Tervell

https://xcancel.com/JessicaBones10/status/2049658986857975972

But then they had to race to pull hundreds of extra intel officers into centcom (article from Mar 4th) Side note incredibly poor taste to brag about intel 3 days after destoying a girls school https://archive.ph/qtAck

U.S. Central Command, meanwhile, is asking the Pentagon to send more military intelligence officers to its headquarters in Tampa, Florida, to support operations against Iran for at least 100 days but likely through September, according to a notification obtained by POLITICO. It’s the first known call for additional intelligence personnel for the Iran war by the administration, and a sign the Pentagon is already allocating funding for operations that may stretch long beyond President Donald Trump’s initial four-week timeline for the conflict. The rush to add people and resources to support efforts that are often organized well in advance of U.S. military action highlights how the Trump team had not fully anticipated the wide fallout of the war it launched alongside Israel on Saturday. “What we’ve seen is a completely ad hoc operation where it appeared that nobody actually understood or believed that military action was imminent,” said Gerald Feierstein, a former senior U.S. diplomat who dealt with the Middle East. “It seems like they woke up on Saturday morning and decided that they were going to start a war.”

oh, so the exact thing that has happened in like all big AI integration cases - cutting personnel because the AI's going to be so much more efficient, followed by it promptly shitting the bed completely and a rush to get those personnel back - happened again? who could have predicted this?

The fire knocked out electricity and propulsion on the destroyer, one of the officials told CBS News, speaking under condition of anonymity because they weren't authorized to speak publicly. It was contained to one piece of equipment, and the flames didn't spread. No injuries to U.S. service members had been reported as of Wednesday. Details of how the fire started and the exact location of the Higgins in the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) were not readily available. Details regarding what sections of the ship were damaged and how long it will take to repair were also not available.

The Higgins was ported in Singapore as of February, according to AIS Marine vessel data. A defense department official said in a statement: "An electrical fire occurred aboard the USS Higgins while at sea in the Indo-Pacific. The fire was immediately extinguished by the crew, and there are no reported injuries. The situation is under control, and the ship is currently underway. The cause is under investigation." The U.S. Navy classified it as an "electrical casualty," which means it wasn't a large fire but a short circuit in one the ship's generators.

Earlier this month, a small fire broke out on the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, injuring eight U.S. Navy sailors, the U.S. Naval Institute reported. Separately, a fire broke out in the laundry spaces aboard the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, injuring two sailors. The Ford and its accompanying strike group are expected to leave the Middle East in the coming days, a U.S. official confirmed to CBS News on Wednesday. The Ford was one of three carriers operating in the region. The Higgins, homeported in Yokosuka, Japan, is part of the Navy's forward deployed forces assigned to the 7th Fleet — a key component of the United States Indo-Pacific Command, which oversees American military operations across more than half the globe. The ship is named after Marine Col. William Higgins, a veteran of the Vietnam war, who was part of a United Nations peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon when he was kidnapped in Feb. 1988 by Hezbollah-linked militants. Higgins was tortured, interrogated and then was murdered. He was promoted to his current rank while in captivity. Higgins' remains were found on a Beirut street in Dec. 1991.

Cool winds are blowing between Beijing and Esplanaden these days. Since Maersk’s port operator, APM Terminals, took over operations at the key port of Balboa in the Panama Canal earlier this year following the ousting of Singapore-based CK Hutchison, China has turned its heavy artillery on the Danish shipping group. Had Maersk foreseen how China would react to the shipping group’s entry into the Balboa port in Panama, the top management of the Danish shipping company would probably have thought twice before putting pen to paper.

lol. lmao. actions have consequences? who knew!

That is the assessment of several analysts and individuals familiar with the matter whom ShippingWatch has spoken with. They also point out that the rifts in the relationship with Beijing could have serious consequences for the Danish shipping group’s business in China. “There is no doubt that if they feared Chinese reprisals by taking over the concession—and this applies to both MSC and Maersk—they would not have done it,” says Peter Sand, chief analyst at the research firm Xeneta. ShippingWatch spoke with a source with extensive knowledge of Maersk and its business in China, who wishes to remain anonymous due to their work. The source says that Maersk likely underestimated how strongly the Chinese would react to APM Terminals’ involvement in port operations at the Panama Canal and describes the Chinese response as “predictable.” Martin Jes Iversen, an associate professor and business historian at CBS, also believes that the strained relationship with China could end up hurting Maersk. “This is a precarious challenge that entails significant risk. This conflict could potentially harm Maersk’s Chinese relations and its revenue from China,” he tells ShippingWatch, but emphasizes that he believes there is more at stake in terms of security policy and relations than for Maersk’s bottom line. Maersk has declined to comment on the matter to ShippingWatch.

