WAR 08-25-2018-to-08-31-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(335) 08-04-2018-to-08-10-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...8-10-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(336) 08-11-2018-to-08-17-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...8-17-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(337) 08-18-2018-to-08-24-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...8-24-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

-----------------------------

Reactivated US 2nd fleet returns to North Atlantic ‘ready to fight’
Started by Millwright, Yesterday 11:10 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...et-returns-to-North-Atlantic-‘ready-to-fight’

China’s elite troops head to Russia for massive Vostok 2018 war games
Started by rmomaha, Yesterday 02:15 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...d-to-Russia-for-massive-Vostok-2018-war-games

New Air Force B-2 ‘earth penetrating’ nuclear weapon changes combat strategy
Started by Dennis Olson, 08-23-2018 06:46 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ating’-nuclear-weapon-changes-combat-strategy

The Winds of War Blow in Korea and The Far East
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...of-War-Blow-in-Korea-and-The-Far-East/page105

Buildings, 7 cars & pizzeria torched in Sweden overnight as arson attacks continue
Started by Millwright, 08-23-2018 03:11 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...in-Sweden-overnight-as-arson-attacks-continue

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - Donetsk now claims all of Ukraine - Post #18742
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-now-claims-all-of-Ukraine-Post-18742/page478

------------------------------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-fans-with-south-china-sea-quiz-idUSKCN1L90UE

World News August 24, 2018 / 1:57 AM / a day ago

Vietnamese website taunts Chinese drama fans with South China Sea quiz

James Pearson
3 Min Read

HANOI (Reuters) - A Vietnamese website, which only works when users correctly answer a quiz about disputed islands in the South China Sea, has infuriated scores of television fans in China desperate to catch the latest episode of a popular Chinese period drama.

The drama — “The Story of Yanxi Palace” — has attracted a huge following in China for its colorful depiction of Qing Dynasty-era politics and the tale of a brave and plucky young concubine who outsmarts her rivals.

The first 56 episodes of the show are being aired for free on Chinese video streaming platform iQiyi, which holds exclusive rights to the drama. For a fee, iQiyi members can watch eight more episodes.

But a Vietnamese website somehow obtained extra episodes which have not yet been broadcast in China.

Chinese drama fans flocked to bomtan.org, which hosts online copies of Asian television dramas, only to be met with a challenge which pits patriotism against the insatiable urge to binge watch television.

The website, which did not appear to have rights to broadcast the drama, asks users to answer questions confirming their Vietnamese identity before the website loads.

“This service is for Vietnamese people only. Please answer the following questions: To which country do the Hoang Sa (Paracel Islands) belong? Vietnam, China, Philippines or Japan?”.

The only correct answer to the question, according to the website, is Vietnam.

The Southeast Asian country has long been embroiled in maritime disputes with China in the South China Sea, or “East Sea”, as it is known locally, and claims sovereignty over the Paracels, which the Chinese military currently occupies.

“This is nonsense!,” said one Chinese drama fan, commenting on the Weibo microblogging platform. “Who gave Vietnam the courage to challenge China’s territorial sovereignty?”

“While stealing Chinese TV dramas, Vietnam has also stolen Chinese territory,” said another viewer.

The show’s official Weibo account released a statement on Aug. 20 asking other online streaming services to respect copyright, and to remove unauthorized copies of the drama from their websites.

A request for comment sent to a contact email listed on the Vietnamese bomtan.org website went unanswered on Friday. Copies of the drama had been removed from the platform.

The quiz, however, remained.

Additional reporting by Khanh Vu in HANOI and the Beijing Newsroom; Editing by Darren Schuettler
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://tass.com/politics/1018605

Russian lawmaker suggests deploying nuclear weapons in Syria to respond to US sanctions

"I believe that now Russia has to draw its own ‘red lines,’" Vladimir Gutenev said

Russian Politics & Diplomacy August 24, 23:21 UTC+3

MOSCOW, August 24. /TASS/. The US policy of putting pressure on Russia has crossed the "red line," and Moscow should think about an asymmetric response, such as the deployment of its tactical nuclear weapons abroad, a senior Russian lawmaker told TASS on Friday.

"I believe that now Russia has to draw its own ‘red lines.’ The time has come to ponder on variants of asymmetric response to the US, which are now being suggested by experts and are intended not only to offset their sanctions but also to do some retaliatory damage," said Vladimir Gutenev, the first deputy head of the economic policy committee of the State Duma, the lower chamber of the Russian parliament.

Among such measures, the official named the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in other countries, such as Syria, the use of gold-linked cryptocurrencies for Russian arms exports and the suspension of a number of treaties with the United States, including on non-proliferation of missile technologies.

"It’s no secret that serious pressure is being put on Russia, and it will only get worse. It is intended to deal a blow to defense cooperation, including defense exports. We see that the Americans now speak about the possibility of sanctions against the countries that purchase Russian weaponry… We should follow the advice of certain experts, who say that Russia should possibly suspend the implementation of treaties on non-proliferation of missile technologies, and also follow the US example and start deploying our tactical nuclear weapons in foreign countries. It is possible that Syria, where we have a well-protected airbase, may become one of those countries," Gutenev said.

The lawmaker added that in order to respond to possible "US attempts to thwart deals on Russian weaponry and civilian goods," Russia should "consider the possibility of conducting transactions in cryptocurrencies that are linked to the value of gold."

"And I’m sure that this will be a very interesting option for China, India, and other states as well," he said.

According to Gutenev, the whole package of those measures "could become a very serious argument" in Russia’s favor.

"In boxing, one cannot just dodge blows, but has to strike in response, too. Especially when all the rules have been violated and the referees - such as the WTO and other international institutions - prefer to stay silent," he said.

Commenting on sanctions that are already in place, Gutenev said they are unlikely to do serious damage to Russia’s defense industry.

"The import substitution program has produced very good results, alternative suppliers have been found," he said. "However, we are concerned about the fact that the sanctions are still gaining momentum and have become somewhat imminent," he said.

Skripal case and US sanctions
On Wednesday, August 22, Washington hit Russia with more sanctions over its alleged involvement in the March 4 poisoning of former GRU Colonel Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury, near London. The Department of State claims that Russia acts in breach of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act of 1991.

READ ALSO

Putin hopes US authorities will one day realize futility of sanctions against Russia

As the US Department of State said on August 8, the first package of sanctions applies to dual use products, the export to Russia of all sensitive goods and know-how related with US national security and also electronics, components and technologies for the oil and gas industry.

Alongside this, the act envisages the possibility of far harsher sanctions to be taken in three months’ time. The second package of restrictions envisages a downgrade of bilateral diplomatic relations or their complete suspension, an overall ban on the export of US goods to Russia except for foods and on the United States’ import of Russian goods, including oil and oil products, refusal of permission to any planes of Russian government-controlled air carriers to land in the United States and Washington’s veto on all loans to Moscow from international financial organizations.

The US authorities said however they would not like to resort to the second phase of restrictions. For that Russia must present convincing arguments it will not violate international chemical weapons legislation and also permit onsite inspections by the United Nations and independent foreign observers in order to guarantee the government does not use chemical weapons in violation of international law.

Sergei Skripal, 66, who had been convicted in Russia for spying for the UK but later swapped for Russian intelligence officers, and his daughter Yulia, 33, were found unconscious on a bench near the Maltings shopping center in Salisbury, England on March 4. Police said they were exposed to a nerve agent. Later on, London claimed that the Novichok-class toxin had been allegedly developed in Russia. The UK rushed to accuse Russia of being involved, while failing to furnish any evidence. Moscow refuted the accusations stating that neither the Soviet Union nor Russia had ever done research on that toxic chemical. Specialists from Britain’s army laboratory said later they were unable to identify the origin of the substance used to poison the Skripals.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm...From again Russia's TASS.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://tass.com/world/1018662

Thousands of militants gather in Syria’s Idlib for attack on Aleppo, Hama

World August 25, 22:48 UTC+3

The US and its allies already used terrorists’ provocations in the past as a pretext for delivering missile strikes against the Syrian government

MOSCOW, August 25. /TASS/. Several thousands of militants with heavy weaponry and armored vehicles gave gathered in Syria’s Idlib province to launch an offensive on government-controlled regions of Hama and Aleppo, the head of the Russian Center for Reconciliation of the Opposing Sides in Syria, Maj. Gen. Alexei Tsygankov, told reporters on Saturday.

