As the US turned 251, a familiar ritual repeated this year as American politicians lined up to toast the Navy with patriotic messages and, interestingly, images of Indian and Russian warships.

The US Navy celebrates its birthday every year on October 13, marking the day the Second Continental Congress authorized the outfitting of two armed vessels to intercept British supply ships during the American Revolution—the decision that created the Continental Navy, a force that eventually grew into the United States Navy.

As US Navy birthday wishes poured in on October 13, several US lawmakers joined the rush to pay their homage, resulting in a series of social media misfires.

For instance, Georgia Governor Brian P. Kemp posted a message with an image of three sleek gray warships steaming in formation.

At first glance, the post seems routine, but a closer look reveals the warships are Indian Navy vessels, as Dave Brown, the Deputy Washington Bureau Chief at The Wall Street Journal, and military observers pointed out.

The ships have since been identified as INS Godavari, INS Brahmaputra, and INS Beas, although a community note on Kemp’s post flags them as Kolkata-class guided-missile destroyers.

Despite criticism, Kemp has not taken down the post.

Another lawmaker, Ohio State Representative Mike Dovilla, paid his respects on X, saying: “Happy Birthday, U.S. Navy. I am proud of my service in naval intelligence and grateful to all who serve our nation with honor, courage, and commitment. To our sailors, veterans, and their families, thank you.”

Interestingly, though, Dovilla used an image of a Russian warship instead of a US one, a move that drew scrutiny, given that the lawmaker is a Navy Reserve commander and has previously served as a lieutenant commander in the Navy.

Dovilla deleted the post after observers pointed out the error.

Meanwhile, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria posted images of what has been identified as the Soviet-era cruiser Mikhail Kutuzov, now a museum ship based in Novorossiysk, Russia.

To make matters worse, Gloria wrote: “San Diego is a proud military town. Sailors and their families are a part of the fabric of our community. For 251 years, sailors have answered our nation’s call with courage,” further emphasizing his ignorance.

In another goof-up, the Republican-aligned think tank Freedom Caucus Foundation jumped on the bandwagon of errors by using a picture of the Indian Navy ship INS Trikand. 

A Mistake That Keeps Repeating 

In 2025, the US Navy’s SEAL Museum posted an image of a Russian missile cruiser to mark the US Navy’s 250th birthday. Meanwhile, several elected representatives and public accounts used images of Indian and Russian Navy warships to mark the service’s birthday.

Representative Kyle Donahue, Representative Arvind Venkat, and Representative Andy Harris used images of Indian warships in their posts, while Senator Jim Boyd used an image of a Russian battleship cruiser to pay tribute to the US Navy for its birthday.

These are just a few of the many social media faux pas that were flagged last year.

Similarly, in 2023, Representative Cory Mills and Representative David Trone’s birthday greetings featured images of a Russian warship. On the other hand, the SEAL Legacy Foundation, which supports families of wounded and fallen United States Navy SEALs, used a Russian ship to mark the occasion, whereas the official X page of Homeland Security used the image depicting a Canadian frigate. 

Things weren’t much different in 2021, when Senator Jim Risch published a heartfelt wish for the USN’s birthday, but used a photo of what was later identified as a Pattani-class offshore patrol vessel belonging to the Royal Thai Navy, potentially built by China.

While ship identification may not be a strong suit for many in the United States, it is not much different for combat aircraft.

In a major embarrassment last year, the Pentagon’s Joint Program Office  (JPO) posted an image of the Chinese J-35A stealth fighter instead of the US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in a Veterans Day homage post. “Today, and every day, we thank all Veterans and those currently serving for their service and sacrifice,” the Pentagon official’s post stated. However, the office took the post down as criticism mounted over the bizarre mistake.

In 2023, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna—an Air Force (USAF) veteran herself—posted birthday graphics for the US Air Force (USAF) on X and Instagram that used silhouettes of Russian MiG-29 fighters. Air Force historians and defense analysts immediately flagged the image, after which the politician took it down and blamed a junior staffer for the error.

