eWise Blog

Australia has long been a strong advocate for global peacekeeping efforts, participating in missions across the Asia-Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East. The recent proposal for a ‘coalition of the willing’ to send a peacekeeping force to Ukraine, including Australian troops, raises significant questions about our role in international conflicts and the potential risks involved.

Peacekeeping is a noble pursuit, but the Ukraine conflict presents unique challenges. Unlike traditional peacekeeping missions, where forces intervene post-conflict to maintain stability, Ukraine remains an active war zone. Deploying troops into such a volatile situation risks transforming peacekeepers into combatants, especially given Russia’s outright rejection of NATO or European forces on Ukrainian soil. This could lead to Australia being drawn into a broader confrontation, which is not in our national interest.

Australia’s history in peacekeeping, from East Timor to the Solomon Islands, has largely involved stabilising regions with limited military opposition. Ukraine is different. A ceasefire or peace deal must first be established before any meaningful peacekeeping mission can be considered. Without clear conditions and an internationally recognised agreement, such a force risks being a political gesture rather than an effective stabilising force.

Moreover, the success of a peacekeeping force hinges on the backing of major global powers. The absence of a strong US security guarantee raises doubts about the viability of this initiative. If European forces find themselves in direct conflict with Russian troops, does Australia have the capacity and political will to stand firm in such a scenario?

Instead of committing troops, Australia should focus on diplomatic efforts, humanitarian aid, and military support through training and logistics. There are numerous ways we can assist Ukraine without putting Australian lives directly in harm’s way.

While Australia must continue to support global peace and security, we must also ensure that our involvement in Ukraine is measured, strategic, and does not compromise our national interests. Peacekeeping should never become a pathway to war.

The Times

Since its inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has been more than just a state; it is an ideological entity that defines itself in opposition to the United States, Israel, and the West. This enmity is not merely a foreign policy stance but a foundational pillar of the regime’s legitimacy. Without this hostility, the Iranian leadership would lose the very justification it has used to consolidate and maintain its power.

Iran’s ruling clerics refer to the United States as the “Great Satan” and Israel as the “Little Satan,” portraying themselves as the force of divine justice fighting against these supposed embodiments of evil. The mullahs’ hostility is not just rhetoric—it is the bedrock of their governance. If Tehran were to normalise relations with Washington or Tel Aviv, it would contradict the revolutionary principles upon which it was built.

Unlike conventional dictatorships that may shift their policies for strategic reasons, Iran’s leadership views opposition to the West as a religious and ideological duty. Abandoning this position would not only undermine the regime’s legitimacy but could also lead to its internal collapse.

For more than four decades, Western policymakers have attempted to engage with Iran through diplomacy, economic incentives, and sanctions relief, hoping to moderate its behaviour. However, every negotiation follows the same pattern: Iran makes promises, gains political and financial benefits, and then resumes its belligerent actions. This cycle has been particularly evident in nuclear negotiations.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, is a prime example. In exchange for lifting sanctions and receiving billions of dollars, Iran temporarily slowed its nuclear activities. Yet, instead of using this financial windfall to improve the lives of ordinary Iranians, the regime funnelled money into terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, accelerated uranium enrichment, and expanded its influence across the Middle East. Far from fostering moderation, the agreement emboldened Tehran.

Iran’s leadership views nuclear weapons as the ultimate guarantor of its survival. The fate of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, who surrendered his nuclear ambitions only to be overthrown and killed, serves as a cautionary tale for Tehran. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has explicitly stated that Gaddafi’s downfall proves why Iran must never surrender its nuclear ambitions.

Just as with North Korea, negotiations may slow Iran’s nuclear program but will never halt it. The regime engages in talks only when it needs to buy time—whether to rebuild its economy under the cover of diplomacy, lull the West into complacency, or wait out an unfavourable political climate. The ultimate goal remains unchanged: to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent against any attempt to remove the regime from power.

No country understands Iran’s true nature better than Israel. Unlike some Western policymakers who cling to illusions of diplomacy, Israel recognizes that Iran’s regime is built on deceit and aggression. Iran’s constitution explicitly states its commitment to exporting its Islamist revolution worldwide, and its leadership has openly declared the goal of wiping Israel off the map.

The West must abandon its failed strategy of engagement with Tehran. Diplomacy has not worked for more than four decades—and it never will. The Islamic Republic is not a rational state actor that can be coaxed into cooperation through economic incentives or goodwill gestures. It is an ideological entity that sees itself as divinely mandated to oppose the West.