The Russian official said that more than 70% of the territory of Idlib is now controlled by terrorist groups. The biggest of them is Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, outlawed in Russia).

"Last week, the leader of this terrorist organization, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, urged all Idlib gangs to launch a jihad against the secular Syrian state. The number of proponents of political dialogue, detained and kept in prisons, has topped 500 people. Several thousands of militants with heavy weaponry and armored vehicles have gathered for an offense on Hama and Aleppo," Tsygankov said.

He added that in the past day, former members of illegal armed groups in southwestern Syria have turned in 396 guns and 600 kilograms of ammunition.

Earlier on Saturday, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said a provocation with an alleged chemical weapons use in Syria, which terrorists are plotting to stage with the assistance of UK special services, will serve as a pretext for missile strikes by the West and the United States against the Arab country.

According to the Russian general, the provocation will be staged by terrorists of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham terrorist organization (formerly known as Jabhat al-Nusra outlawed in Russia) and for this purpose eight containers with chlorine have been brought to the Idlib province.

Meanwhile, the US Navy’s destroyer Sullivans with 56 cruise missiles on its board arrived in the Persian Gulf several days ago while a B-1B strategic bomber of the US Air Force armed with AGM-158 JASSM air-to-surface missiles was redeployed to the Al Udeid air base in Qatar," the Russian general said.

The US and its allies already used terrorists’ provocations in the past as a pretext for delivering missile strikes against Syrian government facilities.

On April 7, 2017, US President Donald Trump ordered a strike on the Shayrat air base. The attack, involving 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, came as a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons in the Idlib province on April 4. Damascus dismissed those accusations based on testimony by the White Helmets organization.

On April 14, the United States, Great Britain and France delivered a massive strike on Syria without the UN Security Council’s authorization. According to Russia’s Foreign Ministry, the attack with more than 100 missiles targeted a research center in Damascus, the headquarters of the Republican Guard, an air defense base, several military aerodromes and army depots. Washington, London and Paris claimed that the missile strikes were a response to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government troops in the town of Douma.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...-prepared-to-hit-syria-if-assad-uses-chemical

Bolton told Russia the US will hit Syria if Assad uses chemical weapons: report

BY TAL AXELROD - 08/24/18 09:07 PM EDT 330 Comments

National security adviser John Bolton reportedly warned his Russian counterpart on Thursday that the U.S. is prepared to retaliate against Syria with stronger military force than it has used in the past should Syrian President Bashar Assad use chemical weapons.

The U.S. believes Assad has compiled and may use chemical weapons in his quest to recapture one of the country’s remaining rebel-held areas, Bloomberg reported Friday.

Since his inauguration, President Trump has initiated two limited strikes on Syria under similar circumstances. But sources told Bloomberg that Bolton's warning to Russia was more specific than previous warnings.

The warning comes ahead of what could become one of the deadliest flashpoints in the country's civil war, Bloomberg notes.

Syrian military forces, backed by Russian allies, are positioning themselves around the northwestern province of Idlib, the last area still dominated by rebel forces, according to Bloomberg.

The strike could magnify U.S. involvement in Syria's seven-year-old civil war — something Trump has said he wants to avoid.

On Aug. 17, the Trump administration informed Congress that it would end $200 million worth of stabilization efforts in Syria as it attempts to remove U.S. forces from the conflict.

Trump had frozen the funds in March pending a future decision, though a State Department spokesperson said at the time that the agency was committed to supporting vulnerable regions in the country.

During a speech in Ohio that month, Trump indicated that U.S. forces would be "coming out of Syria, like, very soon."

The White House declined to comment on the report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://nypost.com/2018/08/25/borders-wont-be-able-to-contain-venezuelas-disaster/

EDITORIAL
Borders won’t be able to contain Venezuela’s disaster

By Post Editorial Board August 25, 2018 | 9:08pm

REUTERS
MORE ON:
VENEZUELA
Venezuela's nightmare is spreading to its neighbors
7.3-magnitude earthquake shakes up Venezuela
Venezuelan bolivar is worth more as toilet paper
US Navy sending hospital ship to treat Venezuelan refugees

For years, the world watched corrupt socialists turn Latin America’s richest nation, Venezuela, into one of its poorest. Now, as the country’s economy nears total collapse, it’s time to ask what can be done to contain the fallout and help its residents.

Start with its refugees: In a nation whose 2016 population was 31 million, 1.8 million have fled the country over the past two years. This year, it’s 5,000 a day — with the United Nations projecting another 2 million gone by year’s end.

Venezuela’s neighbors bear the brunt of this refugee flood. But more than 28,000 Venezuelans sought asylum in the United States last year, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services notes. That’s up 88 percent from 2016, and 1,300 percent since 2014. There are now three times as many asylum-seekers here from Venezuela as from any other nation.

Refugees come from all classes: Lawyers, professors, ex-government officials and others are now employed in nearby countries as day laborers (maids, restaurant workers, etc.) and even sex workers, The Washington Post reports.

Several nearby nations don’t offer asylum, so refugees remain illegal immigrants, at the mercy of resentful natives. Human trafficking and sexual exploitation have grown.

It’s hardly better back home: With the economy in free fall, poverty now grips nine out of every 10 Venezuelans who remain.

Last week, hyper-inflation — pegged at 1 million percent a year, the world’s worst — prompted President Nicolás Maduro to devalue Venezuela’s currency 90 percent. He also ordered a 3,000 percent hike in the minimum wage and higher taxes. Analysts think he’s only hastening the end.

Meanwhile, stores are empty or closed. Severe shortages of food and medicine have brought starvation and death from easily curable diseases. In Friday’s Post, Benny Avni described the ripple effects in other Latin American nations: The growing economic and humanitarian crisis has turned regional.

Until Hugo Chávez took power in 1999, Venezuela enjoyed ample prosperity, thanks to its world-leading oil reserves. But his populist socialism began a downward spiral that was accelerating even before Maduro took over.

Socialism isn’t the only culprit, of course: Corruption, a world oil-price plunge, government incompetence and the Chávez-Maduro war on independent institutions all contributed.

But with the destruction now in full view, the blame game must take a back seat to the world’s new challenge: figuring out how to contain this disaster and save as many desperate Venezuelans as possible.

FILED UNDER EDITORIAL , INFLATION , NICOLÁS MADURO , REFUGEES , VENEZUELA
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.military.com/defensetec...nches-most-sweeping-reorg-effort-vietnam.html

With New Command, Army Launches Most Sweeping Reorg Effort Since Vietnam

Military.com 24 Aug 2018 By Matthew Cox

The U.S. Army senior leaders today activated Army Futures Command, a headquarters in Austin, Texas charged with overseeing the service's multi-billion modernization effort.

On the 19th floor of the University of Texas Systems Building, the new home of AFC, the Army's uniformed and civilian leadership joined Texas officials to welcome the new command along with Gen. John "Mike" Murray, who was promoted this morning to lead AFC.

"I cannot tell you how honored I am to be standing in front of you today as the very first commander of Army Futures Command," said Murray, who was joined by his top noncommissioned officer, Command Sgt. Major Michael Crosby. "... From this location, we will provide the unity of command and the unity of effort that will bring the concepts, requirements, science and technology, research, development, testing and engineering and acquisitions communities together to ensure that the United States Army remains the preeminent ground combat force in the world forever."

Secretary of the Army Mark Esper described the activation of AFC as the most significant reorganization of the Army since 1973, when leaders launched a series of bold initiatives that resulted in the creation of the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California, Air-Land Battle Doctrine and the "Big 5," referring to the M1 tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, AH-64 Apache and UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and the Patriot surface to air missile system.

AFC "will develop the Army's future warfighting concept," Esper said. "It will generate innovative solutions in research and development and it will field the next generation of combat systems."

Texas Governor Greg Abbott said that the state was "incredibly proud the United States Army chose our state and chose this city for the new command."

"We cherish this partnership, and we look forward to the many innovations that it will produce together. We will ensure that the men and women of our armed forces have the very best tools to defend our freedom and to promote security across the entire globe," Abbott said.

The Army announced its intention to stand up Army Futures Command last October to reform the service's bureaucratic acquisitions system and replace the Army's Big 5 platforms though six modernization priorities: long-range precision fires, next-generation combat vehicle, future vertical lift, a mobile network, air and missile defense and soldier lethality.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley called the new command "our scout into the future."

"Most of us for the last 16 or 17 years have been wrapped up in today, but we need to think about tomorrow," Milley said. "This command is all about setting the United States Army up to be not only winning on a battlefield but to be decisive and absolutely dominate on the battlefield so that we inflict punishment and destroy the enemy at least cost to ourselves."

