Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Union Cronies Wanted: Goldwater Fights University of Rhode Island's Illegal Hiring Preferences
PHOENIX, Arizona, Nov. 21 -- The Goldwater Institute issued the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025:* * *
Union Cronies Wanted: Goldwater Fights University of Rhode Island's Illegal Hiring Preferences
By Fiona Baum
When she saw a job posting for an administrative assistant at the University of Rhode Island near her home, Nicole Solas had all the qualifications, except one--she's not a member of a labor union. But giving hiring preference to union members is unconstitutional, so the Goldwater Institute and its American Freedom Network of pro bono attorneys are taking the university to court ... Show Full Article PHOENIX, Arizona, Nov. 21 -- The Goldwater Institute issued the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025: * * * Union Cronies Wanted: Goldwater Fights University of Rhode Island's Illegal Hiring Preferences By Fiona Baum When she saw a job posting for an administrative assistant at the University of Rhode Island near her home, Nicole Solas had all the qualifications, except one--she's not a member of a labor union. But giving hiring preference to union members is unconstitutional, so the Goldwater Institute and its American Freedom Network of pro bono attorneys are taking the university to courtto challenge its illegal policy.
The University of Rhode Island has a policy of giving "preferential consideration" to National Education Association Rhode Island union members in its hiring process. Under the policy, nonunion applicants are only considered for jobs if a position cannot be filled by a union member. That's unconstitutional--conditioning public employment on union membership violates prospective employees' First Amendment rights.
On Thursday, the Goldwater Institute and its American Freedom Network attorney Kevin McCaffrey filed a lawsuit against the university to vindicate Nicole's First Amendment rights.
"Every Rhode Island resident should be treated equally in the hiring process for government jobs," Nicole said. "I'm not a union member--I'll never be a union member. This should have no bearing whatsoever on my employment prospects with a government agency because it is my absolute First Amendment right."
The Supreme Court has made clear that government employers cannot condition employment on the payment of union dues. Doing so violates the First Amendment right of employees and prospective employees to freely associate. Conditioning employment on union membership--which is often a political association--restricts an individual's right to choose not to associate with a union.
Despite clear precedent, the University of Rhode Island still enforces its unlawful policy favoring union members over nonmembers for employment.
This isn't the first time that the University of Rhode Island has skirted the law. The university has also been conducting "Safe Zone" trainings at the taxpayers' expense, and when asked to turn over the public records about the trainings, the university said they are a trade secret. Using an unrelated excuse like "trade secret" to keep the trainings hidden perpetuates a disturbing nationwide trend of public officials raising dubious defenses to shield the release of public information.
The Goldwater Institute will continue to stand up to government agencies and demand they follow the law. And with the help of our American Freedom Network of 1,000-plus volunteer attorneys coast-to-coast, Goldwater will hold government bureaucrats accountable wherever violations of Constitutional rights occur.
You can read the complaint here and learn more about the case here 9https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/case/no-preferential-treatment-goldwater-sues-university-of-rhode-island-for-illegal-union-hiring-policy/).
* * *
Fiona Baum is the Marketing and Digital Communications Manager at the Goldwater Institute, where she oversees the organization's digital presence, including its website, blog, and social media platforms.
* * *
The Goldwater Institute is the nation's preeminent liberty organization, scoring real wins for freedom from coast to coast. We're committed to empowering all Americans to live freer, happier lives, and we accomplish tangible results for liberty by working in state courts, legislatures, and communities nationwide to advance, defend, and strengthen the freedom guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and the fifty states.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/union-cronies-wanted-goldwater-fights-university-of-rhode-islands-illegal-hiring-preferences/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary to Eurasia Daily Monitor: Russian Firms Rapidly Falling Behind in Paying Workers
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
Russian Firms Rapidly Falling Behind in Paying Workers
By Paul Goble
Executive Summary:
* Russian employers are falling behind in paying their workers--with wage arrears increasing by at least four times over the last year--sparking strikes in industries including those related to defense.
* The number of workers not paid on time is nowhere near what it was in the late 1990s, when as many as 60 percent of Russian workers were paid late, but the increase since ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * Russian Firms Rapidly Falling Behind in Paying Workers By Paul Goble Executive Summary: * Russian employers are falling behind in paying their workers--with wage arrears increasing by at least four times over the last year--sparking strikes in industries including those related to defense. * The number of workers not paid on time is nowhere near what it was in the late 1990s, when as many as 60 percent of Russian workers were paid late, but the increase sincePutin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine is attracting attention.
* Wage arrears are likely to continue to increase and spark more strikes. They appear unlikely to threaten the regime, however, because Moscow provides targeted cash infusions to keep strikers in one place from uniting with those in others.
In most countries, employees either go on strike or quit when not paid on time. In the Russian Federation, however, workers often lack good alternatives to remaining in place. The Russian government strongly discourages firms from letting workers go lest unemployment surge and production decline. In the 1990s, this led to a dire situation for many workers, with up to 60 percent not being paid on time but remaining in their jobs. In the first two decades of Russian President Vladimir Putin's rule, this problem declined in size as the economy improved, though it never completely disappeared (Proved.rf, May 2, 2017). In the three years since Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine, wage arrears have exploded, not to the scale of the 1990s, but large enough that it has sparked strikes across the country. There is speculation in Russia and the West that this problem could trigger the rise of a worker movement that could threaten the Putin regime and force it to change course on Ukraine (Okno, June 27; Window on Eurasia, June 30; Vazhnye Istorii, November 13). Such an outcome is unlikely anytime soon, even though Russian experts say that wage arrears amounts, the number of Russian employees affected, and the number of strikes are likely to increase. The Kremlin can and likely will continue to provide targeted cash infusions to particular firms to undermine strikers and keep those engaged in work stoppages in one place from linking up with those in others (Vazhnye Istorii, November 13; Ekho Rossii, November 16).
The problem of wage arrears is attracting attention because of the rapid rate at which the amount of money owed has been rising, rather than because of the overall scale of the problem. This increase has led to speculation about whether the trend will continue and what its impact will be on the Russian economy and Russian politics. The problem of unpaid wages began to shoot up immediately after Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and the amount of money, number of workers and sectors affected, the regions of the country affected, and frequency of consequent strikes has continued to intensify in the years since (Window on Eurasia, July 18, 2022, January 2, 2023, April 10). Over the last year, the problem has worsened at the fastest rate yet. Wage arrears between September 2024 and September 2025 "quadrupled, and workers in construction, mining, and even strategic defense plants say they are going months without pay," according to Russian government statistics and an independent assessment published last week (Vazhnye Istorii, November 13). As of the end of September, employers owed their employees 1.95 billion rubles ($24 million), a figure four times higher than a year earlier. Only about 10,000 workers were directly affected, a tiny fraction of the total labor force of nearly 75 million (.013 percent).
