Defence Today

The Simpson Trophy, the oldest shooting competition in the Southern Hemisphere and one of the oldest globally, marked its 134th year with an event held in October at the Murray Bridge Training Area in South Australia. This historic occasion brought together soldiers, sailors, and artillery personnel to compete in a tradition steeped in history and camaraderie.

Organized by the 10th/27th Battalion, the Royal South Australia Regiment (10/27RSAR), the competition saw participation from across the 9th Brigade, Adelaide Universities Regiment, 6th/13th Light Battery, Royal Australian Artillery, and sailors from HMAS Encounter. The event continues to highlight the enduring importance of marksmanship in Australia’s defence capabilities.

A Proud Heritage

Lieutenant Colonel Aaron Jackson, Commanding Officer of 10/27RSAR, expressed immense pride in his unit’s role in upholding this historic event.

“Standards were very high, and the competition fiercely contested,” he said. “The first competition, held in 1890, was sponsored by The Honourable Alfred Muller Simpson MLC to strengthen South Australia’s colonial defences.

“More than a century later, the Simpson family remains involved, generously donating the prizes each year. This competition not only showcases exceptional marksmanship but also reflects the enduring connection between the military and the South Australian community.”

Lieutenant Colonel Jackson emphasized the dual significance of the event, blending skill and tradition. “Each competitor demonstrated a commitment to maintaining and executing critical combat capabilities while honouring the spirit of this competition in its 134th year,” he added.

Honours and Achievements

The 10/27RSAR team claimed the coveted title of overall team champions, reaffirming their reputation for excellence. Among individual competitors, Trooper Matthew Beelitz, from the 3rd/9th Light Horse (South Australian Mounted Rifles), 1st Armoured Regiment, earned the award for best individual shot, a prestigious recognition of his outstanding marksmanship.

Private Kain McKenzie, a member of the winning 10/27RSAR team, reflected on the significance of participating in such an iconic event.

“It’s an honour and privilege. Knowing this competition dates back to 1890 makes it even more meaningful. Not many people can say they’ve been part of something so historic,” he said.

Private McKenzie acknowledged the intensity of the competition. “Everyone was competing at a high standard, which put pressure on us as an infantry team to deliver. Regular training has been key, and it’s rewarding to see that dedication translate into success,” he said.

A Legacy of Excellence

The Simpson Trophy stands as a remarkable tradition, uniting generations of service personnel in a celebration of skill, history, and community. Its continued success, with the involvement of the Simpson family and the dedication of participating units, highlights the enduring value of marksmanship as a cornerstone of military capability.

As it continues into its 135th year, the Simpson Trophy remains a shining example of how history and tradition can inspire modern excellence, bridging past and present in the service of national defence.

The Krakow Post

Moscow has disclosed that President Vladimir Putin is willing to engage in discussions with U.S. President-elect Donald Trump regarding a potential ceasefire agreement in Ukraine and the conditions necessary to bring an end to the protracted and bloody conflict. According to five sources cited by Reuters, the Russian leader is reportedly open to dialogue with Trump but has drawn firm red lines, including rejecting any significant territorial concessions and demanding that Kyiv abandon its aspirations to join NATO.

This marks the first detailed account of what Putin might consider acceptable terms in a deal brokered by the incoming U.S. administration. The unnamed current and former Russian officials indicated that the Kremlin could agree to freeze the conflict along the existing front lines, effectively cementing the status quo on the ground. Such an arrangement would fall short of a full peace treaty but could halt active hostilities while entrenching Russian control over occupied territories in eastern Ukraine.

These revelations highlight the delicate nature of any potential negotiations, as they would involve addressing fundamental disagreements between Moscow, Kyiv, and Western allies. Ukraine’s leadership has consistently emphasized its sovereignty and territorial integrity, rejecting any compromises that would legitimize Russian territorial gains. Meanwhile, NATO has reaffirmed its support for Ukraine’s right to choose its alliances, a stance that clashes directly with Russia’s insistence on a neutral Ukraine.