If the West genuinely wants to counter the Iranian threat, it must adopt a strategy of strength. This means fully supporting Israel’s stance on Iran, imposing maximum pressure on Tehran, and taking decisive measures to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Regrettably, the only language Iran’s regime understands is force. Until the West recognizes this reality, it will continue to be deceived while Iran advances its ambitions unchecked.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, invaded Kuwait, citing historical claims and economic reasons. This prompted a global response, with the UN imposing sanctions, and the U.S. and allies forming a Coalition to pressure Saddam into withdrawing. The Coalition began its offensive on January 17, 1991, with a massive air campaign targeting Iraqi infrastructure. Precision airstrikes devastated Saddam’s war capabilities, but his forces remained resilient, preparing defensive positions across Kuwait. Although the Coalition liberated Kuwait, Saddam retained control over Iraq, suppressing internal uprisings and frustrating UN weapons inspections. Strategically, the Coalition’s victory altered the regional power balance but left Saddam’s regime intact.

We have received advice of the death on 15 March 2025 of Allan Bradley Henderson. He was 76. Hendo was a National Serviceman who served with 107th Field Battery in Vietnam from May 1970 until May 1971 as a gun number on Alpha gun. He was an active member of the 107 Battery Association and he and wife Lyn attended most or the Association’s reunions.

RIP Allan (Hendo) Bradley Henderson

Peter Bruce, OAM

Obituary Resource Officer

Royal Australian Artillery Historical Company

ED: This from my inbox … Thanks John Clarkson

Good morning, Ray,

Well done on your article ‘Nation at a Crossroads.’  That really hit the point.  There were no political criticisms, no policy damming statements, just a plea for strong leadership.  Many years ago, I read a statement which was written – and read by the Chaplain of the US Senate.  This statement was read to the Senate during WW II, and the idea it contained is still current today.  Let me know what you think.  Could this apply today?

God – Give Us Men.

By Rev Peter Marshall.

God give us men.  A time like this demands strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands.

Men whom the lust of office does not kill, Men whom the spoils of office cannot buy,

Men who possess opinions and a will, Men who have honour, men who will not lie;

Men who can stand before a demagogue and rout his treacherous flatteries without winking;

Tall men, sun crowned, who live above the fog in public duty and in private thinking;

For while the rabble with their well-worn creeds, their large professions and their little deeds,

Mingle in selfish strife, lo, freedom weeps. Wrong rules the land, and waiting justice sleeps.

            Imagine a strong voice reciting this piece with feeling and intent!!

Kind Regards,

John.

This article appeared in The Strategist and was also published in The Australian

Michael Pezzullo is a former deputy secretary of defence and was secretary of home affairs until November 2023. This article is also  published by The Australian.

Image of a USAF B-1B Lancer bomber and an RAAF F/A-18F Super Hornet (top picture): Department of Defence.

Image of Royal Australian Navy sailors on HMAS Arunta watching the Chinese replenishment ship Weishanhu and frigate Hengyang in the Tasman Sea (second picture): Department of Defence:.

Map of Australia, East Asia and the Pacific (third picture) Google Earth.

Image of a Chinese H-6 bomber with two fighters (last picture): Chinese Ministry of National Defense.

CHICK LINK to read the article

Australia’s defences must be ready in two years. Here’s what to do | The Strategist

ED: I have provided a brief summary of this article.

China’s recent naval deployment near Australia served three strategic purposes: demonstrating its naval power, testing Australia’s response, and rehearsing potential wartime operations. The task group, led by a missile-equipped cruiser, likely simulated a seaborne missile strike on Australian infrastructure. Future wartime operations would involve a larger force, including submarines and bombers, exploiting gaps in Australia’s defences while US forces remained engaged elsewhere.

China’s military strategy aims to neutralise Australia’s value as a US staging area in a broader conflict. This includes missile strikes, submarine attacks, and securing control over strategic waterways. Australia’s response, initially downplaying the threat, ignored the deployment’s clear intent: intimidation and strategic rehearsal.

To counter China’s growing assertiveness, Australia must enhance surveillance, increase military readiness, and acquire long-range strike capabilities. This includes B-1B bombers, advanced missiles, naval reinforcements, and a stronger air force. Additionally, securing alliances with Papua New Guinea and the Philippines would extend Australia’s defensive reach.