There are three reasons why these statistics do not accurately reflect the situation and may seriously understate the problem. First, the Russian government no longer collects or at least publishes data on wages owed by small companies, where half of all Russians are employed. This means that the actual figures on wage arrears are likely at least twice as high as reported (Rosstat, September 2024). Second, in the last two years, the Kremlin has reduced its monitoring of wage collection, even in large companies. Even for the firms that the state statistics agency, Rosstat, claims to be assessing, it is not reporting everything (Window on Eurasia, June 30). Third, the failure of firms to pay back wages is not distributed equally across the country or among the various sectors of the economy. Wage arrears are concentrated in industries--including defense plants, coal mining, and construction--that are especially important to the regime and population. Complaints and strikes have hit these sectors harder than they have affected others (Kommersant, November 7).
The Rosstat data presents the most comprehensive figures available and is suggestive, if not definitive. According to the figures, for example, 44.1 percent of all wage arrears are in construction and 17.5 percent in mining. An examination of the situation by the Important Stories (Vazhnye Istorii) media outlet concluded that "examples of this problem can be found in almost every sector," including defense firms, shipbuilding, and nuclear power plant construction, suggesting that the problem is more widespread than Moscow acknowledges (Vazhnye Istorii, November 13). The increase in the amount of money owed also reflects rising wages, which means that each worker not paid accounts for a greater share of the total, and rising interest rates, which keep companies from borrowing money to pay wages. The Important Stories piece and other discussions since Rosstat released its data last month all conclude that the problem is far less serious than the wage arrears crisis of the 1990s, but more so than the Russian government is prepared to acknowledge (Ekho Rossii, November 16).
For the time being, the back wages firms owe their employees and the strikes they have triggered are more annoyances than a crisis. This is likely to remain true as long as Moscow is able to funnel money into key plants to undercut strikes and use its police powers to keep strikes from growing into more general protest actions. It is unclear if the Kremlin's approach will continue to work or if wage arrears and resulting strikes could eventually challenge the Kremlin's ability to control it. As Russian political scientist Dmitry Oreshkin points out, no one can accurately predict what will trigger a crisis in Russia, or whether the regime's efforts to maintain control could raise worker demands beyond its ability to manage (Tochka, November 17). The wage arrears problem in Russia, while not yet a crisis, will remain an important aspect of the watching brief of all those concerned about the future of Putin's Russia.
* * *
Paul Goble is a longtime specialist on ethnic and religious questions in Eurasia.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/russian-firms-rapidly-falling-behind-in-paying-workers/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary to Eurasia Daily Monitor: C5+1 Summit Elevates U.S. Engagement With Central Asia
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:* * *
C5+1 Summit Elevates U.S. Engagement With Central Asia
By Alexander Kim
Executive Summary:
* The upgraded C5+1 summit in Washington, D.C., marked a significant elevation of U.S. engagement with Central Asia, focusing on economic partnerships, business deals, and commitments to deepen diplomatic ties.
* The United States has established significant mining and rare earth agreements with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. These developments are expected to intensify competition ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 -- The Jamestown Foundation posted the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025, in its Eurasia Daily Monitor: * * * C5+1 Summit Elevates U.S. Engagement With Central Asia By Alexander Kim Executive Summary: * The upgraded C5+1 summit in Washington, D.C., marked a significant elevation of U.S. engagement with Central Asia, focusing on economic partnerships, business deals, and commitments to deepen diplomatic ties. * The United States has established significant mining and rare earth agreements with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. These developments are expected to intensify competitionwith Russia and the People's Republic of China (PRC).
* While the summit emphasized vital economic diversification for Central Asian countries, the region continues to maintain strong geopolitical connections with neighboring powers, as shown by Kazakhstani President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev's recent visit to Russia.
The C5+1 summit, held on November 6 in Washington, D.C., marked a significant elevation of Central Asia's profile on the world stage. Leaders from the region received enthusiastic receptions in the U.S. capital, where the summit--initiated by former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry a decade earlier--was upgraded to a presidential-level meeting at the White House.
Central Asian presidents and top officials became the focus of considerable U.S. attention as they participated in multiple high-level meetings. For example, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio welcomed the Central Asian foreign ministers and underscored the importance the United States assigns to its relationship with the region. The summit also featured a dedicated Department of State session, where Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick led a "Deal Zone" and announced nearly twenty agreements between Central Asian countries and U.S. businesses (Times of Central Asia, November 8). The summit culminated in a business dinner at the White House, hosted by U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance (White House, November 6).
This renewed U.S. focus on Central Asia has been reinforced by active diplomatic outreach. U.S. Special Envoy for South and Central Asia Sergio Gor and Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau traveled to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan ahead of the summit and quickly established close ties with the leaders of both countries (U.S. Department of State, October 24).
The summit's achievements went beyond business deals. Additional commitments included Rubio's pledge to visit all five Central Asian countries in 2026 and consideration of repealing the "outdated Soviet-era Jackson-Vanik trade restrictions" (The Diplomat, November 7). Rubio emphasized that, after decades of limited engagement, the United States now recognizes a significant alignment of "national interests" with Central Asia and intends to treat the region as a strategic priority (YouTube/@StateDept, November 6).
Several factors explain Central Asia's renewed prominence in U.S. foreign policy. The region has taken on a more visible importance in the global supply chain as Russia's war against Ukraine continues. Natural resources, especially critical minerals, are paramount in this shift. With the People's Republic of China (PRC) imposing restrictions on rare-earth exports and maintaining a dominant role in mineral processing, Central Asia is an alternative source for both raw materials and its stabilizing role in the supply chаin (Carnegie Politika, February 4; see China Brief, October 17; Heartland.asia, October 7).
A highlight of these efforts is the deal between the U.S.-based Cove Capital and the Kazakh government mining company Tau-Ken Samruk to launch a $1.1 billion tungsten (wolfram) mining and processing plant, with the Export-Import Bank of the United States considering $900 million in financing (Caspian Post, November 7). Cove Kaz Capital Group will hold a 70 percent stake in this project, securing a tighter U.S. focus on cooperation with Kazakhstan in the economic and natural resource sectors.