To make this happen, the Army decided that command would like no other, Milley said.

"They are not going to wear uniforms, so this isn't going to be folks running around in uniforms or that sort of thing," said Milley during a press conference in Austin following the ceremony. He did not elaborate on what AFC personnel would be wearing to work every day.

"We think that is important; this is the first time in Army history that we have ever planted a major headquarters right smack in the center of an urban area in the United States," Milley said. "Why are we doing that? Because we think that the connective tissue between the American people and the American Army needs to be strengthened. It's important, I think, we all think, to put it right in the heart of an American city to leverage the entrepreneurial spirit, the energy and the innovation of American citizens."

Army officials say that AFC will cost between $80 million and $100 million per year to operate, similar to the operating budgets of Army Forces Command, Training and Doctrine Command and Army Materiel Command. AFC will oversee up to $50 billion per year in modernization programs, Army officials maintain.

Language in the recently passed 2019 National Defense Authorization Act requires the Army to submit a study to Congress early next year that lays out the structure and leadership of the planned command.

A new amendment has also been added to the appropriations bill -- which funds the defense budget -- that would put funding for Futures Command on hold until two Government Accountability Office studies examining the command's cost effectiveness are completed, Stars and Stripes reported.

Milley stressed that AFC is only at initial operating capability.

"It exists, there is a building, we have a commander," Milley said, estimating that it's going to take "a solid six months" to work out policies and procedures of the command.

The command will producing output for the Army within a year, he said.

"Output," Esper added, "will be Gen. Murray delivering on time on schedule the quality products our soldiers will need to fight and win."

"And that doesn't mean he won't fail along the way ... I expect we will fail because that means we are trying, but we want to fail early and fail cheap in order to make sure we are ready by 2028 with that next generation starting to come to the field," Esper said.

Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2018/08/25/outsourcing_the_afghan_war_113742.html

Outsourcing the Afghan War

By Daniel L. Davis
August 25, 2018

Last Friday, NBC News reported that President Trump is seriously considering allowing Erik Prince, founder of the discredited guns-for-hire Blackwater Corporation, to form a new mercenary group to replace the U.S. military and continue the war in Afghanistan.

But continuing the war under any auspices is bad for American interests. The war should instead be ended as rapidly as possible.

Prince belittled the Pentagon for trying to solve the Afghan problem with conventional troops—a criticism, incidentally, with which I partially agree—while arguing his plan to use a much smaller footprint focused on Special Operations forces would instead succeed.

To buttress his claim, he repeatedly cited the success of the initial 2001-2002 military operation that featured small U.S. cells cooperating with local Afghan forces. His endorsement of such a plan exposes a remarkable lack of understanding of how different the strategic, operational, and tactical situation is today.

These differences aren’t hard to recognize, and any analyst with a basic understanding of military affairs should be able to spot the fatal flaws of Prince’s plan almost immediately. I served twice in Afghanistan and can confirm that his plan would fail even more certainly than our current ineffective plans. Here’s why.

In October 2001 when the U.S. attack began, Afghanistan was in the midst of a civil war that had been raging since 1994 between a loose confederation of allied tribes and groups known as the Northern Alliance on the one hand, and by Mullah Muhammad Omar’s Taliban on the other.

The U.S. sent Special Operations teams to link up with Northern Alliance fighters and provide them with intelligence, considerable air power, and other support. At that time, the Taliban had a field army, a functioning government, and ruled from fixed locations in Kabul. U.S. support to the Northern Alliance quickly turned the tide of the conflict, and within a few months, the Taliban’s army had been virtually destroyed, and Omar’s government forced into exile in Pakistan.

Today, the landscape of the conflict is radically different than it was in October 2001. The Taliban is a shadowy insurgent foe (though in recent months they have been engaging in progressively more overt and complex operations).

Opposing the Taliban are numerous, uncoordinated—and often competing—government police, militia, and conventional army units, as well as a growing number of smaller independent insurgent or terror groups that battle multiple sides, often switching their allegiances as conditions evolve.

The idea that a small group of special operations forces could simply reprise the 2001 outcome when the operational environment is radically different exposes that Prince possesses a surprisingly poor understanding of operational concepts.

If the president listens to Prince and supports the employment of a mercenary mission, Trump will be even more disappointed by the lack of resolution. All Prince would succeed in doing is perpetuating the forever-war, while making millions of dollars in profit.

The bigger truth, however, is that there is only one course of action Trump could choose at this point which would have a real chance at protecting American interests: ending the war and withdrawing U.S. troops.

So long as U.S. military power remains in Afghanistan, the government in Kabul is almost certain to remain solvent and in power; however menacing and resurgent the Taliban, they will never be able to physically overrun the capital and take power so long as American troops and air power remain. However, whether it is the 140,000 U.S. and NATO troops Obama tried, the 15,000 troops Trump currently employs, or Prince’s proposed 2001 reboot with 6,000 mercenaries, the military mission will continue to fail.

The reason? On the most fundamental level, military power won’t solve political problems, neither will privatizing it.

We’ve ignored this basic reality for 17 years and tried to force a military solution—and suffered the predictable results: a never-ending war. To give us a chance of preserving U.S. strength and our ability to prosper as a nation, Trump should order the systematic withdraw of all U.S. combat troops over a 12-month period.

The security of the American homeland will be protected from any threats emanating from Afghanistan just as they are on a daily basis from the rest of the millions of square miles of ungoverned spaces around the globe: a robust combination of global intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets working hand-in-hand with the CIA, FBI, and local law enforcement. The people in Afghanistan who will have to live with the outcome will do whatever is necessary to finally find a political settlement for the decades of war they’ve already endured.

It may be bloody, and it will be messy, but the harsh truth is that our attempts to impose a solution of our choosing has succeeded only in seeing the violence continue—and in recent years, worsen—without even the possibility of resolution.

A withdrawal may not immediately end the violence or bloodshed, but it will make an end possible.

Daniel L. Davis is a Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities and a former Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army who retired in 2015 after 21 years, including four combat deployments, two in Afghanistan. Follow him @DanielLDavis1.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...n-mexico-prompting-travel-warning/1071436002/

State Department orders travel advisory for Mexico after 8 bodies found in Cancun

USA TODAY NETWORKLilly Price, USA TODAY Published 10:23 a.m. ET Aug. 23, 2018 | Updated 7:50 a.m. ET Aug. 24, 2018

Corrections & Clarifications: An earlier version incorrectly identified the area of Mexico the travel advisory was issued.

The State Department issued a travel advisory Wednesday warning American citizens headed to Mexico to use caution in several states.

The advisory comes the same week eight bodies were discovered in Cancun, a tourist hub, but the travel warning does not refer to the Quintana Roo/Cancun area.

Mexican prosecutors say they have found a total of eight dead people on Cancun with two bodies dumped in two spots and four others individually found shot to death. None of the killings occurred in the city’s beachside hotel zone.

► Aug. 8: Family of woman who drowned at resort gathers for her 22nd birthday
► Aug. 3: Airlines trim flights to Mexican resorts after reports of tourist blackouts
► June 27: Terrifying stories from tourists continue year after mysterious drowning

"Violent crime, such as homicide, kidnapping, carjacking, and robbery, is widespread," the travel advisory notes, referring to activity in the Mexican states Colima, Guerreo, Michoacán, Sinaloa and Tamaulipas and warning Americans to stay away.

The department also advised travelers to use toll roads, avoid driving at night, use caution when taking money out of banks or ATMs and be alert at local bars, nightclubs and casinos. It also advised not to display signs of wealth.

The U.S. government has limited ability to intervene in emergencies that citizens may face in Mexico, and government employees cannot travel to certain areas, the State Department said. That restriction does not include Quintana Roo state, where Cancun, Cozumel and Playa del Carmen are located.

► April 11: Travel agents, websites didn't share risks with tourists to Mexico resorts
► April 5: Inside the Mexican vacation complex where an Iowa family died

"The State Department travel advisory for Mexico does not include any tourist or beach areas and reaffirms that all major tourist destinations in Mexico are safe," a spokesperson for the Quintana Roo Tourism Board said in a statement.

A previous State Department security alert issued March 2, 2017, for Playa del Carmen was lifted about two weeks later.

The State Department warning amplifies recent alarms about travel to Mexico. An investigation from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which is part of the USA TODAY Network, found that more than 170 travelers have become sick, seriously injured — and in some cases have died — after drinking small and moderate amounts of alcohol at all-inclusive resorts throughout the country.