In 2021, Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi made a similar error when she congratulated the US Air Force Reserve Command on its birthday with a graphic showing Russian Su-34 Fullback strike aircraft. “Happy 73rd Birthday to the @USAFReserve! Thankful for all the reservists who are constantly on the ready to serve our nation,” Hyde-Smith said on X, along with a graphic showing four Su-34 jets in flight. 

Needless to say, she deleted the post after netizens mocked her for the error.

However, Dr. Rob Lee of King’s College in London, who specializes in war studies, joked at the time that Hyde-Smith’s post was part of the “national pastime of mistaking Russian weapons for our own” among Americans.

In an even more ridiculous mistake in 2021, the official Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) account posted a birthday graphic for the US Air Force that featured silhouettes of Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jets.

Meanwhile, one of the accounts connected to “Operation Inherent Resolve” posted a picture of two US Navy Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets with best wishes to the air force, creating another embarrassing situation.

Similarly, Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign released a “Support Our Troops”  advertisement accompanied by a photo of Russian MiG-29 fighter jets flying over troops with Kalashnikov-pattern rifles. Unsurprisingly, aviation experts widely mocked it, saying it clearly wasn’t American.

Defense analysts have long noted the mechanics behind these recurring errors. For example, modern warships and fighters share enough visual DNA- gray paint, angular superstructures, and similar radar masts- that non-specialists struggle to tell them apart at a glance.

Staffers working under deadline pressure rarely pause to verify hull numbers or distinctive features, making it a low-stakes but revealing ritual.

• Contact the author at sakshi.tiwari13 (at) outlook.com
• Follow EurAsian Times on Google News

The post Russian & Indian Warships Hog Online Limelight as U.S. Navy Turns 251. Social Media Gaffe Continues appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

After putting the F-35 deal under review, Canada has now reportedly paused the acquisition of 16 U.S.-made UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters.

UH-60M Black Hawks are manufactured by Sikorsky, a unit of Lockheed Martin, and were intended to replace aging CH-146 Griffon helicopters that have supported Canada’s special operations units.

Lockheed says Black Hawks are combat-proven workhorses for the U.S. Army and allied militaries worldwide; the UH-60M is rugged, reliable, and ready for the toughest mission challenges.

With powerful twin engines, a reconfigurable cabin, and 9,000 lbs. of cargo capacity, the BLACK HAWK can transport troops, deliver supplies, and fly search and rescue, even in contested environments.

That’s what has made the UH-60M a trusted utility helicopter with over 15 million flight hours and countless critical missions worldwide, according to Lockheed Martin.

The acquisition of UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters was proceeding through the U.S. Foreign Military Sales process, had received State Department sign-off, and was heading toward congressional notification when Ottawa ordered the halt, according to sources cited by CBC News and Radio-Canada.

Ottawa reportedly ordered the pause last summer, shortly before Canadian and U.S. trade negotiators met in Washington, which later collapsed.

Sources in government and the defense industry said the decision was linked to both the failed negotiations and a broader review by federal officials of planned military purchases from the United States, as Ottawa seeks to reduce reliance on American equipment and prioritize domestic production.

A government spokesperson said Canada continues to evaluate options to meet the needs of its special operations forces and remains in contact with relevant partners. Lockheed Martin has said it is ready to support international customers seeking the latest UH-60M through the Foreign Military Sales program.

Top USAF General Reveals NATO Plan to Fight Russia — But it is Designed for Containment, Not Decisive Defeat

US President Donald Trump’s trade tariffs on Canada, the unilateral renaming of Lake Ontario, and mockery of Canadian leadership have strained ties with Ottawa.

Tensions peaked between the two giant neighbors on August 22, after trade talks collapsed, when the Trump administration imposed 50% tariffs on about $20 billion in Canadian goods. In response, Canada hit back with retaliatory tariffs.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, responding to US officials alleging that Canada walked away from the deal for political reasons, said, “I don’t think, with all respect, appointed, unelected cabinet members in the United States are experts on Canadian politics.”

The tensions between the two North American allies began in January 2025, when Trump became President, slapped punitive tariffs on Ottawa, and repeatedly called it the 51st state of the USA.