In Uzbekistan, prospective deals were outlined with Denali Exploration Group and ReElement Technologies for rare earths projects (President of Uzbekistan, November 6). The United States obtained rights of first refusal on co-developed mineral deposits and will collaborate on mapping critical minerals. Up to $400 million is promised for strengthening supply chains between the two countries.
These deals mark the first significant U.S. investment in Central Asia's non-energy mining sector, an area historically controlled by the PRC and Russia. They could intensify competition between major powers in the region.
The summit's agreements open doors for Central Asian countries to diversify beyond energy into opportunities critical for their economic viability. These include transportation and trade infrastructure development beyond pipelines, and with a notable emphasis on air transportation--three Central Asian countries have committed to purchasing more U.S.-made aircraft (IntelliNews, November 7). There is also greater emphasis on economic diversification, supported by U.S. equipment and technology transfer through investments in U.S. companies, as well as advancements in information technology, including artificial intelligence. The United States offers Central Asian states a path to upgrading their economies, moving beyond their traditional roles as a labor supplier to Russia or a raw materials exporter to the PRC.
In Central Asia, the summit received mixed assessments. Some analysts view it as another example of the increasingly complex multi-vector foreign policy pursued by the region (24.kg, November 10). The United States is seen as primarily a distant partner that views Central Asia solely as a source of natural resources (Asia-Plus, November 5; UlysMedia.kz, November 11). Some analysts have also observed that the summit disproportionately emphasized Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, with discussions and deals essentially taking place on a bilateral basis (Sputnik.kg, November 10). The lack of a major regional agreement lessens the overall impact and potentially misses an opportunity to unite broader Central Asian interests.
As demonstrated by Kazakhstani President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev's subsequent visit to Russia, the region continues to rely on close ties with its immediate neighbors for its geopolitical interests. Tokayev, who has also positioned himself as a potential intermediary between the West and Russia, signed a new strategic partnership agreement while in Moscow (Akorda, November 12). Notably, Russian President Vladimir Putin demonstrated an unexpected mild respect for Kazakh national traditions, even attempting to say a few words in Kazakh (Instagram/@Vesti24, November 13).
The Central Asian presidents convened in Tashkent on November 16. They signed additional agreements aimed at strengthening regional cooperation and accepting Azerbaijan as an official member of the Central Asian Consultative Meetings (Euronews, November 17). For Uzbekistani President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, a tireless advocate of Central Asian cooperation, this represents a historically new stage of regional development where Central Asia launches "a real community." (President of Uzbekistan, November 16). The inclusion of Azerbaijan in these discussions further underscores the growing momentum for Central Asia as it seeks to expand its economic development space.
* * *
Alexander Kim is an expert on Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and the Central Asian region.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/c51-summit-elevates-u-s-engagement-with-central-asia/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Ifo Institute: More Companies in Germany Fearful About Their Survival
MUNICH, Germany, Nov. 21 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release:* * *
More Companies in Germany Fearful About Their Survival
The share of German companies that fear acutely for their economic survival has risen to 8.1%. In October 2024, the figure was 7.3%. "The number of corporate insolvencies is therefore likely to remain at a high level in the coming months," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Numerous companies are under pressure due to a lack of new orders, weak demand, and growing international competition."
Companies across all sectors see the lack of orders, ... Show Full Article MUNICH, Germany, Nov. 21 -- ifo Institute issued the following news release: * * * More Companies in Germany Fearful About Their Survival The share of German companies that fear acutely for their economic survival has risen to 8.1%. In October 2024, the figure was 7.3%. "The number of corporate insolvencies is therefore likely to remain at a high level in the coming months," says Klaus Wohlrabe, Head of Surveys at ifo. "Numerous companies are under pressure due to a lack of new orders, weak demand, and growing international competition." Companies across all sectors see the lack of orders,leading to considerable liquidity bottlenecks, as the biggest threat to their survival. Higher operating and personnel costs are also weighing on companies, while the lack of demand is reducing their sales. Added to that are high bureaucratic requirements that further increase the pressure.
Survival concerns are growing, particularly in the retail sector, with 15% reporting serious economic problems. Last year, the figure was 13.8%. The risk of insolvency has also increased among service providers, with 7.6% of companies seeing their economic survival threatened (October 2024: 5.8%).
In manufacturing, the share fell slightly from 8.6 to 8.1%. The situation also eased somewhat in construction. After 7.9% in the previous year, 6.3% of companies now see massive economic problems.
* * *
More Information
Survey (https://www.ifo.de/en/facts/2025-11-21/more-companies-germany-fearful-about-their-survival)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.ifo.de/en/press-release/2025-11-21/more-companies-germany-fearful-about-their-survival
[Category: ThinkTank]
Hudson Institute Issues Commentary to Mosaic: How Israel's Victory Strengthens America's Hand
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025, to Mosaic:* * *
How Israel's Victory Strengthens America's Hand
While Western media talk up Israel's isolation, its neighbors are moving closer to it after two years of military success.
By Zineb Riboua
"From diplomacy to soccer, Israel is becoming a pariah on the global stage." Thus a September headline from an article on the CNN website, which went on to detail how Israel is "increasingly isolated" due ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 -- Hudson Institute, a research organization that says it promotes leadership for a secure, free and prosperous future, issued the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025, to Mosaic: * * * How Israel's Victory Strengthens America's Hand While Western media talk up Israel's isolation, its neighbors are moving closer to it after two years of military success. By Zineb Riboua "From diplomacy to soccer, Israel is becoming a pariah on the global stage." Thus a September headline from an article on the CNN website, which went on to detail how Israel is "increasingly isolated" dueto the war in Gaza, and faces "backlash seeping into economic, cultural, and sporting arenas." The article had much to say about condemnations from European governments and human-rights organizations, votes in the UN General Assembly, and a possible boycott from the Eurovision song contest. Such analyses have become something like conventional wisdom throughout the West. Typically, they have little to say about strategy or security.