Putin’s apparent willingness to engage with Trump could signal a strategic calculation to explore a diplomatic off-ramp amid mounting international pressure and the costly toll of the conflict. However, any proposed ceasefire deal would likely face intense scrutiny and resistance from Kyiv and its Western backers, particularly if it is perceived as rewarding Russian aggression or undermining Ukraine’s long-term security.

Ukraine has launched a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict with Russia, employing U.S.-supplied long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS) to strike targets deep within Russian territory. The attack has sparked global concerns about the potential for further escalation, with fears of World War III briefly dominating discussions on social media platforms like X.

According to U.S. and Ukrainian officials, the pre-dawn strike on Tuesday targeted an ammunition depot in Russia’s Bryansk region. This marked the first known use of ATACMS missiles by Ukraine against Russian soil.

• Impact and Damage: Russia’s Ministry of Defence claimed that its air defences intercepted five of the six missiles fired, with one successfully hitting a military facility, causing a fire.
• Target Details: Andrii Kovalenko, a member of Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, confirmed the strike targeted warehouses containing artillery ammunition, including munitions reportedly supplied by North Korea.

The missile strike came just two days after U.S. President Joe Biden approved the use of ATACMS by Ukraine, a decision that marked a significant shift in U.S. policy.

• Ukraine’s Pleas Answered: Ukraine had been lobbying for months for access to ATACMS, arguing they were essential for hitting high-value military targets deeper in Russian-controlled territory.
• Policy Shift: The Biden administration’s previous reluctance gave way as reports surfaced of North Korean troops and supplies aiding Russia, prompting a more aggressive stance from the U.S.

The deployment of these long-range missiles has heightened fears of an expanded conflict, with Russian officials issuing stern warnings in response.

• Nuclear Concerns: Russian President Vladimir Putin has reportedly lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons use in retaliation, signalling the seriousness with which Moscow views the strike.
• Kremlin Reaction: Dmitri Peskov, the Kremlin’s spokesman, declared that Biden’s decision “escalates tensions to a qualitatively new level.”
• NATO Implications: Given the technical complexity of ATACMS launches, which often require coordination with U.S. military assets, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov suggested the attack could be interpreted as an act of war by NATO itself.

On social media, speculation about World War III trended almost immediately after news of the strike broke. The use of ATACMS is being viewed as a significant turning point, with some fearing that the conflict could spiral into a broader international war.

This bold action by Ukraine underscores the high stakes of the war and the shifting dynamics of international alliances. While Kyiv celebrates the success of its mission, the global community braces for the Kremlin’s next move in an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment.

A Current Affair

One decade after surviving an IED explosion in Afghanistan, three Aussie war veterans have been reunited with the armoured vehicle that saved their lives.

ED: From my inbox … author’s name withheld on request.

Efforts to implement meaningful cultural change within the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the Department of Defence have long been fraught with challenges. Despite multiple strategies and inquiries, progress remains inconsistent, and systemic issues continue to hinder reform.

A History of Initiatives

In 2012, the Pathway to Change 2012–2017 strategy was introduced in response to significant cultural failings within Defence, including issues with the treatment of women, alcohol misuse, and inappropriate use of social media. Acknowledging harmful elements within its culture that limited performance and damaged reputation, the strategy outlined 175 recommendations from independent reviews, all of which Defence claimed to have “addressed.”

The subsequent Pathway to Change – Evolving Defence Culture 2017–2022 sought to build on earlier reforms, with Defence asserting the continued relevance of cultural change to sustain public trust and meet government objectives. However, a damning 2021 report from the Australian National Audit Office revealed glaring shortcomings. It found that Defence lacked effective monitoring and reporting mechanisms, preventing assurance that intended outcomes were being achieved.