Canadian PM Carney put the F-35 acquisition under review in March 2025 amid rising tensions with Washington; however, the country will receive the 16 F-35As already paid for while it decides on the future of the remaining 72.

Artillery Isn’t Dead: U.S. Army Orders XM1776 Prototypes Based on South Korea’s K9 ‘Thunder’ Howitzer

Meanwhile, in a recent media interaction, the head of the Defense Investment Agency said the Canadian public would not welcome sole-source military contracts awarded to US companies under the current conditions.

“That’s just me reading the room,” Stephen Fuhr, secretary of state for defense procurement, said in an interview. “I think that would be a very difficult thing to do, especially after this last week. I think that people would not be happy about that.”

Although Fuhr still views the US as a vital defense ally, he emphasized that Canada has realized the dangers of “putting all our eggs in one basket” and said Ottawa must build new strategic partnerships or become more independent in military manufacturing.

Fuhr did not name any specific military project that could be affected by the ongoing trade tensions.

Many in Canada oppose the F-35 deal with Lockheed Martin.

For instance, British Columbia Premier David Eby said: “When your friend kicks you in the back, one of the first rules is you don’t then go and buy $12 billion of fighter jets from that person,” he said on August 25. “It makes absolutely no sense.”

NDP interim Leader Don Davies said in February 2026: “At a time when the Trump administration is threatening our sovereignty, attacking Canadian workers, increasing tariffs on our industries and interfering in our domestic and foreign policies, going through with any F-35 orders is simply unacceptable.”

“Under the Joint Strike Fighter program, the U.S. Government will maintain full control of maintenance and software updates, and America will always have the option to effectively ground our fighter jets by denying critical parts or software updates.” “The bottom line is that purchasing F-35s from the United States will deepen our military integration with a superpower, not reduce it.”

U.S. F-16 ‘Viper’ Jets Create New Problems For Taiwan — Aircraft Arrive, But Trained Fighter Pilots Are Quitting

NDP Defense Critic Lori Idlout said: “Canada cannot buy a single F-35.” “This is why Canada cannot move forward with the procurement of F-35s. Not 88, not 16, not one.” “If Mark Carney caves to American pressure and continues with the acquisition of any F-35s, he is giving President Trump the ability to ground our fighter jets by denying software updates or repairs.”

Freelance journalist Riley Donovan said: “Why would Canada buy planes from the country that is waging a trade war against us and which is arguably our greatest long-term military threat? Sweden promises to set up production here and give us 12,000+ jobs if we buy Gripen jets. Cancel the F-35s. Go with the Gripen.”

• By ET Online Desk
• Mail us at: editor (at) eurasiantimes.com

The post After F-35, Canada Pauses Purchase of 16 Black Hawk Helicopters Amid Trade Tensions with U.S.: Media appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

Amid growing anxieties in Europe over “the Russian threat”, the US Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), has unveiled what he called the alliance’s “Theory of Victory”. 

Though his Polish hosts did not seem fully satisfied, General Grynkewich assured, on October 12, at the “Warsaw Security Forum,” an annual international conference in the Polish capital, that the alliance is ready to defend itself.

Reassuring America’s reliability as an ally and Washington’s firm commitment to NATO’s Article 5, which envisages collective defense, he said that if an adversary is “foolish enough” to strike, the alliance is fully prepared to “fight tonight”.

During a panel discussion titled “Theory of Victory: How Do We Achieve Military Success Against Russia in Deterrence and Defense?” Grynkewich stated that NATO would destroy “anything and everything” that supports an attack on allied territory.

He asserted, “Should the adversary choose to press the attack or commit his reserves, we will break the warfighting system engaged against us.”

In what the experts describe as an unprecedented move to project an absolute ironclad assurance of security to the one billion citizens living under the NATO umbrella, and to send an unmistakable warning of devastating consequences to adversaries, particularly Moscow ( though he did not mention it explicitly), General Grynkewich then went on to clearly articulate key elements of what was hitherto classified as NATO’s “Theory of Victory”.

NATO had developed a well-known “Theory of Victory,” but its elements were not well understood. General Grynkewich revealed them as part of a rigorous three-phase strategic framework: “Block, Blunt, and Break”.