Arthur Herman, in his masterful analysis of Israel's war and its diplomatic consequences, takes a different approach, arguing that military success has left the Jewish state anything but isolated. While this approach may seem counterintuitive to those who get their news from English-language sources, it's very much in keeping with the perception of the war in the Middle East. In the West, analysts tend to focus on symbolism, reputational harm, and shifting public moods, none of which informs how governments in the region make decisions. The calculations of Middle Eastern regimes turn on more concrete questions: who commands intelligence superiority, who can blunt Iranian power, and who remains anchored in the American security system. By those measures, Israel has become indispensable. Its performance on the battlefield and its record in covert operations have only reinforced its value to governments that prioritize their own survival and long-term modernization.
Read in Mosaic (https://ideas.tikvah.org/mosaic/essays/responses/how-israels-victory-strengthens-americas-hand).
* * *
Zineb Riboua is a research fellow with Hudson Institute's Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.hudson.org/foreign-policy/how-israels-victory-strengthens-americas-hand-zineb-riboua
[Category: ThinkTank]
Capital Research Center: Hewlett Foundation's Mission to Divide and Rule the Right
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025:* * *
The Hewlett Foundation's mission to divide and rule the right
A giant left-wing donor has a plan to turn American exceptionalism into European malaise, and one piece of the mission is to co-opt the free society right.
By Michael Watson
Divide et Impera -- "Divide and rule." Such was the slogan of Macedonian King Phillip II and the Roman emperors who would adopt his approach to controlling the Mediterranean world in antiquity. By dividing the peoples that were to be conquered against themselves, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 -- The Capital Research Center issued the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025: * * * The Hewlett Foundation's mission to divide and rule the right A giant left-wing donor has a plan to turn American exceptionalism into European malaise, and one piece of the mission is to co-opt the free society right. By Michael Watson Divide et Impera -- "Divide and rule." Such was the slogan of Macedonian King Phillip II and the Roman emperors who would adopt his approach to controlling the Mediterranean world in antiquity. By dividing the peoples that were to be conquered against themselves,the Macedonians under Phillip and the Romans under Pompey and the Caesars found domination much easier than if they had to contend with united defenders. Imperial successors took the lesson.
For those who would fundamentally transform America into a sclerotic, European-style socialist glorified retirement home with no air conditioning, "divide et impera" is a lesson well-learned. And none do it better than the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a left-wing behemoth that funds the typical left-wing Big Philanthropy patronage cast of environmentalists, abortion-access advocates, racial agitators, and Bidenomics alumnae.
Were its grantmaking limited to the "usual suspects," the Hewlett Foundation would be bad enough. But it learned from King Phillip and the nabobs of the East India Company: if the adversary is for sale, buy low and hold until you conquer. If there is a faction claiming to be on the American right that is in the newspapers and cocktail circuit for breaking with the conservatism of the "grill dad Republican" and backing bog-standard progressivism, then there's a very good chance the Hewlett Foundation is integral to keeping the organization's lights on and the spokespeople's suburban-Virginia mortgages paid.
The goal is stark: Displace the American conservative movement's commitment to strength in foreign affairs, free(ish) market capitalism, and social traditionalism. Conservativism's commitment to these principles has helped prevent the United States from becoming Canada. Destroying conservatism would be a great victory for those who wish to see America become a passive dependent of the United Nations, a socialist welfare state aiming not for Mars but for Net Zero, and a place where abortion protesters are jailed for silent prayers.
Most foundations dedicate themselves to electoral...er, "nonpartisan educational" efforts to beat conservatism on the open field of ideological combat. But the Hewlett Foundation throws its massive financial weight--by annual grants, Hewlett is more than ten times larger than the conservative Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation--toward dividing and occupying the right. Hewlett has funded the "Never Trump" movement, the "eco-right" who are responsible for seeding watermelon-environmentalism (green on the outside, socialist Red on the inside) into the American right, left-of-center policy focus interests within American Protestantism, and American Compass and aligned think tanks that oppose traditional conservative pro-capitalist economic policies.
Hewlett's early years: from electronics to environmentalism
***
Packard made population control central to his grantmaking, writing that the "highest priority of our foundation must be to do what can be done to get the worldwide population growth" below two percent per year.
***
The Hewlett Foundation owes its existence to Hewlett-Packard, a major electronics (and later computer- and computer-peripherals) firm founded by William R. Hewlett and David Packard in 1939. Its founders, who by the late 1960s had proven quite successful in the electronics industry and had become wealthy, both founded major philanthropic institutions: William Hewlett's William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and David Packard's David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
While independent from each other, both foundations were influenced by the then-trendy cause of combating overpopulation through the mass distribution of contraceptives and expanding access to abortion. Packard made population control central to his grantmaking, writing that the "highest priority of our foundation must be to do what can be done to get the worldwide population growth" below two percent per year.
The Hewlett Foundation's opening grants in 1967 included gifts to Planned Parenthood for population control efforts, asserting that "current population trends constitute one of the major threats to human happiness and fulfillment." The Foundation also supported California-based higher education, public broadcasting, and the arts in San Francisco.
Hewlett expanded population-control giving into the broader environmentalist movement through the 1970s and 1980s. Grantees included the Sierra Club, the Oceanic Society, Worldwatch Institute, Centre for Population Activities, Center for Population Options, and National Alliance for Optional Parenthood. The foundation continued funding abortion-access groups like Planned Parenthood and its research associate, the Guttmacher Institute.
David Gardner, the former president of the University of California, worked as the foundation's president in the 1990s. He continued the practice of funding pro-abortion groups, adding Catholics for Choice (CFC) to Hewlett's grantee portfolio.
Catholics for Choice is an early example of a divide-and-rule institution targeting conservatism. It exists to present the appearance of division on the morality of abortion, which the Catholic Church strongly opposes.
Catholicism has an advantage in dealing with outside-funded Fifth Columnists in its ranks that movement conservatism does not. Catholicism is hierarchical and monarchical, and the hierarchy has the authority to denounce and expel those who falsely claim the Church's authority to oppose its teachings. The Church's formal bodies in the United States have exercised this power repeatedly against Catholics for Choice. While most American Catholics do not practice the letter of Church teachings on reproduction, CFC as an institution is today recognized as little more than a surrogate of liberal, pro-abortion Big Philanthropies such as Hewlett, the Susan T. Buffett Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.
In 2000, new leadership gave Hewlett a new grantmaking strategy. Paul Brest, the dean of Stanford Law School, took the reins and committed it to "strategic philanthropy," which supporters identify as a science-based philosophy for "maximizing the social impact of foundation grants to nonprofit organizations."