► March 9: Should I cancel trip to Playa del Carmen after U.S. warning?
► March 8: USA issues travel warning for Mexican resort town

Travelers reported being sexually assaulted, beaten, robbed, taken to jail and mistreated at local hospitals. The Journal Sentinel investigation exposed how travelers encounter indifferent — at times hostile — resort workers, police and hospital staff.

While the State Department, Democratic and Republican members of Congress, travel websites and Mexican authorities vow they are making changes and doing what they can to ensure the safety of travelers, their slow, bureaucratic efforts have yet to prevent the harms, the Journal Sentinelfound. Reporters received information from tourists who had traveled as recently as July.

On Tuesday, the bodies of a man and a woman were found stuffed in the trunk of a taxi early Tuesday in the Paseos del Mar neighborhood of Cancun, local newspaper Riviera Maya News reported. The bodies have not yet been identified.

► Feb. 23: Mexico police shut down second black market tequila still
► Feb. 21: 'There is more to this deeper, darker story than we know'

Authorities discovered dismembered bodies of two men in multiple plastic bags at another location later that day.Another man was discovered bound and fatally shot. The prosecutors’ office for the state of Quintana Roo said another man was killed while lying in a hammock while another was found shot and covered in a plastic bag.

Authorities found the eighth victim decapitated in the neighborhood of Tres Reyes, more than a dozen miles from the hotels, according to Newsweek, citing local reports.

Contributing: The Associated Press. Follow Lilly Price on Twitter: @lillianmprice

636706326127895316-082318-Banned-Mexico-states-Online.png

https://www.gannett-cdn.com/media/2...895316-082318-Banned-Mexico-states-Online.png
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
EndGameWW3 Retweeted
DEFCON Staff
DEFCON Staff
@Drumboy44DWS
Russia has deployed fighter jets in Iturup (択捉) island, the largest piece of the four disputed islands (“Norther Territory”) between Japan and Russia.

(link: https://t.co/NkmyXmswgU?amp=1
2:09 AM · Aug 26, 2018
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well this won't likely end well....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...s-not-belong-there/ar-BBMuy7X?ocid=spartandhp

Iran says it has full control of Gulf and U.S. Navy does not belong there

39 mins ago

Iran has full control of the Gulf, and the U.S. Navy does not belong there, the head of the navy of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, General Alireza Tangsiri, said on Monday, according to the Tasnim news agency.

The remarks come at a time when Tehran has suggested that it could take military action in the Gulf to block oil exports of other regional countries in retaliation for U.S. sanctions intended to halt its oil sales. Washington maintains a fleet in the Gulf which protects oil shipping routes.

Tangsiri said Iran had full control of both the Gulf itself and the Strait of Hormuz that leads into it. Closing off the strait would be the most direct way of blocking shipping.

"We can ensure the security of the Persian Gulf and there is no need for the presence of aliens like the U.S. and the countries whose home is not in here," he said in the quote, which appeared in English translation on Tasnim.

Tension between Iran and the United States has escalated since President Donald Trump pulled out of a 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and world powers in May and reimposed sanctions.

Senior U.S. officials have said they aim to reduce Iran's oil exports to zero.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the most senior authority in the Islamic Republic, said last month that he supports the idea that if Iran is not allowed to export oil then no country should export oil from the Gulf.

(Reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh; editing by John Stonestreet, Louise Heavens and Peter Graff)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...hed_non-strategic_nuclear_weapons_113745.html

Russian Ground-Launched Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons

By Mark B. Schneider
August 27, 2018

Russia maintains the largest force of ground-launched non-strategic or tactical nuclear weapons in the world. Even more striking is the fact that essentially 100% of these weapons violate Russian arms control commitments. According to the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), “Russia continues to violate a series of arms control treaties and commitments, the most significant being the INF Treaty. In a broader context, Russia is either rejecting or avoiding its obligations and commitments under numerous agreements, including…the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives.”[1] The 1988 INF Treaty prohibits ground-launched cruise and ballistic missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500-km and Russian commitments under the 1991-1992 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives include, among other things, the complete elimination of short-range ground-launched nuclear missiles of less than INF range, nuclear artillery and nuclear land-mines.[2] Russian now has a monopoly on these weapons because the U.S. honored its commitments to dismantle these weapons. In 2014, the Obama administration concluded, “…that the Russian Federation was in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”[3] This missile type is now operational.[4]

The linkage of Russian ground-launched non-strategic nuclear weapons to arms control violations limits the availability of information about these programs including the range of the missiles, their numbers and even their very existence. However, the 2018 NPR records Russia “…is also building a large, diverse, and modern set of non-strategic systems that are dual-capable (may be armed with nuclear or conventional weapons).”[5] Dave Johnson, a staff officer in the NATO International Staff Defense Policy and Planning Division, has written that “…the capabilities now available to Russia consist of redundant, overlapping, long-range, dual-capable missile coverage of nearly all of Europe from within Russian territory, airspace, and home waters.”[6] He also noted regarding Russia’s precision strike weapons systems that “…all… are dual-capable or have nuclear analogs.”[7]

Despite Russian denials of its violations of the INF Treaty, General of the Army Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff, has actually documented Russian INF Treaty violations. In March 2018, he declared, “In each strategic theatre, groups of long-range cruise-missile carriers based on land, sea and in the air have been created, capable of providing deterrence in strategically important areas.”[8] He was even more explicit in November 2017 when he said Russia had “…set up full-scale units of vehicles capable of delivering precision-guided missiles to targets located up to 4,000 kilometers away.”[9] This statement is particularly interesting because he is talking about a ground-launched missile prohibited by the INF Treaty with a range substantially in excess of any Russian ground-launched missile reported in the Russian or Western press.

The Trump administration has revealed that the Russian ground-launched cruise missile the Obama administration concluded violated the INF Treaty, the SSC-8/9M729 is nuclear capable.[10] However, the scope of Russian INF Treaty violations is reportedly much greater than a single missile. This reflects Russian policy which involves multiple missile types in each range category. Unless there has been a massive underestimate of the range of the SSC-8/9M729 missile in the available press reports, it is not the missile that General Gerasimov was talking about. There are several other nuclear-capable ground-launched cruise missiles that are reported in the Russian press to have ranges in the INF Treaty prohibited zone. These include the R-500 and the Kalibr.

In June 2017, an unclassified intelligence report by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center, U.S. Air Force (NASIC) indicated that Russia had deployed the 3M14, a “Ground, ship, & sub” launched cruise missile with a range of 2,500-km.[11] The 3M14 is the Russian Kalibr cruise missile, reportedly a member of the Club family of missiles.[12] In June 2017, NASIC published a corrected version of the report which eliminated any reference to a ground-launched version of the Kalibr.[13] In the convoluted world of the intelligence community and Russian arms control compliance, the correction may have been made because the intelligence community is not allowed to release unclassified information indicative of an arms control violation that has not been determined by the NSC, a policy that goes all the way back to Dr. Henry Kissinger in the 1970s.[14]

A report of a ground-launched version of the Kalibr associated with the Iskander system appeared in a 2012 Finnish study by Stephen Forss.[15] In July 2017, Russian expatriate Pavel Podvig wrote, “There is a general agreement that the INF [Treaty] culprit, known as SSC-8, is somehow related to the Kalibr sea-launched cruise missile, which we know has the INF range.”[16] In August 2018, state-run Russia Beyond the Headlines reported, “The new projectiles, R-500 ‘Kalibrs,’ are a land-based version of the country’s notorious cruise missiles which were used for the first time in late 2015 to eliminate Islamic State terrorists in Syria.”[17]

The Bastion is a supersonic coastal defense anti-ship and land-attack cruise missile system using the Oniks (3M55) missile. In July 2016, Interfax, Russia’s main unofficial news agency, reported, “The Bastion coastal defense [cruise missile] system has an operational range of 600 kilometers and can be used against surface ships of varying class and type…”[18] The 2017 National Air and Space Committee Intelligence report stated that the 3M55 missile (also called the P-800 Oniks) was possibly nuclear.[19]