This triad dictates the sequential escalation and synchronization of Allied multi-domain power from the very first moments of aggression.

While Grynkewich did not explicitly mention Russia during his address, his comments clearly targeted Moscow, especially in light of NATO’s 2022 Strategic Concept, which identifies Russia as the most significant and direct threat to allied security.

“My theory of victory is simple: we will block the initial attack. If the attack persists, we will blunt it and prevent enemy advance,” he expla ned. “And if required, we will break the enemy’s forces and the operational warfighting system that is arrayed against us.”

Based on his elaboration, Phase One of Block is the first line of defense. It focuses on an immediate, unyielding denial of territory. If an adversary breaches an allied border, NATO’s forward land forces are trained to deploy instantaneously to halt the invading army directly at the point of contact.

Rather than letting an adversary establish a foothold or capture territory for political leverage, the “Block” phase aims to isolate the initial push. This relies on integrated multi-domain operations, using localized ground units heavily supported by air superiority, naval assets, space surveillance, and active cyber capabilities to immediately close the operational window on the attacker.

If an offensive survives the initial blocking force and persists, NATO transitions to the “Blunt” phase.

The goal shifts from containment to actively stripping the enemy of operational momentum and initiative. To achieve this, the alliance leverages highly advanced technological systems. Grynkewich highlighted the deployment of massive sensor networks, autonomous combat systems, and AI-driven multi-domain targeting to completely suppress the enemy’s ability to coordinate large-scale maneuvers or advance deeper into allied territory.

The final, most severe component of the strategy is the mandate to “Break” the adversary. If an aggressor refuses to cease hostilities or attempts to mobilize its strategic reserves, NATO will launch massive, far-reaching retaliatory actions. Grynkewich explicitly stated that this phase extends far beyond the physical front lines of the immediate conflict. NATO will target and destroy the entire overarching warfighting framework arrayed against it.

This means systematically dismantling command-and-control centers; physical supply and logistics networks; replenishment warehouses; communications arrays; and anything else sustaining the offensive force.

However, Grynkewich carefully balanced aggressive deterrence with diplomatic clarity, noting that NATO did not view a direct military conflict with Russia as imminent or inevitable. Instead, he stressed that the most effective tool for preserving peace is maintaining absolute readiness for war while keeping communication channels open to prevent miscalculations.

This updated strategy appears to draw directly on critical lessons from contemporary battlefields in Ukraine and the Middle East. It explicitly moves away from relying solely on hyper-expensive, exquisite military hardware. Instead, NATO is prioritizing a hybrid mix of technological enablers that pairs high-end precision weapons with large numbers of cheaper, scalable systems like attritable drones and counter-UAS platforms to overwhelm an adversary’s defenses effectively.

General Grynkewich reportedly emphasized three things in this regard: 

First is the “Eastern Flank Deterrence Initiative (EFD),” which serves as the deployment vehicle for a vast network of low-cost, expendable drones and minimally crewed or fully autonomous reconnaissance and strike systems.

Second is “AI-Powered Targeting,” which uses artificial intelligence to sift through vast data streams generated by advanced sensors, satellite arrays, and cyber intelligence. By shortening the sensor-to-shooter loop, AI-enabled networks identify, categorize, and assign targets to artillery, missile systems, or loitering munitions in real time, long before human staff could process the raw coordinates.

Third is the “System Layering” strategy, which does not replace heavy conventional hardware such as main battle tanks or fifth-generation fighter jets but rather insulates them. Cheap, modular drone walls absorb the weight of initial saturation attacks, counter enemy mass, and clear pathways, preserving high-end kinetic platforms for decisive operations against hardened infrastructure.

Overall, the emphasis on sensors, autonomous systems, precision weapons, and integrated land, air, sea, space, and cyber capabilities recognizes that contemporary combat depends as much on information, networks, and logistics as on troop numbers.

The idea is that NATO must exploit technological advantages while producing affordable systems in sufficient quantities.

NATO has periodically revised its strategies, keeping technological developments and threat environments in mind.

