won't consider this an attack by a weapon of mass destruction and retaliate with a nuclear attack? That is the question that haunts many of theworld's premier cyber experts, and sadly, one that we might just have to blunder into in order to find the answer out. The Cyber War will and already is happening and the people who are going to suffer the most are normal users like you. 

The military has whole teams fighting this,what do you have? You don’t need to have the resources of an army to protect yourself. Let us know in the comments, and as always if you enjoyed this article don't forget to Like, Share, and Subscribe for more great content! 

Kautilya's Arthashastra in 1948 and 1962 war

We know how Kautilya's Arthashastra was used by Chandragupta Maurya to defeat Nanda and also to stop the advancement of Alexander, leading to the formation of a united India. Kautilya has explained state priorities and economic conditions and has propounded that the power of the state rests on seven Prakriti, and if any one of the seven Prakriti is weak the state is fragile. We need to understand the contemporary security environment by applying his theories. 

According to the political theories of Max Weber, a state could be said to succeed in it maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within its borders. When this is broken (for instance, through the dominant presence of warlords, paramilitary groups, or terrorism), the very existence of the state becomes dubious, and the state becomes a failed state. 

Political scholar Queenie Hanlon says that states are of three categories-weak, failing, and failed. Hanlon says that half of this world is in the fragile category today and it is that which leads to instability conflict and war which provide conditions for terrorism, militias, and crime in the twenty-first century. Fund for Peace Fragile States Index underlines the democratic character of state institutions in order to determine its level of failure.

Kautilya's Arthashastra in 1948 War

An application of Kautilya's ideas in the 1948 Indo-Pak war explains the relevance of terrain, weather conditions, and strategy as important dimensions. In August 1947, British rule in India came to an end. The state of Jammu and Kashmir was not clear. In October 1947, Pakistan, through tribal Pathans, began to invade Kashmir. Sensing a security threat, Hari Singh, Maharaja of Kashmir, acceded to India by signing an Instrument of Accession. The conflict between India and Pakistan on Kashmir ended on 1 January 1949 with an agreed ceasefire. The ceasefire created a Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) region. 

The Indian Army could have marched ahead in the POK zone to drive out Pakistan, but the hostile climate and Pakistani guerrilla tactics prevented India from taking these measures. Kautilya clarifies that a state should not go and fight in an area that has a territory that is ungovernable. The inhospitable terrain of POK and its hostile climate made India land up in a situation where it could not, finally, capture POK. The logistics kept India back while poor military infrastructure compounded upon it to complicate issues. 

The two concepts of Kautilya, Bhumisandhi (not entering in the territory which is ungovernable) and Vyasana (a state needs to take precautions and ensure logistics before the war), were both missing.

Kautilya's Arthashastra in 1962 War

In the case of the 1962 conflict with China, which ultimately concluded in a ceasefire in Arunachal, the Chinese had indeed reached the foothills but retreated because the people of Arunachal did not support China and from the Bhumisandhi point of view, China refrained from getting into the business of capturing land (Arunachal) which was deemed ungovernable.

Watch Kautilya Biography(studyiq)

Cuban Missile Crisis

America and Spain fought a war in 1898. Since the war, Cuba had been under American control. At the onset of the Cold War, America had a proxy in Cuba called Fulgencio Batista, who was gradually growing unpopular. There were a lot of American businesses in Cuba that flourished. Taking advantage of the weakened rule of Batista, Fidel Castro, on 26 July 1953, led an attack on the Moncada army barracks. He was imprisoned for this assault.

                          Moncada barracks

 By the time he was released, Batista's rule dwindled as it faced financial bankruptcy. Thus, there was a vacuum to be filled. Castro undertook this successfully. One thing to be kept in mind was that Cuba, at the time of the power transition, did not witness a civil war. As Castro strengthened his rule, he initiated the program of nationalisation of property owned by the US business houses. Castro gave the logic of sovereignty and nationalism to justify his move. The US retaliated by closing down its markets for import of sugarcane from Cuba. A lot of Cubans were affected due to this. Some even left Cuba for the US to settle in Florida. As the economy of Cuba got badly hit, Castro domestically fuelled nationalism and internationally requested help from Russia. Perceiving this, the then US President Kennedy gave the task of solving Cuban menace to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The CIA drew up a plan of using Cuban exiles in Florida to be airdropped on Cuban beaches (Bay of Pigs). The idea was that exiles would be dropped on the beaches and as per the plan they would intermingle with the Cuban population to create unrest for Castro.