Soon after its first test launch, Ria Novosti, an official Russian Government news agency, reported range numbers for the R-500 ground-launched cruise missile that are in the INF Treaty prohibited zone.[20] In November 2007, Ria Novosti reported: “The flight range of a new cruise missile adapted for Iskander and successfully tested in May 2007 could exceed 500 km (310 miles).”[21] In November 2008, it revealed that the potential range of the R-500 “can exceed 2,000 kilometers…”[22] Writing in Ria Novosti and for the UPI, Ilya Kramnik, then Ria Novosti’s military correspondent, said that the range of the R-500, and possibly a second missile, could be between 1,200 and 3,000-km.[23] Kommersant, a major Russian business publication, maintains that the range of the R-500 “can amount to 1,000-km.[24]

In 2014, noted Russian journalist Pavel Felgenhauer explained the differences in the range numbers for the R-500. He “said the missile (R-500) has been tested at a range of 1,000 km,” but the “…range could be extended up to 2,000-3,000 km by adding extra fuel tanks.”[25] (This technique, adding external conformal fuel tanks, was applied by the Soviets to extend the range of the Cold War AS-15 air-launched cruise missile.[26])

It is interesting that when then-Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced the first test of the R-500 he boasted, “It can be used at long range with surgical precision, as doctors say.”[27] Russia has treated the R-500 with unusual secrecy. While President Putin gave the developers of the R-500 missile a Russian state award, their names were not mentioned: “because their identity is a state secret.”[28] It seems clear that Russia did not want reporters talking to the R-500 designers. The R-500 is reported to be nuclear capable.[29] The 2017 NASIC report contains a photograph of the R-500 in flight but no entry for the R-500 in the chart on land-attack cruise missiles. The Russian Defense Ministry said serial production of the R-500 was underway in 2012.[30]

The Russian Iskander-M “aeroballistic” missile has been described by the Russian Defense Ministry as nuclear capable.[31] NATO also assesses the Iskander to be nuclear capable.[32] In 2009, the Commander of the Rocket Forces and Artillery Forces, Lieutenant General Sergei Bogatinov, said that special (nuclear) warheads were available for the Iskander and the legacy Soviet Tochka (SS-21) missiles.[33] In 2006, the Russian nuclear weapons laboratory at Sarov published a document celebrating its accomplishments, including the specific nuclear weapons it had designed. The publication stated that the “Tactical BM [ballistic missile] Iskander is equipped with a special nuclear warhead developed at our institute.”[34] Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists credits Russia with about 140 nuclear warheads for the Iskander and SS-21 system.[35] Russia has ten brigades of Iskander missiles with 120 field reloadable launchers.[36] In August 2018, Interfax reported that the Iskander-M had been given an anti-ship capability.[37] The Iskander force is operational and still being expanded.

The actual range of at least some versions of the Iskander-M is reported to be up to twice the official range of 500-km.[38] Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius has said the range is 435miles (700-km).[39] An upgraded Iskander-M missile is reportedly also being developed.[40] Because of the way the INF treaty range definition for ballistic missiles is written, this is probably not a violation of the INF Treaty, but it is a clear violation of the Presidential Nuclear Initiative commitments regarding short-range nuclear missiles.

The 2018 NPR records that the Russians have nuclear capable CRBMs (Close Range Ballistic Missiles.)[41] A now-declassified year 2000 CIA report predicted that Russia might put low-yield nuclear weapons on multiple rocket launchers.[42] Russia used these types of rockets in the large May 2014 nuclear exercise presided over by President Putin.[43] These weapons also contradict a commitment made during the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives to eliminate battlefield nuclear missiles.

Russia inherited nuclear artillery from the Soviet Union which was supposed to be eliminated under the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives by the year 2000. In 2003, then-Commander of the Rocket and Artillery Forces, Colonel General Vladimir Zaritskiy confirmed the continued existence of the battlefield nuclear weapons that were supposed to have been eliminated by 2000.[44] In another interview in November 2003, he said that missile and artillery weapons were still an important aspect of Russia’s nuclear strike capability.[45]

There are many reports that Russia has retained tactical nuclear artillery. In 2004, Russian television displayed a new howitzer which it said: “…could be used to fire low-yield nuclear bombs.”[46] In 2005, a Russian Defense Ministry publication stated, “The Missile Troops and Artillery are a combat arm of the Ground Troops. They are the main means for fire and nuclear strikes against an enemy.”[47] In 2007, General Zaritskiy stated that new policy guidance for the use of these weapons was issued in 2004.[48] In September 2007, Russian journalist Nikolay Poroskov reported that tactical nuclear ground-based missiles, air-defense weapons, naval anti-ship and ASW missiles, missiles directed against ground targets and also artillery projectiles, nuclear mines, aerial bombs, and air-to-surface missiles exist and Russia’s arsenal, it is variously estimated, amounts to 3,500 to 4,000 nuclear weapons, among which there are about 1,200 warheads for missiles and 1,500 munitions of various classes.[49] In 2009 and 2010, former Duma Deputy Chairman of the Defense Committee Aleksey Arbatov indicated Russian tactical warheads can be delivered by artillery.[50] In 2011, Arbatov stated that the nuclear weapons of ground troops’ artillery, tactical missiles, and mines were “partially” destroyed.[51] In 2011, Colonel General (ret.) Viktor Yesin also said Russia had nuclear artillery.[52] In 2011, the Russian Ministry of Defense stated that “…specialist units within Russia’s ground forces received ‘more than 100 cranes reliable enough to handle nuclear warheads.”[53] In 2013, Academician Yevgeniy Avrorin, a former Director of the Sarov nuclear weapons laboratory (the All-Russian Scientific-Research Institute), in an interview published by the Sarov laboratory, said the Russian 152-mm nuclear artillery shell with “a kiloton yield” had been “broadly deployed” throughout the Russian Army.[54] In 2014, Pravda.ru reported, “Russia, according to conservative estimates, has 5,000 pieces of different classes of TNW - from Iskander warheads to torpedo, aerial and artillery warheads!”[55] In August 2016, Sebastien Roblin, writing in the National Interest, stated that a nuclear shell for the Russian 240-mm mortar exists.[56]

Strangely, Russian nuclear artillery is not mentioned in either the 2018 NPR or the 2017 DIA report on Russian military power. The reason is unclear. The DIA report footnotes Alexei Arbatov, a noted Russian expert and former Vice Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee, as its source that Russia has nuclear artillery. Moreover, the DIA report completely ignores a later statement by Arbatov who said that, “Data relating to the Russian Federation’s nonstrategic nuclear assets (medium-range aviation, operational-tactical aircraft, and missiles) are classified, but unofficial estimates range from 2,000 to 3,000 operationally deployed nuclear weapons, a considerable segment of which can also hit targets in regions adjoining Russia.”[57] “Operationally deployed” nuclear weapons is the 2002 Moscow Treaty counting rule. It does not count the entire weapons inventory but merely the number of weapons deployed on delivery vehicles or stored at operational bases.

It is possible that the CRBMs noted in the 2018 NPR have replaced Russia’s nuclear artillery, probably because of better range and accuracy but such a change would likely have been covered in the Russia press. Apparently, it has not.

Russian missile defense interceptors and surface-to-air missiles reportedly have nuclear capability and a secondary surface-to-surface role. This was first reported by noted Russian journalist Pavel Felgenhauer in 2010.[58] The 2018 NPR confirms the nuclear capability.[59] State media TASS (on many occasions) and Russia Today have said the S-400 has surface-to-surface capability.[60] Felgenhauer has written that such capability was “demonstrated” in the Russian Vostok-2010 military exercise conducted in the Far East.[61]

Some of the systems cited by Felgenhauer very likely constitute violations of the INF Treaty.[62] This is because the exemption from the INF Treaty prohibitions for air and missile defense interceptors only applies if they are used “solely” for air or missile defense.[63] Russia reportedly has over 700 nuclear warheads for these missiles.[64]

Russia is even reportedly developing a nuclear anti-tank weapon for its new Armata tank.[65] This is one of the increasing lists of Putin’s crazy nuclear weapons programs since it would be almost as much of a threat to Russian forces as to NATO forces because of the extremely short- range of a direct fire anti-tank weapon.[66] Moreover, the tactical use of such a weapon would be determined by low ranking NCOs. Nuclear weapons would also be distributed widely on the battlefield creating security, control and additional contamination problems. Well-connected hardline Russian journalist Colonel (ret.) Nikolai Litovkin said in Russian state media that Russia can but won’t do this.[67] Hopefully, he is correct, but he may be functioning as a Russian disinformation operative in this case. He claimed that the Soviets had nuclear tank rounds, but there is no apparent evidence of this in open sources.