During the Cold War, the alliance relied primarily on what it called “forward defense” and “flexible response.”  The forward defense strategy supposedly committed NATO to hold the inner-German border and assumed a possible retreat across deep defensive lines before counter-attacking.

The Flexible Response strategy relied heavily on the explicit threat of nuclear escalation in the theater to offset Warsaw Pact forces’ conventional numerical superiority.

After the end of the Cold War and disintegration of the Soviet Union,  NATO was said to have adopted an expeditionary, crisis-management model. In this model, deterrence was linked to political goodwill, and force structures were optimized for out-of-area counter-insurgency campaigns.

This resulted in a lean force model with thin ammunition reserves and a lack of the rapid forward mobilization needed for high-intensity, continent-scale conventional combat.

Against this background, the “Theory of Victory” is said to address post-Cold War vulnerabilities by institutionalizing a modern denial posture. It replaces reliance on early tactical nuclear escalation with conventional, technology-driven mass.

Apparently,  it abandons the concept of “liberation after occupation,” acknowledging that the civilian cost and physical destruction associated with liberating occupied territory are strategically unacceptable in the modern geopolitical environment.

Instead, it shows the capacity to neutralize an incursion early and convince potential adversaries that the cost of an attack will always outweigh any conceivable strategic gain.

Finally, by linking it to Article 5, NATO’s latest concept displays elements of calculated “strategic ambiguity”; it is id. NATO will not publicly define the exact point at which an attack would trigger its collective-defense clause, as doing so would help adversaries calculate how far they can escalate without provoking an allied response.

The ambiguity is designed to complicate enemy calculations, ensuring that hybrid operations, gray-zone provocations, or minor border incursions carry the unpredictable risk of drawing a full, multi-domain response from the alliance.

While the reactions of America’s major European NATO allies to General Grynkewich were not available at the time of writing, it is fair to guess they were reassured that Washington is prepared to fight if attacked.

However, erstwhile Warsaw Pact member and now Russia’s biggest critic, Poland, which has joined NATO, does not seem fully satisfied. Reports quoting the Polish weekly “Polityka” question the fundamental premise of NATO’s military strategy: preventing an adversary from achieving its goals, rather than launching an offensive campaign to destroy a foreign military power fully.

This perspective, detailed by defense analyst Marek Świerczyński, unpacks the structural reality behind General Alexus Grynkewich’s “Theory of Victory” speech.

He argues that beyond NATO’s institutional focus on calculated deterrence, escalation control, and defending its current borders, the alliance should fight deep inside Russia, without crossing the border, to crush the Russian military as a whole (through missile and drone firepower).

But then, this is a limited view. Overall, General Grynkewich seems to reflect that current NATO thinking is to de-escalate with Russia, not to defeat it strategically or to change its regime. The core objective of the Theory of Victory strategy is strictly containment, deterrence, and risk management.

In that sense, the name of the theory may be a little misleading.

• Author and veteran journalist Prakash Nanda is Chairman of the Editorial Board of the EurAsian Times and has been commenting on politics, foreign policy, and strategic affairs for nearly three decades. He is a former National Fellow of the Indian Council for Historical Research and a recipient of the Seoul Peace Prize Scholarship.
• The author can be reached at prakash.nanda (at) hotmail.com

The post Top USAF General Reveals NATO Plan to Fight Russia — But it is Designed for Containment, Not Decisive Defeat appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.

EurAsian Times has repeatedly argued that artillery is by no means becoming obsolete. That assessment was reinforced on October 12 when Hanwha Defense USA and the U.S. Army unveiled the XM1776 Mobile Tactical Cannon—the American version of Hanwha’s K9 Mobile Howitzer—at an official naming ceremony at the HDUSA booth during the Association of the U.S. Army’s 2026 Annual Meeting and Exposition (AUSA).

HDUSA also announced that the U.S. Army has ordered nine prototype wheeled XM1776 MTC systems, with an option for nine additional MTCs.

“The XM1776 Mobile Tactical Cannon represents the launch of the U.S. Army’s new long-range precision fires modernization effort and its powerful partnership with HDUSA to produce this system at speed and scale,” said Mike Smith, Hanwha Defense USA COO and President of Land Systems. “As we celebrate America’s 250th anniversary, Hanwha is committed to delivering industrial strength, mature capability, and proven technologies that accelerate U.S. production and expand America’s artillery industrial base.”