Defenders of "strategic philanthropy" focus on its employment of social science to find "best practices" rather than the practices that made donors happy. Critics cautioned that it overestimates the rigor of social science itself and rejects learned knowledge of on-the-ground relief groups.
After 12 years on the job, Brest stepped down and was replaced by one of his successors as Stanford Law dean, Larry Kramer. A former clerk for arch-liberal Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Kramer was an avowed liberal-progressive legal scholar, notable for promoting "popular constitutionalism" as a rival to the conservative-leaning "originalist" school of constitutional interpretation. In a New York Times piece, legal writer Jeffrey Rosen detailed the theory:
Now that it seems clear that Republicans will control the courts for the foreseeable future, canny liberals are beginning to wean themselves of the romantic idea that judges inevitably favor liberal values. And now these liberals have a rallying cry -- "popular constitutionalism" -- which appears in the title of a book published this year by Larry Kramer, the new dean of Stanford Law School. In the early 90's, Kramer became interested in the idea that the public might do a better job of protecting its rights than the courts. He became convinced that the framers of the Constitution expected it to be interpreted not by unelected judges but by the people themselves -- through petitions, juries, voting and civil disobedience.
...
[L]iberals should resurrect political tools for controlling the courts that presidents from Jefferson to Lincoln embraced -- from Congressional filibusters of controversial nominees to efforts to strip the court of jurisdiction to hear controversial cases.
Hewlett's grantmaking and strategic vision under Kramer would fit with his progressive partisanship.
Left-wing policy grants
***
Hewlett's "U.S. Climate Strategy" sites it comfortably within the "watermelon" environmentalist coalition.
***
Hewlett is a huge pool of resources available to left-of-center ideology and advocacy, with special notice due those in the environmentalist movement, the abortion-advocacy effort, post-"summer of love" racial agitation, and anti-capitalism. Its grantmaking in 2023 exceeded $648 million, and its assets exceeded $13.3 billion.
Climate: By the foundation's own accounting, it made $240.9 million in grants for environmentalist causes and advocacy in 2024, with focuses on climate change mitigation and western-lands conservation in the United States.
Hewlett's "U.S. Climate Strategy" sites it comfortably within the "watermelon" environmentalist coalition. It focuses on the power of government to enforce decarbonization through central planning (under the euphemism "industrial policy"), government purchasing, and regulatory programs. And it presses for extremely aggressive policies such as the war on cars, endorsing "binding commitments for 100% clean energy or clean car and truck standards that are more ambitious than those promulgated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency." (This would be the Biden administration's EPA, which was in power at the time of the strategy's publication.)
Notable Hewlett Foundation environment program grantees include ClimateWorks Foundation, the Energy Foundation, RF Catalytic Capital, the Arabella Advisors network (Windward Fund), Center for Strategic and International Studies, Hispanic Access Foundation, and Just Transition Fund, among others.
Abortion access and gender ideology: Critics of the Hewlett Foundation cannot complain that it has failed to carry out its donor's intent with regard to abortion advocacy. The group has consistently, from its very inception, upheld William Hewlett's support for Planned Parenthood and other abortion advocacy groups and campaigns.
The foundation maintains two separate complementary strategies focused on abortion and contraception; one directed overseas and one focused domestically. The "U.S. Reproductive Equity Strategy" aims to "ensure that people in the U.S. -- particularly those facing the greatest barriers -- have the freedom and resources to access the abortion care and contraception they need and want to achieve their life aspirations."
The Hewlett strategy on pregnancy and abortion is explicitly committed to the Left's gender ideology. It affirms: "We have intentionally shifted to using the word 'people' to be inclusive of cisgender women and girls, transgender, and nonbinary individuals."
Notable recent grantees for the so-called "Gender Equity and Governance" program area include Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors' Care for All with Respect and Equity (CARE) Fund, If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice, the Arabella Advisors-managed Hopewell Fund's State Abortion Access Network project, NEO Philanthropy's Healthy and Free Tennessee project, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Abortion Care Network.
While abortion access is the principal interest of the Gender Equity and Governance program, the Hewlett Foundation has also funded the Transgender Law Center, URGE: Unite for Reproductive & Gender Equity, Proteus Fund's "Transparency and Accountability Initiative: Gender-Just Economy Collaborative Learning Platform," and Funders for LGBTQ Issues, all of which are at least tangentially related to transgenderism and "gender ideology."
Racial Justice: Hewlett adopted a "Racial Justice Strategy" for a ten-year grantmaking program in 2022. This occurred after a "racial justice" commitment as part of the 2020 "Summer of Love" following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis Police custody. The strategy heavily leans on early-2020s approaches of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) that have been challenged by the Trump administration for violating the plain text of civil rights laws.
Notable grantees include Race Forward, which was pledged $3.8 million over three years in 2025; Defending American Values Coalition, which was pledged $1 million over three years; the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which was pledged $500,000 over three years; Liberation Ventures, which was pledged $484,220 over 20 months; the NAACP, which was pledged $5 million; and Pop Culture Collaborative's Becoming America Fund under Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, which was pledged $1 million over three years.
Anti-capitalism: Opposition to American capitalism, derided as "neoliberalism" in the language of Larry Kramer and Hewlett leadership, has become an increasing focus of Hewlett's activities.
Jennifer Harris launched Hewlett's Economy and Society project. She entered the Biden administration at its beginning in 2021, became one of the architects of Bidenomics at the White House National Economic Council, and then transitioned back to Hewlett's anti-capitalism project in 2023.
Our colleague Robert Stilson took note of Kramer's anti-capitalism when he announced his intention to step down as Hewlett's head. Stilson writes:
In short, Kramer believes that the free market has failed, and will continue to fail, to produce the economic, social, and political outcomes that he considers to be most desirable. He outlined his criticisms in a December 2022 article entitled "We Need to Talk About Capitalism," though he went into greater depth in an earlier memo to the Hewlett Foundation's board of directors. To Kramer, the dominance of "neoliberalism" as championed by Milton Friedman and his many intellectual followers has produced such levels of income and wealth inequality--which in turn has led to a variety of negative societal externalities--that it must be replaced with a new economic philosophy. "The upshot," he wrote, "is that the 20th-century free market paradigm has reached the end of its useful shelf life."