The Russian monopoly on ground-launched non-strategic nuclear weapons is dangerous. These weapons are the most relevant to the Russian strategy of deterring a NATO counterattack against a Russian invasion of a bordering NATO state under Russia’s version of “escalate to de-escalate” (or “escalate to win”) because these weapons have the potential to defeat NATO. Russia can launch types of attacks that no Western nation can match. Even considering the full range of relevant weapons endorsed in the 2018 NPR, the same assessment is still true. We will have more deterrent capability, but we will still be unable to match all Russian options and, hence, maximize our deterrence of such attacks.

Dr. Mark B. Schneider is a Senior Analyst with the National Institute for Public Policy. Before his retirement from the Department of Defense Senior Executive Service, Dr. Schneider served in a number of senior positions within the Office of Secretary of Defense for Policy including Principal Director for Forces Policy, Principal Director for Strategic Defense, Space and Verification Policy, Director for Strategic Arms Control Policy and Representative of the Secretary of Defense to the Nuclear Arms Control Implementation Commissions. He also served in the senior Foreign Service as a Member of the State Department Policy Planning Staff.

Notes:
[1] Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review, (Washington D.C., US, Department of Defense, February 2018), pp. 73-74, available at https://media.defense. gov/2018/Feb/02/200187 2886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF.
[2] “Text of the Gorbachev Reply to President’s Nuclear Initiative,” Moscow 28671, unclassified.: “Yeltsin Makes Statement on Disarmament,” January 29, 1992, unclassified.
[3] U.S. Department of State, Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, July 2014), p. 8, available at http://www. state.gov.documents/organization/230108.pdf.
[4] ADM Harry B. Harris, Jr., “WEST 2017 Keynote: ‘The View from the Indo-Asia-Pacific’,” PACOM.mil, February 22, 2017, available at http://www.pacom.mil/ Media/Speeches-Testimony/Article/1089966/west-2017-keynote-the-view-from-the-indo-asia-pacific/.: Steve Holland, “Trump wants to make sure U.S. nuclear arsenal at ‘top of the pack’,” Reuters, February 24, 2017, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-exclusive-idUS KBN1622IF.
[5] Ibid., p. 9.
[6] Dave Johnson, Russia’s Conventional Precision Strike Capabilities, Regional Crises, and Nuclear Thresholds, (Livermore: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, February 2018), p. 39, available at http:///wwwcontent/ assets/ docs/Precision-Strike-Capabilities-report-v3-7.pdf.
[7] Ibid., p. 57.
[8] “Russia creating new cruise missiles strike forces - top general,” BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union, March 24, 2018, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/ professional/docview/2017429525?accountid=155509.
[9] “Army; Russia sets up delivery vehicles that can carry precision-guided missiles up to 4,000 km - General Staff,” Interfax, November 7, 2017, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/docview/9614 20396?accountid =155509.
[10] Nuclear Posture Review, op. cit., pp. 10, 53.
[11] Defense Intelligence Ballistic Missile Analysis Committee, National Air and Space Intelligence Center, Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, NASIC-1031-0985-2017, (Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Oh: National Air and Space Intelligence Center, June 2017), p. 37, available at https://fas.org/blogs/security/2017/06/nasic-2017/.
[12] “CSIS, “SS-N-30A (Kalibr),” (Washington, D.C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 11, 2016,) available at https://missilethreat.csis.org/missile/ss-n-30a/.; Office of Naval Intelligence, The Russian Navy, (Washington D.C.: Office of Naval Intelligence, December 2015), p. 35, available at http://www.oni.navy.mil/ Portals/12/Intel%20agencies/russia/Russia%202015print.pdf?ver=2015-12-14-082038-923.
[13] Hans M. Kristensen, "NASIC Removes Russian INF-Violating Missile From Report,” Federation of American Scientists, June 30, 2017, available at https://fas.org/ blogs/security/2017/08/nasic-2017-corrected/.
[14] “The Select Committee Investigative Record,” The Village Voice, February 16, 1978, p. 92.
[15] Stephen Forss, “The Russian Operational Tactical Iskander Missile System,” Helsinki Finland: Maanpuolustuswkorkeakoulu, 2012, p. 16, available at http://www.doria.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/84362/StratL4_ 42w.pdf?sequence=1.
[16] Pavel Podvig, “Is it too late to have an informed discussion about the INF treaty?,” Russian Forces.org, July 1, 2017, available at http://wwww.russianforces.org/blog/2017 /07/is _it_too_late_to_have_an_info.shtml.
[17] Igor Rozin, “New anti-ship missile will make Russia’s Iskander-M even deadlier,” Russian Beyond the Headlines, August 8, 2018, available at https://www.rbth. com/science-and-tech/328925-russias-iskander-m-to-get-new-missiles.
[18] “Russian Navy to get 5 coastal defense missile systems by end of 2016 - source (Part 2),” Interfax, July 22, 2016, available at https://dialogproquest.com professional/docview/1806232632?accountid=155509.
[19] Ballistic and Cruise Missile Threat, op. cit., p. 37.
[20] “Russia to compensate for INF losses with Iskander missile system,” Ria Novosti, November 14, 2007, available at http://www.en.rian.ru/russia/20071114/88066432.html.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ilya Kramnik, “The Iskander: a story of a new face-off,” Ria Novosti, November 19, 2008, available at http:// www.en.rian.ru/analysis/20081110/118218596.html.
[23] Ilya Kramnik, “Sticking An Iskander Missile Into The ABM Shield Part One,” UPI, November 19, 2008, available at http://www.spacewar.com/reports/StickingAnIskanderMissileInto_The_ABM_Shield_Part_One_ 999.html.: Ilya Kramnik, “Missile bargaining: Iskanders for missile defense,” Ria Novosti, January 29, 2009, available at http://www.en.rian.ru/analysis/20090129/119877816.html.
[24] Mikhail Barabanov, “The Iskander Factor,” Kommsersant, November 9, 2008, available at http://www.
kommersant.com/p1052937/r_527/Iskander_missiles_to_counterbalance_American_AMD_systems/.
[25] Jerome Cartillier and Jo Biddle, “US calls on Moscow to get rid of banned arms,” Yahoo News, July 29, 2014, available at http://news.yahoo.com/russia-violated-arms-treaty-testing-cruise-missile-us-002749693.html;ylt= A0LEVj1 Ex3VVO9YAtmwnnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTEzZWJidTA2BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDR kZHRTAxXzEEc2VjA3Ny.
[26] Dr Carlo Kopp, “Soviet/Russian Cruise Missiles,” Air Power Australia,” Technical Report APA-TR-2009-0805. April 2012, available at http://www.ausairpower. net/APA-Rus-Cruise-Missiles.html#mozTocId152650.
[27] “Putin: U.S. Pursuing ‘Imperialist’ Policy,” The Associated Press, February 11, 2009, available at http://www. cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-2872235.html.
[28] Steve Gutterman, “Putin celebrates Russia Day with State Prize ceremony at Kremlin,” The Associated Press, June 13, 2007, available at http://www.semissourian.com/story/1216976.html.
[29] “Iskander-K Cruise missile,” Military-Today.com, no date, available at http://www.military-today.com/missiles/ iskanderk.htm.
[30] “New strategic cruise missiles developed in Russia - Defense Ministry (Part 2),” Interfax-AVN Online, August 8, 2012. (Translated by World News Connection.).
[31] “Army Brigade To Be Equipped With Iskander Systems This Year –Commander,” ITAR-TASS, September 29, 2009. (Transcribed by World News Connection.).: “Ground Forces Personnel Will Be Armed With Iskanders,” Moscow Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, October 29, 2009, (Translated by World News Connection.).
[32] “Doorstep statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the start of the meetings of NATO Defence Ministers, NATO, October 26, 2016, available at https://www.nato.int/cps/su/natohq/opinions136579.htm?Selected Locale=en.
[33] Sergei Bogatinov, “Interview to ‘Echo Moskvy,’” November 21, 2009, available at www.echo.msk.ru/programs /voensovet/635231-echo.phtml.
[34] All Russian Research Institute of Experimental Physics, Russian Federal Nuclear Center, Sarov, 2006, p. 59.
[35] Hans M. Kristensen & Robert S. Norris, “Russian nuclear forces, 2018,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, April 30, 2018, p. 186, available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2018.1462912.
[36] “Ten brigade sets of Iskander-M missile systems delivered to Russia's Ground Forces – commander,” Interfax, December 22, 2017, available at http://www.interfax.com/newsinf.asp?id=80016.: “Russian units switching to new Iskander missile on schedule, general says,” BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union, available at https://dialog. proquest.com/professional/docview/460325189?accountid=155509.