The basic assumption was that CIA thought that Castro did not enjoy popular support of the Cuban neople, The plan was executed. The exiled Cubans were dropped in Bay of Pigs. Within a span of three lars the local Cubans overpowered them. The exiled Cubans requested help from CIA. The US did not help them as they were not prepared for something like this. Observing the matter thus up Nikita Khrushchev decided to defend the small range missiles in Cuba, since this would not only defend Cuba but also ensure his presence in Cuba, which would be at a proximate destination to launch attacks on the US on the East Coast. The CIA got photographic evidence of sites of Russians creating missile-launching sites in Cuba after which the US ordered quarantine and a blockade for incoming Russian ships and began to scan for nukes. Russia, in the meanwhile, backed out. 

              Missile launching sites in Cuba

Diplomatically, a huge nuclear crisis was averted. The Russian aim seems to have been to teach the US how it feels to have missiles near them (recollect the US had stationed Jupiter and Thor in Turkey,Uk and Italy). The issue concluded by the acceptance of the US not to militarily invade Cuba and the subsequent removal of its missiles from Turkey. Both the USSR and US realised how quickly a small issue like Cuba could have escalated conflicts. They took a step towards disarmament namely, the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty.

Red Star in China

History of China

China was ruled by the Ming dynasty till 1664. In 1644, the tribals from North China, called Manchus, crossed the Great Wall of China, invaded the Ming dynasty and removed it from power, and established the rule of Manchus or the Qing dynasty. 

The rulers of the Qing dynasty followed Buddhism and disclaim the local Harn Chinese. 

British Rule

By the 1800s, when the British established rule in India, they began to seek trade ties with China and Tibet. The rulers of the Qing dynasty perceived that the British have no trade motive and they are here to spread Christianity. 

The rulers of the Qing dynasty adopted a closed foreign policy and decided to shun engagement with the British. The British decided to carry out illegal trade with Tibet and also adopted the policy of corrupting the Chinese youth through the drug trade. This led the Chinese and the British to fight Opium wars. After the Second Opium War (1860), where the British defeated the Chinese, they got trade concessions and access to strategic Chinese ports like Hong Kong. 

Outmaneuver of Qing dynasty

In Hong Kong, the British tried to outmaneuver the Qing dynasty, by legalizing Christianity and also supported the Han Chinese (who was discriminated by the rulers in China). This led to constant interference by the British into the affairs of China and eventually led to the collapse of the Qing dynasty in 1911. The collapse was rejoiced by the Chinese people, who now, inspired by nationalistic urges, established a nationalist party called Kuomintang party (KMT) under the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek. 

Civil War and China

The Russian Revolution of 1917 inspired Dr. Sun Yat-sen, who in 1920 established the Communist Party of China (CPC), under the leadership of Mao Zedong. After the end of the First World War, as noted previously, Japan became aggressive in China and began to occupy areas in China. 

The KMT and CPC, despite divergent ideologies, often united together against Japan. However, the KMT and CPC had serious differences regarding China, as CPC wanted to focus on rural areas first and then capture urban areas; while the KMT only focused on urban areas, neglecting the rural areas completely.

Due to these growing differences, in 1927, China descended into a civil war. Japan took the opportunity of the civil war and attacked Manchuria in 1935 and again attacked China in 1937. The CPC and KMT did unite against Japan but both were crushed by Japan. From 1937 onwards, they again began their civil war, which however remained suspended from 1939 to 1945, owing to the Second World War. 

Establishment of the Republic of China (ROC)

After the surrender of Japan in 1945, the US tried to negotiate peace between CPC (supported by the USSR by now) and KMT (supported by the US this time but failed. The CPC was able to mobilize Chinese people by branding the KMT as anti-nationalists for they were seeking the support of the US. The public sympathy increased with the CPC and by 1949, the CPC was able to oust KMT and established the People's Republic of China (PRC), thereby China emerged as a communist state. 

The KMT fled away to Taiwan and established the Republic of China (ROC) and remains there until today with ideological differences with PRC. To keep a check upon a communist China, in 1951, the US and Japan entered into an alliance through the Treaty of San Francisco.
 

Treaty of San Francisco