The role of the Hewlett Foundation, as envisioned by Kramer, is to fund the intellectual development of such an alternative system. A comprehensive 2020 grantmaking strategy for the foundation's Economy and Society program spells out the details, but it succinctly defines the overarching goal as being "to develop a new 'common sense' about how the economy works, the goals it should promote, and how it should be structured to serve those goals." Income and wealth inequality are perhaps Hewlett's biggest concerns with the current economy, though climate change and racism also feature prominently. The explicit presumption underlying the program--through which Hewlett paid out $34 million in 2022 [$33.2 million in 2024]--is that free-market capitalism "has outlived whatever usefulness it might once have had" and today "causes more problems than it solves." The Hewlett Foundation simply believes that capitalism offers "no credible solutions for society's biggest challenges."
The grant recipients from the Economy and Society Initiative are a litany of statist and even outright socialist institutions. PolicyLink, a racial-advocacy group with socialist policy proposals, received $500,000 for its "Toward a Thriving Multiracial Democracy and Equitable Economy project." The ClimateWorks Foundation, which also receives funding from Hewlett's environmentalist programs, received $3.5 million in pledges from Economy and Society "for support of U.S. Foreign economic policy for global green industrial policy." The Arabella Advisors-managed New Venture Fund received $1 million over three years to support its Groundwork Collaborative.
Other recipients included American Economic Liberties Project, a regulation-loving advocacy group with close ties to the Biden administration, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities--a liberal think tank better identified as the "Center for Government Priorities." Showing that no area of the economic left is excluded from Hewlett's largesse, the think tank of Randi Weingarten's American Federation of Teachers union (the AFT Education Foundation) was given $400,000.
Divide and rule the right
***
If this bet pays off, then Hewlett's environmentalist, racialist, and socialist progressivism will win the day, regardless of what Americans vote for.
***
But to truly wreck the Right's nominally capitalist economy agenda, Hewlett needs to subvert from within.
Hewlett once ran the "Madison Initiative," a grantmaking program dedicated to "an effort to strengthen the values and institutions of American democracy in a time of polarization." It funded groups across the political spectrum that sought to improve the functioning of Congress and other representative institutions.
That program has lapsed, and right of center (nominally) groups funded by Hewlett today are participating in a campaign by progressives to divide and rule the right. For Hewlett, the benefits of breaking the conservative three-legged stool of a tough foreign policy, free(ish) markets, and social traditionalism are obvious.
One striking feature of Hewlett's work in this space is that they don't trust voters to behave as they wish.
American electoral factions can only expect to control the federal executive half the time. Since George Washington left the presidency, the Federalist-Whig-Republican and Jeffersonian-Democratic political traditions have each won 29 presidential elections. If an ideological faction wishes to rule regardless of how the electorate may choose, then victory requires undermining the opposition and turning it to your side without changing yourself.
"Divide et impera" isn't just a model for Hewlett but a command to aim its enormous grantmaking at co-opting and dividing the American right. If this bet pays off, then Hewlett's environmentalist, racialist, and socialist progressivism will win the day, regardless of what Americans vote for.
American Compass is the most prominent, effective, and notorious of the grantees taking Hewlett money for this purpose. Nominally a "right of center" group, American Compass is influential with certain members of the Trump administration and a handful of U.S. Senators. Since 2020, Hewlett has pledged or granted $3.2 million to American Compass as part of the state-socialist "Economy and Society" program.
Hewlett hasn't hidden what it wants from the investment in American Compass.
"Project 2025," the Heritage Foundation-led coalition project to devise a governing agenda for a potential future presidential administration, first came to public attention in 2023. Left-wing critics noted that Hewlett had funded American Compass, which played a deplorable role in developing Project 2025's "Mandate for Labor Error."
Hewlett, without declaring an intention to "divide and rule" conservatism, defended itself against the left-wing critics:
Both articles are misleading in conflating our support for a conservative nonprofit, American Compass, with the work of a coalition of more than 80 conservative organizations, Project 2025, to provide a policy blueprint for the next Republican administration.
American Compass is in our Economy and Society Initiative portfolio, in part, because of their work to move conservative thinking in a more worker-friendly direction -- which is what they were doing in contributing to the labor section of Project 2025's policy agenda. American Compass' work on that chapter does not reflect, or even imply, endorsement of anything else in Project 2025. While Hewlett does provide grants to American Compass, we do not provide grants to Project 2025. Indeed, there are many ideas in Project 2025 that Hewlett does not agree with, including some in the chapter on labor. [Emphasis in original.]
So, Hewlett was pleased that its strange bedfellow was admitted into the conservative tent, but only so the Hewlett agenda, not conservatism, may advance.
Divide et impera.
American Compass is not alone. Other nominally right of center grantees benefiting from Hewlett's socialist "Economy and Society" program have included:
* American Moment, a staff-development network with a mission "to identify, educate, and credential young Americans who will implement public policy that supports strong families, a sovereign nation, and prosperity for all."
* The Intercollegiate Studies Institute, once dedicated to teaching "the core ideas behind the free market, the American Founding, and Western civilization," which took $350,000 "with the aim of developing new economic paradigms."
* American Affairs, a nationalist-populist journal of political economy.
* The Foundation for American Innovation, a technology advocacy group that joined the Teamsters union as a presenting sponsor of American Compass's 2025 gala.
Evangelical Christian institutions have also been subjects of divide et impera grantmaking. Megan Basham, a right-of-center journalist focused on evangelical Protestant internal deliberations, reported that Christianity Today accepted more than $1 million from Hewlett, including $600,000 for elections reporting. Basham alleged that the magazine had published material downplaying opposition to abortion since taking the funding and published pieces in advance of the 2024 election encouraging evangelical Christians to abstain from voting.
That evangelicals lean strongly Republican cannot be ignored. Encouraging a strong demographic for one's opposing party not to vote is denounced as "voter suppression," at least when conservative Republicans do it.
Older dividing factions are also Hewlett projects. The foundation propped up the "eco-right" faction of environmentalists seeking to encourage left-wing environmental policies like carbon taxes among conservatives. And before the organized "Never Trump" faction all-but-formally defected to the Democratic Party, Hewlett funded the Bill Kristol-associated networks.
"But this wolf comes as a wolf"
The quote "but this wolf comes as a wolf" is best known in politics from the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in Morrison v. Olson, a case in which the Court upheld the creation of the "independent counsel" officer in the Justice Department unaccountable to the President. Scalia's point was that the constitutional vandalism the independent counsel law committed, and the Court was upholding, was obvious.