[37] “Iskander-M adjusted to hit marine targets,” Interfax, August 3, 2018, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/ professional/docview/2082484130?accountid=155509.
[38] Gennadiy Melnik and Denis Telmanov, “Iskanders Taught To Work in Formation. Russia’s Main Military Argument Tested for First Time in Conditions Close to Actual,” Moscow Izvestiya Online, September 26, 2011. (Translated by World News Connection.).: Viktor Myasnikov, “Full Aft. Verbal Arms Race Is Under Way and Has Prospects of Becoming Real One.” Moscow Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Nov 21, 2007. (Translated by World News Connection.).; Forss, “The Russian Operational Tactical Iskander Missile System,” op. cit., p. 15.; “Southern MD Missile Brigade holds tactical exercise at the Kapustin Yar range.” Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation, September 30, 2016, available at http://eng.mil.ru/en/newspage/ country/more.htm?id=12095913 @egNews.; “Russia: Pundit on new military doctrine, response to strategic challenges,” BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union, March 22, 2007. (Translated by World News Connection.).
[39] “Russia deploys missiles on NATO doorstep: Lithuania,” AFP, October 16, 2016, available at http://timesofindia. indiatimes.com/world/europe/Russia-deploys-missiles-on-NATO-doorstep-Lithuania/articleshow/54754894.cms.
[40] “Russia to upgrade Iskander-M missile systems,” TASS, April 11, 2017, available at http://tass.com/defense/ 940668.
[41] Nuclear Posture Review, op. cit., p. 53.
[42] “Evidence of Russian Development of New Subkiloton Nuclear Warheads [Redacted],” Intelligence Memorandum, Central Intelligence Agency, August 30, 2000, approved for release October 2005, pp. 6, 10, available at http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001260463.pdf.
[43] “Russian forces practice rocket fire,” Interfax, May 8, 2014, available at https://dialog.proquest.com/professional/ docview/1522714188?accountid=155509: “Putin oversees Russian nuclear exercise amid Ukraine tensions,” CBS News, May 8, 2014, available athttps://www.cbsnews.com/news/putin-oversees-russian-nuclear-exercise-amid-ukraine-tensions/.
[44] Mark B. Schneider, “Russian Violations of Its Arms Control Obligations,” Comparative Strategy, September 25, 2012, available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01495933.2012.711115.
[45] Barabanov, “The Iskander Factor,” op. cit.,: “Russia: Pundit on new military doctrine, response to strategic challenges,” op. cit.: Myasnikov, “Full Aft. Verbal Arms Race Is Under Way and Has Prospects of Becoming Real One,” op. cit.; Melnik and Telmanov, “Iskanders Taught To Work in Formation. Russia’s Main Military Argument Tested for First Time in Conditions Close to Actual,” op. cit.; Forss, “The Russian Operational Tactical Iskander Missile System,” op. cit. p. 15.; “Southern MD Missile Brigade holds tactical exercise at the Kapustin Yar range.” op. cit.
[46] “Russian TV shows howitzer capable of firing low-yield nuclear warheads,” BBC Monitoring Former Soviet Union, April 11, 2004. (Translated by World News Connection.).
[47] Quoted in Mark B. Schneider, The Nuclear Forces and Doctrine of the Russian Federation, (Fairfax Va.: National Institute Press, 2006), p. 17, available at http:// www.nipp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Russian-nuclear-doctrine-NSF-for-print.pdf.
[48] Mark Schneider, “The Future of the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent,” Comparative Strategy, October 1, 2008, available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01495930802358539?journalCode=ucst20.
[49] Quoted in Schneider, “Russian Violations of Its Arms Control Obligations,” op. cit., p. 338.
[50] “Washington Presses Moscow to Begin Non-strategic Nuclear Weapons Reduction,” Gazeta.ru, Vedomosti, February 10, 2010, available at http://en.rian.ru/papers/ 20100205/157782788.html.: Alexander A. Dynkim and Alexei Arbatov, “NATO Russian Relations,” Moscow, Institute of World Economy and International Relations Russian Academy of Sciences, 2010, p. 29, available at https://www.imemo.ru/files/File/en/publ/2016/Supple ment2016.pdf.
[51] “Moscow, Washington Must Demonstrate Openness Regarding Nuclear Potentials – Expert,” Interfax, April 18, 2011, available at http://search.proquest.com/ professional/docview/862548201?accountid=155509.
[52] “Russia: Former RVSN Main Staff Chief on Reduction of Tactical Nuclear Weapons Article by Viktor Ruchkin on recent statements made by Colonel General Viktor Yesin (retired) on the possibility of a reduction of tactical nuclear weapons in the arsenals of Russia and the United States: ‘In a Broad Context’," Krasnaya Zvezda Online Saturday, April 30, 2011. (Translated by World News Connection.)
[53] The Russian Ministry of Defence press service, “During 2011, the Engineer Troops have Received New, Specialist Machinery and Equipment” (in Russian), December 23, 2011, available at http://www.function. mil.ru/ news_page/country/more.htm?id=10859461@egNews.
[54] Àêàäåìèê Åâãåíèé Íèêîëàåâè÷ Àâðîðèí: «Íàóêà — ýòî òî, ÷òî ìîæíî ñäåëàòü, à òåõíè÷åñêàÿ íàóêà — ýòî òî, ÷òî íóæíî ñäåëàòü»,” atomicenergy.ru, April 10, 2013, available at http://www.atomic-energy.ru/interviews/ 2013/04/10/41068. (In Russian).
[55] Dmitriy Sudakov, “Russia prepares nuclear surprise for NATO,” Pravda.ru, November 12, 2014, available at http:// www.pravdareport.com/russia/politics/12-11-2014/129015-russia_nato_nuclear_surprise-0/.
[56] Sebastien Roblin, “The Russian Army's Super 'Gun' Is a City Destroyer,” National Interest, August 20, 2016, available at https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-armys-super-gun-city-destroyer-17416They’ve devastated fortifications from Afghanistan to Ukraine.
[57] Aleksey Arbatov: "Look Before You Leap,” Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye Online, August 7, 2013. (Translated by World News Connection.)
[58] Pavel Felgenhauer, “Russia Seeks to Impose New ABM Treaty on the US by Developing BMD,” Eurasia Daily Monitor, Vol. 7, No. 136 (July 16, 2010), available at http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_Ttnews[tt news]=36624.
[59] Nuclear Posture Review, op. cit., p. 53.
[60] “Russian Armed Forces will get five S-400 air defense systems in September-October 2016,” TASS, February 29, 2016, available at http://tass.ru/en/defense/859641.: “S-400 missile defense regiment takes up combat duty outside Moscow (VIDEO),” Russia Today, January 11, 2017, available at https://www.rt.com/news/373371-moscow-air-defense-s400/.; “S-300 missiles strike simulated enemy’s ground air defenses in East Siberian drills,” TASS, March 31, 2017, available at http://tass.com/defense/ 938610.
[61] Felgenhauer, “Russia Seeks to Impose New ABM Treaty on the US by Developing BMD,” op. cit.
[62] Mark B. Schneider, “Russian INF Treaty Violations: Implications for the Nuclear Posture Review and the Future of the INF Treaty,” National Institute for Public Policy, Information Series, Issue No. 424 September 5, 2017, available at https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/08/08/the_nuclear_posture_review_and_the_future oftheinftreaty11994.html.
[63] Dr. Mark B. Schneider, “Confirmation of Russian Violation and Circumvention of the INF Treaty,” National Institute for Public Policy, Information Series 350, February 2014, p. 18, available at http://www.nipp.org/wp-content/uplo...-of-Russian-Violations-of-the-INF-Treaty8.pdf.
[64] Alexei Arbatov, “Arbatov Analyzes Possible Tactical Nuclear Weapons Reductions,” Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kuryer Online, May 17, 2010. (Translated by World News Connection.).
[65] Franz-Stefan Gady, “Russia to Develop Nuclear Round for T-14 Main Battle Tank,” The Diplomat, April 17, 2017, available at http://thediplomat.com/2017/04/russia-to-develop-nuclear-round-for-t-14-main-battle-tank/.: Arthur Dominic Villasanta, “Russia might be Developing a Nuclear Tank Round for New Version of the T-14 Armata,” Chinatopix.com, April 13, 2107, available at http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/...uclear-tank-round-new-version-t-15-armata.htm.
[66] Nikolai Litovkin and Gleb Fedorov, “Why Russia can, but will not fire nuclear shells from an Armata tank,” Russia Beyond the Headlines, April 20, 2017, available at http://rbth.com/defence/2017/04/20/...ire-nuclear-shells-from-an-armata-tank_747106.
[67] Ibid.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/08/27/amid-russian-military-buildup-poland-reacts/

Amid Russian military buildup, Poland reacts

By: Jaroslaw Adamowski  
7 hours ago

WARSAW, Poland — As Russia continues to bolster its military capacities along its western borders, neighboring NATO member states such as Poland are responding to the rising security concerns by adapting and expanding their capabilities. Warsaw is intensifying efforts to strengthen the Polish military’s air defense capacities, secure a permanent presence of U.S. troops on the country’s soil and establish a new division of the operational forces in Poland’s east.