Leadership and Accountability

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles has joined a series of defence ministers critical of Defence leadership. Earlier this year, he described cultural issues within leadership as a barrier to achieving “a culture of absolute excellence.” Marles also highlighted the detrimental effects of frequent ministerial turnover during the previous government, describing it as a “revolving door” that destabilized morale and hindered progress.

According to Associate Professor James Connor of UNSW Canberra, the rapid turnover of defence ministers exacerbates the problem. Ministers often depend heavily on the department and the ADF for expertise, making sustained reform difficult. Connor argues that Defence frequently employs delaying tactics, including accepting recommendations “in principle” and waiting for new inquiries to overshadow earlier ones.

Ongoing Failures and Lessons Unlearned

The recent Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide underscored Defence’s longstanding resistance to reform. Its final report pointed to the failure of successive governments, the ADF, and associated agencies to implement necessary changes or adequately address the needs of those who serve. Despite over 750 recommendations from prior inquiries, the commission found that meaningful reform remains elusive.

Connor, who testified at the commission, noted that many of its recommendations echo those from a 2004 Senate inquiry into military justice, which called for external oversight of military conduct. “Twenty years later, the same problems persist,” he said. He emphasized the need for accountability, questioning the absence of consequences for senior officers failing to enact required reforms.

The Way Forward

The commission’s findings further highlight systemic issues within Defence leadership, including abuse of power and the perpetuation of toxic subcultures. Frequent rotations of senior officers enable leaders to avoid responsibility, while entrenched behaviours hinder genuine reform.

Connor advocates for increased civilian oversight to ensure sustained accountability and to break the cycle of inaction. Without robust mechanisms to hold leaders accountable, meaningful cultural change in Defence remains a distant goal.

As Defence grapples with the weight of repeated failures, the question remains: how long will it take for the institution to learn from its past and implement the reforms necessary to protect its people and its reputation?

The Viet Cong (VC) were South Vietnamese supporters of the communist National Liberation Front (NLF) during the Vietnam War, also known in Vietnam as the “American War.” Aligned with North Vietnam and the troops of Ho Chi Minh, the Viet Cong aimed to overthrow the South Vietnamese government and unify the country under communist rule.

The name “Viet Cong” originates from the term “cong san Viet Nam” or “Vietnamese communist.” Although widely used, it carried derogatory connotations, with “Vietnamese commie” being a closer translation. The Viet Cong were predominantly guerrilla fighters from South Vietnam but often worked in conjunction with the People’s Army of Vietnam (PAVN), the regular military force of North Vietnam.

Origins and Goals

The Viet Cong emerged after the French colonial defeat at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, which led to Vietnam’s division along the 17th Parallel. Their rise was driven by discontent with the South Vietnamese government, perceived as corrupt and backed by foreign powers. The Viet Cong sought national independence and socio-economic reform after decades of colonial and wartime exploitation.

However, their alignment with the communist bloc introduced external influences from China and the Soviet Union, mirroring the geopolitical struggle between capitalism and communism during the Cold War.

Tactics and Strategy

Initially a decentralized guerrilla force, the Viet Cong rapidly professionalized over the conflict. They used unconventional warfare, including:

• Ambushes and hit-and-run tactics against better-equipped U.S. and South Vietnamese forces.
• Tunnel networks, notably in regions like Cu Chi, to evade detection and launch surprise attacks.
• Infiltration and sabotage, including the use of spies to gather intelligence.
• The Ho Chi Minh Trail, a critical supply route running through Laos and Cambodia, provided logistics for troops and equipment from the North.

Despite their resourcefulness, Viet Cong actions were often ruthless. They enforced loyalty through intimidation, forcibly conscripted villagers, and assassinated South Vietnamese officials. The Hue Massacre during the 1968 Tet Offensive remains a grim reminder, with thousands of civilians and prisoners executed.