The vandalism to conservatism the Hewlett Foundation commits comes as a wolf. Allegiance to the progressive platform makes one a candidate for what Hewlett laughably calls "dialogue across difference." It's not difference from progressivism. It's division within the political movement that has made America most distinct from Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, where the only questions in politics (until the recent rise of populism) have been how quickly to reach Net Zero, how fervently to disarm while opening the borders, and how strictly to regulate speech, religious expression, and economic life.
America is different. Keeping her different means the right-center needs to reject the Hewlett Foundation's agenda.
* * *
Michael Watson
Michael is Research Director for Capital Research Center and serves as the managing editor for InfluenceWatch.
* * *
Original text here: https://capitalresearch.org/article/the-hewlett-foundations-mission-to-divide-and-rule-the-right/
[Category: ThinkTank]
CSIS Issues Commentary: Golden Dome for America - Assessing Chinese and Russian Reactions
WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025:* * *
Golden Dome for America: Assessing Chinese and Russian Reactions
By Raymond Wang and Lachlan MacKenzie
The Trump administration's January 2025 Golden Dome executive order set the stage for a massive expansion of U.S. missile defenses. Whereas the United States' existing homeland missile defenses are designed to counter ballistic missile threats from "rogue states" like North Korea and Iran, Golden Dome will include defenses against a wider array of missile threats, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, Nov. 21 -- The Center for Strategic and International Studies issued the following commentary on Nov. 20, 2025: * * * Golden Dome for America: Assessing Chinese and Russian Reactions By Raymond Wang and Lachlan MacKenzie The Trump administration's January 2025 Golden Dome executive order set the stage for a massive expansion of U.S. missile defenses. Whereas the United States' existing homeland missile defenses are designed to counter ballistic missile threats from "rogue states" like North Korea and Iran, Golden Dome will include defenses against a wider array of missile threats,including attacks by near-peer adversaries. If effective, Chinese and Russian analysts argue that Golden Dome could limit their countries' ability to target the United States' homeland with nuclear weapons and thereby undermine their strategic deterrents. This article surveys Chinese and Russian reactions to the Golden Dome and develops an initial assessment of its potential impact on arms racing and strategic stability.
Chinese and Russian commentary about Golden Dome has three noteworthy features. First, Chinese and Russian analysts contend that Golden Dome is emblematic of the United States' continued destabilizing pursuit of strategic advantage, but also represents a more aggressive break from previous policies and posing an elevated threat to second-strike survivability. Second, Chinese and Russian experts acknowledge uncertainty about Golden Dome's scope and design, leaving room for speculation on what form it might take. Third, while China and Russia are concerned about Golden Dome's potential impact on strategic stability, analysts also express skepticism about the system's feasibility and, in Russia's case, optimism about countering the system. In response to Golden Dome, both China and Russia are poised to pursue asymmetric countermeasures that leverage perceived areas of advantage. Notably, their responses are likely to involve intensifying existing programs and efforts (e.g., numerical buildup and unconventional delivery systems), rather than a horizontal expansion into completely new capabilities.
The Perceived Threat
China sees Golden Dome as just another instance of the United States' pursuit of "absolute security"--a security advantage without regard to the concerns of others. For example, shortly after the program's announcement, China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) spokesperson claimed that it represents an "unconstrained" development of a comprehensive missile defense system, which violates the Outer Space Treaty (OST) and increases the risk of an arms race and the militarization of space. Note that China has developed and tested a fractional orbital bombardment capability that could violate the OST, if ever used. China and Russia even mentioned Golden Dome in a May 8 joint statement on global strategic stability, which accused the United States of seeking "overwhelming military superiority."
At the same time, Chinese experts view Golden Dome as representing a more aggressive break from previous U.S. positions. Two scholars, writing in the journal Contemporary International Relations (published by the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, a research center under the Ministry of State Security), argue that Golden Dome represents a "fundamental break" from the focus on "rogue actors" under Obama, or even Biden's "integrated deterrence." Instead, the United States, not satisfied with having the ability to intercept a limited nuclear attack, seeks the ability to address strategic strikes from great powers, reflecting a "deeper skepticism of traditional deterrence logic." Guo Xiaobing, director of the Center for Arms Control Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, makes a similar point in a commentary. He argues that Golden Dome exemplifies the United States' desire to develop "left-of-launch" capabilities, which undermines strategic stability. Guo also notes that Golden Dome explicitly targets Russia and China for the first time, indicating a new degree of hostility.
The Kremlin likewise views Golden Dome as a destabilizing escalation of past U.S. missile defense efforts. Russian leaders have long expressed concerns about the threat that U.S. homeland missile defense, in combination with U.S. and allied long-range missiles, poses to Russia's second-strike capability. Kremlin officials criticize Golden Dome along the same lines. In Russia and China's joint statement, they describe the threat posed by the combination of Golden Dome and U.S. and allied strike capabilities, saying that the latter "can be employed for the purposes of delivering... a first strike, in calculation to repel a radically weakened retaliatory strike with air and missile defense assets." The statement criticizes Golden Dome as a "complete and ultimate rejection" of the relationship between offensive and defensive strategic systems, and argues that Golden Dome's left of launch missile defeat concept is intended to undermine adversaries' nuclear deterrents and indicates that the United States seeks to achieve "strategic invulnerability."
Russian officials have expressed particular concern about the role of space-based interceptors. MFA spokesperson Maria Zakharova warned that "Golden Dome provides for reinforcing combat capabilities in outer space... effectively turning outer space into a deployment area and an arena for military confrontation," while Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov asserted that space-based interceptors are "extremely destabilizing" and create a "direct path not only to the militarization of outer space, but also to its transformation into an arena of armed confrontation." The deputy director for nonproliferation and arms control at the MFA, Konstantin Vorontsov, similarly claimed that Golden Dome and projects like it risk starting an arms race in space. As with China, the Kremlin's position is highly hypocritical, given its reported plans to deploy a nuclear weapon in orbit. Such a system would constitute a flagrant violation of the OST and violate Russia and China's joint pledge to "promote... the international initiative/political commitment not to be the first to deploy weapons in outer space."
Uncertainty Regarding Scope and Design
Chinese concerns about Golden Dome are perhaps exacerbated by the fact that there are few details about what Golden Dome consists of. This opens up interpretive space for Chinese analysts to speculate on what the system might include. For instance, in an article published in World Affairs, a magazine affiliated with the MFA, authors speculate that Golden Dome would consist of the following "layers":
1. Sensor Layer: The sensor layer includes hypersonic and missile tracking sensors, space-based identification sensors, Space-Based Infrared Systems, space-based airborne moving target indicators, over-the-horizon radars, and an integrated undersea surveillance system.