A proxy war with Clerc and Aponte at the helm

In January, Maersk and the world’s largest container shipping company, MSC, signed agreements with Panama to operate the two key ports of Balboa and Cristóbal at opposite ends of the Panama Canal. The ports had otherwise been under the control of the Singapore-based port company CK Hutchison since 1997 through its subsidiary Panama Ports Company. But after a major uproar, in which Donald Trump, among other things, accused China of controlling the Panama Canal, Panama’s Supreme Court revoked the concession with the Singapore-based company in January of this year, calling it “unconstitutional.” This has caused great frustration at both CK Hutchison and in Beijing, where top executives from the two container shipping companies were summoned to a meeting. Vincent Clerc, the CEO of Maersk, therefore met with China’s National Development and Reform Commission in Beijing at the end of March, where, according to the Financial Times, he was asked to immediately withdraw the Danish shipping group from the port of Balboa. MSC’s CEO, Diego Aponte, received the same message, though he did not attend in person. The meeting may have been a last-ditch attempt to reach an agreement without legal action, according to Max von Zedtwitz, a professor of strategy and international politics at Copenhagen Business School.

“The fact that Vincent Clerc was invited to China at all suggests that this visit may have been a last-ditch attempt to reach a non-aggressive agreement, and that Maersk was considering a deal,” he explains in a written response to ShippingWatch. “Apparently, this agreement did not materialize, or else the balance between pros and cons was not sufficiently convincing for Maersk,” he elaborates. Just a few weeks after the meeting, Panama Ports Company initiated arbitration proceedings against Maersk, but not against rival MSC. Maersk has rejected the claims in the case. At the same time, the Chinese shipping company Cosco and its subsidiary OOCL announced that they would no longer call at the Maersk-controlled port in Balboa. The boycott did not apply to the MSC-operated port of Cristóbal. The softer stance toward the competitor may be linked to MSC’s announcement last March that it would acquire CK Hutchison’s port business in a consortium with the US firm Blackrock. The deal has since faced challenges, as China reportedly wants to be part of the consortium. Most recently, Bloomberg reported that the large Hong Kong-based conglomerate China Merchants Group is part of the negotiations. Thus, MSC remains at the negotiating table with Beijing.

Relations with China take a hit

Over the past year, the US and China have been locked in a geopolitical standoff over the Panama Canal, which handles approximately 5% of global trade annually. According to the anonymous source with extensive knowledge of Maersk and its business in China, Maersk now risks being caught between the US and China in the escalating superpower conflict. The source points out that China has historically been willing to exert significant pressure on both Denmark and Maersk when political interests are at stake, citing, among other things, previous incidents where Maersk was summoned to meetings with Chinese authorities following diplomatic conflicts between Copenhagen and Beijing. Peter Sand specifically highlights Maersk’s extensive lobbying efforts to change China’s cabotage rules as a potential lever China could use to twist Maersk’s arm. In 2022, the rules were successfully amended so that it was no longer only Chinese shipping companies that were allowed to sail domestically between Chinese ports, and since then, Maersk has played a significant role in the transport sector. “It was undeniably a feather in Maersk’s cap that they were allowed to participate in this cabotage shipping as one of only a few companies. Therefore, it would also be naive to believe that China will stick to this if the relationship between Maersk and China does not improve,” Sand tells ShippingWatch.

Martin Jes Iversen is more optimistic when it comes to any potential reprisals that might come from Beijing. “I am confident that Maersk has the capabilities to navigate this. They’ve been operating there for many years, they know the people, and they have expertise in the Chinese system, but also in relation to the US market,” he says, but adds: “I don’t see any easy fix for this. It’s a sensitive process in a challenging geopolitical situation that reflects major-power rivalry rather than multilateral cooperation.” The situation draws parallels to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, points out Martin Jes Iversen, where most shipping companies were forced to take a stance on sailing to Russian ports. “Shipping companies and businesses can no longer remain neutral. Of course, it’s attractive, but dilemmas arise where it is no longer possible. That’s when it gets really difficult. We saw this, for example, with the war between Russia and Ukraine, where companies were forced to take a stand,” he explains.

An ace up the sleeve

If the relationship between China and the world’s two largest shipping companies cracks, it could hurt business, points out Mikkel Emil Jensen, a shipping analyst at Sydbank. “There’s no doubt that in container shipping, China is the worst player to fall out with. It’s absolutely crucial,” he tells ShippingWatch. “China could certainly step in and ruin Maersk and MSC’s ability to sail into ports or limit their opportunities for cabotage trade. But that could have major consequences for China, as it would alienate the West.” One must be careful not to underestimate the power Maersk and MSC wield at the negotiating table with China, the analyst points out. “It would be one thing if we were talking about a small shipping company. These are the world’s two largest container shipping companies, which account for a very large share of the market and freight out of China, so this isn’t something you just do on a whim,” he says.