While the likelihood of war remains low, Australia must prepare for future conflict scenarios. Without adequate preparation, it risks becoming vulnerable to coercion. The worsening strategic landscape demands urgent action to strengthen defence capabilities before China fully develops its offensive options.

The Krakow Post

Israel has launched an airstrike on a Damascus suburb, targeting what it claims was a headquarters for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). The attack, the first on the Syrian capital since Ahmed al-Sharaa took power last December, appears to be a strategic warning to the new Syrian leadership.

Israel has stated that the strike specifically targeted a PIJ facility, though the group has denied this, insisting the building was unoccupied at the time. The attack resulted in injuries to three civilians, with one man reported to be in serious condition.

This airstrike is part of a broader Israeli military strategy in Syria. Since Sharaa assumed control, Israel has intensified its operations, targeting Syrian military assets and strengthening its foothold in the southern part of the country. Reports suggest that Israeli forces have also been engaging with local Druze communities, offering aid and assurances of protection.

The political ramifications of this strike are significant. By hitting a target in Damascus, Israel is sending a direct message to Sharaa’s government and other regional players. Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant has reinforced this stance, stating that any “terrorist activity” against Israel will be met with swift and decisive retaliation.

With tensions rising, the airstrike highlights the fragile and volatile situation in Syria and the broader Middle East. It remains to be seen how Sharaa’s administration will respond and whether this marks the beginning of a new phase in the ongoing regional conflict.

The Times

Vladimir Putin has stated that he “agrees” with the US-proposed 30-day ceasefire in Ukraine, but as expected, there are conditions attached. The Russian president is raising questions about what happens during the truce and setting demands that could complicate the deal.

Putin is not committing to the ceasefire without ensuring that certain stipulations are met. He insists that the agreement must address what he considers to be the “root causes” of the war. One of his main conditions is that Ukraine must stop mobilising troops and training during the truce. He has also expressed concerns that Ukrainian forces might use the pause to regroup and prepare for further military action. Additionally, Putin is demanding that Kyiv cease receiving military support from its allies, arguing that continued assistance would undermine the ceasefire. Furthermore, he has questioned whether Ukrainian forces would willingly withdraw from Russian-claimed territories or attempt to hold their positions, potentially leading to further conflict.

The United States and Ukraine are pushing hard for the ceasefire, viewing it as a crucial step toward peace. US envoy Steve Witkoff has travelled to Moscow to engage in discussions with Russian officials. Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has dismissed Putin’s comments as “manipulative” and accused Russia of using the negotiations as a delay tactic. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reiterated that the next move is up to Russia, as the ceasefire agreement requires cooperation from both sides.

Adding further complexity to the situation, tensions remain high in Russia’s Kursk region. Reports indicate that Ukrainian forces launched a cross-border incursion in August 2024, escalating hostilities. In response, Russia claims to have retaken significant territory, including the strategically important town of Sudzha. Putin has expressed concerns about allowing Ukrainian forces to withdraw without facing consequences, which could influence Russia’s stance on the ceasefire terms.

Despite the challenges, the US and Ukraine remain cautiously optimistic while standing firm on their positions. Ukraine has agreed to the ceasefire, but only if Russia adheres to it without violations. Marco Rubio has once again emphasised that Russia must now take the necessary steps to ensure the ceasefire holds. In an effort to solidify the agreement, a US special envoy is continuing discussions in Moscow. Key points of contention in these talks include territorial disputes and control over critical infrastructure, which remain major obstacles to achieving lasting peace.

While the proposed ceasefire presents an opportunity for de-escalation, the numerous conditions and underlying tensions suggest that the path to peace remains fraught with challenges.

The Australian Army is known for its cutting-edge military technology and powerful combat vehicles designed for defence, mobility, and firepower. In 2025, the Australian Defence Force continues to upgrade its fleet with state-of-the-art tanks, armoured personnel carriers, and advanced artillery systems, ensuring superior performance on the battlefield. From heavily armed land combat vehicles to high-tech multi-role machines, these beasts are built to dominate any terrain and mission.

In this video, we take a closer look at the Top 10 most powerful military vehicles of the Australian Army in 2025. These machines are engineered with next-generation firepower, superior armour protection, and advanced battlefield technologies to tackle modern warfare challenges. Some are designed for rapid deployment, while others focus on unmatched firepower and survivability. Stay tuned as we unveil these incredible war machines and showcase why they are among the best in the world!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAI39KLlHiw