2. Surveillance Layer: The surveillance layer consists of low-earth orbit satellite constellations forming a distributed space architecture.
3. Interceptor Layer: The interceptor layer incorporates kinetic and non-kinetic interception means, including space-based interceptors, regional airborne high-energy laser defense systems, as well as upgrades to existing midcourse and terminal missile defense systems and cyber-electromagnetic systems.
4. Command and Control System Upgrades: The command and control system upgrades include improvements in combat management and communications across the different military branches.
5. Burden Sharing with Allies and Partners: Burden sharing with allies and partners involves contributions from countries such as Canada and Japan, both of which expressed interest in sharing data and participating in interception nodes.
Russian experts are similarly uncertain about what form Golden Dome will take. Aleksandr Ermakov, an analyst at the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations, observes that the lack of information about Golden Dome's design is likely due to the Department of Defense not having finalized plans for the system. Based on leaks, Ermakov assesses that Golden Dome may be intended to defeat attacks from states like North Korea and Iran and mitigate attacks from Russia and China.
Doubts About Feasibility
While Chinese analysts are concerned about Golden Dome undermining strategic stability, they are also skeptical of the feasibility of the program on technical, economic, and political grounds. The Contemporary International Relationsarticle points to a deficient U.S. industrial base and ongoing difficulties with the Next Generation Interceptor program, speculating that Golden Dome is likely to run into delays and challenges with systems integration. Another article published in Peace and Development, a journal with links to the People's Liberation Army, similarly argues that Golden Dome is likely to suffer from technical difficulties. These authors also speculate that, like prior programs like the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile, Golden Dome programs are likely to have cost overruns, which will be difficult given the United States' debt levels. Analysts also highlight domestic political opposition to the program, with some questioning whether it can survive beyond the Trump administration. Finally, Trump's "America First" and insistence on burden sharing might cause friction with allies that undermine the required cooperation for Golden Dome.
Having said all that, despite these reasons for skepticism, since Chinese analysts view Golden Dome as further evidence of U.S. strategic hostility toward China, "a public abandonment of strategic stability," the political message China perceives from the program is likely to be just as--if not more--significant than any technical results the program produces.
Russian experts question Golden Dome's feasibility on similar grounds. Analysts raise doubts as to whether future presidential administrations will support the project, whether the United States can sustain the costs of fielding and maintaining Golden Dome, and whether the project is technologically possible. Director of the Institute for Advanced Strategic Studies at the Higher School of Economics and former secretary of Russia's Security Council Andrei Kokoshin, for example, assesses that Golden Dome's viability depends on the United States' ability to sustain growing its national debt and the MAGA movement's continued political success, neither of which is guaranteed. Ermakov, writing with Aleksandr Savelyev (a senior researcher at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations), similarly questions whether future U.S. presidents will be willing to pay for Golden Dome.
Russian officials and experts also voice confidence in Russia's ability to counter Golden Dome. While Ryabkov warned on May 22 that Golden Dome "must be taken very seriously," he added that "Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that our strategic systems are equipped so that we can reliably break through any air defense systems," and that he is confident that the U.S. "belief in its own invincibility via some technological achievements... will be refuted." Russian analysts argue that Russia's existing novel nuclear delivery systems--particularly the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile and Poseidon long-range torpedo--ensure that Russia will be able to penetrate any future U.S. defenses.
Potential Countermeasures
Chinese analysts have thus far been quite vague about how China should respond to Golden Dome. One article claims that China should "assess the chain reactions that Golden Dome would initiate, and insist on China's own defense policy while proactively participating in multilateral arms control dialogues that would advance global strategic stability" (author's translation). More broadly--even before Golden Dome was announced-- Chinese scholars have argued that China must restore mutually assured destruction (MAD) in response to what is perceived as an increasingly aggressive U.S. nuclear posture. While these commentaries stop short of recommending how China might restore MAD, it is possible to make an informed guess. First, China will likely continue its nuclear buildup and qualitative improvements to increase confidence in its second-strike capability. Indeed, China will likely see Golden Dome as a vindication, rather than an effect, of its decision to build up. Second, it will focus on perceived areas of advantage, specifically hypersonics, which Chineseanalystsacknowledge pose a challenge to the current U.S. missile defenses. China will also invest in other preexisting systems that help address its concerns with missile defense, such as the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System.
Considering the Kremlin's rapid development of new capabilities in response to the Bush administration's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and Strategic Defense Initiative, Russia may begin adjusting its force structure and posture before gaining clarity on Golden Dome's shape or scope. Putin privately pledged in 2000 that Russia would pursue asymmetric countermeasures in response to U.S. homeland missile defense, and stated in 2001 that U.S. missile defense would not undermine Russian security, given Russia's ability to overcome such systems. Russia has been working to modernize its strategic nuclear force to that end since the early 2000s, including through the development of novel delivery systems designed to penetrate U.S. missile defenses. Russian analysts have suggested that similar asymmetric countermeasures, including novel systems and anti-satellite weapons, are the best approach for countering Golden Dome. Given the confidence that Russian analysts have in the ability of Burevestnik and Poseidon to penetrate missile defenses, the Kremlin may devote additional resources to the development and production of those systems. Kokoshin additionally suggests that Russia should improve its early-warning and space surveillance capabilities.
Ultimately, responses thus far suggest that China and Russia may respond to Golden Dome by doubling down on areas of perceived advantage, rather than exploring options that they are not already pursuing. China and Russia will also likely continue to delegitimize Golden Dome--as exemplified in the joint statement--by framing it as yet another example of the United States' hostile and destabilizing pursuit of military superiority. Perhaps more importantly, due to the perceived political signal Golden Dome is sending and the vagueness surrounding the program, it may influence Chinese and Russian force structure and posture even before the program matures with technical details, and regardless of whether the United States continues the program after Trump.
* * *
Raymond Wang is postdoctoral fellow at the Columbia-Harvard China and the World Program. Lachlan MacKenzie is an associate fellow with the Project on Nuclear Issues in the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.csis.org/analysis/golden-dome-america-assessing-chinese-and-russian-reactions
[Category: ThinkTank]