Australian Engagement with the Viet Cong

Australian troops, deployed as part of the allied effort in Vietnam, encountered the Viet Cong in several key battles, including:

1. The Battle of Long Tan (1966):
   One of the most iconic Australian engagements, a small force of Delta Company, 6RAR, held off a larger Viet Cong regiment in a rubber plantation. Despite being outnumbered, the Australians inflicted significant casualties and showcased exceptional discipline under fire.
2. Operation Bribie (1967):
   Aimed at flushing out Viet Cong forces in Phuoc Tuy province, this operation highlighted the challenges of engaging a well-entrenched guerrilla force in dense terrain.
3. The Battle of Coral-Balmoral (1968):
   Australian forces defended their firebases against repeated Viet Cong and North Vietnamese assaults, demonstrating the growing integration of guerrilla and conventional warfare by communist forces.

These battles underscored the adaptability of the Viet Cong, who used knowledge of local terrain and surprise to challenge superior firepower.

The Decline of the Viet Cong

The Tet Offensive (1968) marked a turning point. Although the Viet Cong achieved tactical surprises, their losses were immense. American and allied forces, including Australians, repelled most attacks, and the Viet Cong struggled to recover operationally. Over time, their role diminished, with the PAVN assuming the primary combat role.

By April 1975, with the fall of Saigon, the Viet Cong ceased to exist as a distinct entity. The reunification of Vietnam under communist rule in 1976 marked the formal disbandment of the organization.

Legacy

The Viet Cong’s actions remain divisive. For some, they symbolize resistance against foreign intervention and the pursuit of national unification. For others, their tactics, including assassinations and massacres, reflect the darker side of their struggle.

For Australians, their encounters with the Viet Cong in Vietnam form an enduring part of military history, emphasizing courage, strategy, and the complexity of guerrilla warfare.

The Straits Times

In response to increasing regional tensions, the United States, Japan, and Australia have announced a significant expansion of military cooperation, highlighted by the first-ever regular deployment of Japanese marines to Australia. The agreement was unveiled during a press conference in Darwin, featuring Australian Defence Minister Richard Marles, US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, and Japanese Defence Minister Gen Nakatani.

“Regular deployments of Japan’s amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade to Australia mark a new chapter in our defence partnership,” said Marles. Austin emphasized the momentum of trilateral collaboration, including annual amphibious training exercises and the integration of key bilateral drills into trilateral formats.

Japanese marines will now join Australia’s premier Talisman Sabre exercise starting next year, alongside enhanced participation in Exercise Southern Jackaroo. Australian forces will also increase their involvement in traditionally US-Japan exercises, such as Orient Shield and Yama Sakura, fostering greater interoperability among the three nations.

Approximately 600 Japanese marines are expected to rotate regularly through Darwin, complementing the existing US Marine Rotational Force there. This trilateral cooperation extends beyond drills; the nations aim to expand intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. Notably, Australian personnel will join the Japan-US Bilateral Information Analysis Cell (BIAC) at Yokota Air Base, enhancing classified intelligence sharing.

Austin also hinted at Japan’s future involvement in AUKUS Pillar Two, a collaborative defence initiative focusing on advanced technologies such as quantum computing, autonomous systems, and long-range strike capabilities.

The announcement reflects a broader strategy to fortify alliances in the Indo-Pacific. Austin, on a regional tour, will next visit the Philippines, attend ASEAN defence talks in Laos, and make a historic trip to Fiji.

“This is about building a secure and resilient Indo-Pacific,” said Austin. “There’s immense potential for our nations to address emerging challenges together.”

This deepening partnership underscores a shared commitment to countering regional threats and enhancing collective security in the Indo-Pacific.

Ukraine’s military demonstrated its long-range strike capabilities by targeting the Caspian port of Kaspiysk with drones on November 6, damaging at least two Russian Gepard-class frigates. British Military Intelligence assessed that the attack was likely in retaliation for Russian naval strikes on Ukraine, although the damaged vessels had not been directly involved.

CLICK LINK TO READ THE ARTICLE

Ukraine Is ‘Demolishing’ the Russian Navy ‘At Port’ | The National Interest