HDUSA is establishing a Phase I site in Opelika, Alabama, that will serve as the U.S. integration and test facility for the XM1776 MTC and Hanwha’s family of K9 Mobile Howitzers. To accelerate supply chain localization, company leadership will meet with more than 70 existing and potential suppliers to develop an Artillery Industrial Base Coalition in the U.S.

Earlier, the US Army awarded Hanwha Defense USA a deal to supply K9 mobile howitzer prototypes for the new self-propelled howitzer modernization program.

“The agreement provides for the accelerated delivery of six prototype MTC [Mobile Tactical Cannon] systems, with an option for an additional 12,” the US Army said in a statement. “Soldiers will use these platforms in a series of operational experiments to assess performance, reliability, and supportability in realistic combat conditions.”

U.S. troops will operate the prototypes in a series of trials intended to help the Army evaluate its performance, dependability, and supportability. “Data and insights gained from these experiments will directly inform senior leaders’ decisions on future fielding,” the Army added.

Hanwha Defense USA had offered its wheeled K9 platform to the U.S. Army. Other contenders included Elbit Systems USA, American Rheinmetall, General Dynamics Land Systems, and BAE Systems.

The South Korean-origin Howitzer will replace the self-propelled M109A7 and the towed M777 howitzers.

“We’re focused on creating a U.S.-anchored K9 Mobile Howitzer manufacturing network – with Opelika, Alabama, as the current phase I launch point – that can deliver advanced Mobile Tactical Cannons at the speed and scale the U.S. Army needs,” Jason Pak, Hanwha Defense USA Head of Land Systems-Artillery, said in a statement.

Pak added: These are not minor transactions. They reflect US recognition that South Korean industry can deliver quality, speed, and scale that domestic yards and programs have struggled to match.

South Korea’s K9 ‘Thunder’ Howitzer 

The K9 Thunder has become one of the world’s most sought-after weapons.

South Korean defense giant Hanwha Aerospace designed and produces the K9 Thunder, a 155mm/52 caliber self-propelled howitzer. It can carry up to 48 projectiles and launch six rounds per minute.

Since its debut in 1999, the K9 Thunder has become a cornerstone of South Korea’s defense exports, accounting for more than half of global self-propelled howitzer orders. As of last year, over 1,900 K9 units have been delivered or are slated for export to various countries.

South Korea operates a large fleet of K9 howitzers, deployed along the heavily fortified demilitarized zone (DMZ) separating it from North Korea.

The K9’s ability to operate in the DMZ’s challenging mountainous terrain is a key feature, thanks to an advanced hydropneumatic suspension that helps it navigate rough landscapes with ease.

The K9’s five-man crew operates in a fully enclosed environment, protected from nuclear, biological, and chemical threats, with 19mm steel armor providing defense against heavy machine-gun rounds and shrapnel.

Additionally, a .50-caliber machine gun mounted on the turret provides close-range defense and limited air-defense capability.

More than a dozen countries have ordered the K9 Thunder and its licensed variants, with deliveries to Australia, Egypt, Estonia, Finland, India, Norway, Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Vietnam completed or underway, and a further agreement signed with Spain in 2026.

Artillery Guns Still in Demand

The Ukraine-Russia war and the widespread use of drones have raised doubts about whether conventional artillery is losing relevance.

Yet both sides’ high shell consumption rates indicate that artillery remains a core source of volume firepower. Drones have supplemented artillery by enabling precision strikes, reconnaissance, and partial mitigation of ammunition shortages.

They have not, however, matched artillery’s capacity for sustained massed fires, longer-range area suppression, all-weather operation, and resistance to electronic warfare, according to assessments from Ukrainian military officials and open-source analyses of the conflict.

The post Artillery Isn’t Dead: U.S. Army Orders XM1776 Prototypes Based on South Korea’s K9 ‘Thunder’ Howitzer appeared first on EURASIAN TIMES.