Moscow claims its military buildup comes in response to Western actions. Speaking at a meeting of Russian Defence Ministry leadership on July 24, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said that “the situation that develops in the western strategic direction requires us to continuously develop the combat capacities of our forces,” as quoted in a ministry statement.

Shoigu said that since 2016, more than 70 formations and military units, including two divisions and three brigades, were set up in Russia’s Western Military District. Established in 2010, the structure covers 26 entities of the Russian Federation, bordering Norway, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The minister said that Russian troops in the district have received some 5,000 units of new and overhauled weapons and equipment over the past years, raising the ratio of deployed new gear from 39 to 54 percent. By the end of this year, more than 350 new facilities are to be put into operation in the Western Military District.

New division in eastern Poland

Moscow’s defense efforts are shaping Poland’s plans to overhaul the structure of its operational forces.

On Aug. 15, on the occasion of Poland’s Armed Forces Day, Lt. Gen. Rajmund Andrzejczak, the chief of the military’s General Staff, announced plans to set up a fourth division of the operational forces, which is to be located east of the Vistula River, which crosses Poland’s capital Warsaw.

"There is no doubt that a fourth division is necessary, we are already carrying out analytical work, and soon we will be able to present specific plans," Andrzejczak said, as reported by local news agency PAP.

Poland’s land forces currently comprise three divisions, with headquarters in Zagan, Szczecin and Elblag. The former two divisions comprise units located in western and northwestern Poland, reminiscence of the times when Poland was part of the Soviet Union-led Warsaw Pact. Creating a fourth division to shift the military’s operational capacities toward the eastern flank will likely represent one of the major challenges in the coming years for Andrzejczak, who was appointed to his post in July.

A considerable share of the military buildup takes place on Poland’s border with Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave, a 15,100-square-kilometer (approximately 5,800-square-mile) territory on the Baltic Sea’s shore. As the Russian military has deployed Iskander-M missiles to Kaliningrad, locking Poland’s capital within the missile’s strike range, the Polish authorities have responded with intensified efforts to acquire air defense capacities.

Boosting deterrence

On March 28, Poland inked a letter of offer and acceptance with the U.S. to purchase Raytheon’s medium-range Patriot system. The country’s military is to acquire two Patriot Configuration 3+ batteries, with delivery scheduled for 2022.

The Polish government has also offered the U.S. financial support for the deployment of a permanent U.S. armored division in Poland. The document suggests support in the range of $1.5 billion to $2 billion.

“It is important to share the burden of defense spending, make the decision more cost-effective for the U.S. Government, and allay any concerns for Congress in uncertain budgetary times," the document stated.

In an Aug. 7 interview with local broadcaster Polish Radio, Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said Warsaw is determined to strike a deal that would secure the permanent presence of U.S. troops in Poland.

“This is a very promising direction. I’m in contact with our American partners. My two visits to Washington, the talks held both at Pentagon and the White House with [then-national security adviser] Gen. [H.R.] McMaster and [then-]Ambassador [to the United Nations John] Bolton, were devoted to these issues,” Blaszczak said.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm…...

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/global/...ank-its-an-expansionist-west-causing-anxiety/

Europe

Russia, the victim? Opposite NATO’s eastern flank, it’s an expansionist West causing anxiety

By: Matthew Bodner  
7 hours ago

MOSCOW — The past two years have kept NATO busy. Adding to the challenge presented by Russia following its 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump has spent much energy criticizing the trans-Atlantic military alliance and calling on members to spend more on defense, all the while trivializing the situation with Moscow.

But despite Western hand-wringing sparked by Trump’s rhetoric, Russia is not entirely pleased with the state of affairs of the past two years. Accustomed to being the unpredictable element in bilateral relations with Washington, Moscow has yet to square Trump’s pro-Russian rhetoric with his administration’s adversarial footing.

This shift in dynamics has caused increased anxiety among policymakers and analysts in Moscow. The hope once felt in Russia for a detente under Trump is fading, and prolonged confrontation is assumed. State media channels, themselves in wartime footing since 2014, routinely warn Russian citizens of war with an intransigent, expansionist West.

Adding to those anxieties are NATO’s ongoing efforts to modernize and expand military capabilities in central and eastern Europe.

“We don’t like the picture we are seeing,” said Vladimir Frolov, an independent political analyst in Moscow.

“NATO is getting serious about its combat capabilities and readiness levels. Trump may trash NATO and his European allies,” Frolov added, “but it is the capabilities that matter, and those have been growing under Trump.”

NATO has long been Russian President Vladimir Putin’s favorite foreign boogeyman and, as far as political footballs go, this one has been easy and fruitful to kick around at home.

Most of Putin’s legitimacy in recent years has been rooted in a well-designed domestic narrative of Fortress Russia under siege from foreign powers — with NATO being the focus of concern.

From the perspective of Russian military planners, tasked with devising a national defense for the world’s largest land power, NATO is more than a useful rhetorical scarecrow at home — though this helps secure funding for modernization and new hardware. NATO is one of Russia’s primary potential opponents, and therefore a focus of Russian military thinking.

And from that perspective, the situation looks concerning: NATO troops and hardware are being forward deployed to former Soviet satellites in eastern Europe; in June, the alliance unveiled a new initiative — dubbed the “Four 30s” — that will see a significant expansion of NATO’s rapid deployment capabilities; and Germany is considering rearming with an eye on Russia.

“Even the shouting match over the 2 percent spending, not to mention Trump’s lunatic call for 4.5 percent, is a significant concern for Moscow,” Frolov said. “Were Germany to start remilitarizing, approaching the capabilities level of the Cold War, we should be worried. And we would hate to see Poland emerge as the new Germany for U.S. forward basing and positioning.”

NATO has its own reasons for pursuing all of these initiatives: Russia. Many of the alliance’s members, particularly the newer ones on Russia’s borders in eastern Europe, were rattled by Moscow’s brazen annexation of Crimea and have spent the past four years calling for greater collective action to deter possible Russian moves on former Soviet states now in NATO.

Russia, in turn and for a variety of reasons — political expediency and military prudence — has seized on NATO’s efforts to bolster its own defense and spun that into rationale for sustained military expenditures amid economic recession. Actors on all sides — Trump, NATO and the Kremlin — hold irreconcilable positions that sometimes feed into misunderstanding, mistrust and military bolstering.

The Kremlin has made confrontation with the West a cornerstone of its domestic legitimacy. Western politicians and pundits have honed in on Moscow with an intensity that makes their Russian counterparts nervous. And Trump cannot realistically deal with Russia in any way the Kremlin would like to see.

Under such conditions, the buildup is almost certain to continue.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-deal-for-military-cooperation-idUSKCN1LC0GL

World News August 26, 2018 / 11:34 PM / Updated 13 hours ago

Iran and Syria sign deal for military cooperation

Reuters Staff
1 Min Read

(Reuters) - Iran and Syria signed a deal for military cooperation in a meeting between the defense ministers of the two countries in Damascus, the Tasnim news agency reported on Monday.

Iranian Defence Minister Amir Hatami traveled to Damascus on Sunday for a two-day visit, meeting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and senior military officials, Tasnim reported.

Iranian forces have backed Assad in the country’s civil war.

Tasnim did not provide any details about the military cooperation deal.

U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton said last week that Iran should remove its forces from Syria.

Senior Iranian officials have said their military presence in Syria is at the invitation of the Assad government and they have no immediate plans to withdraw.

Reporting by Babak Dehghanpisheh; Editing by Alison Williams
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://thediplomat.com/2018/08/re-shaping-india-us-defense-cooperation-in-the-indo-pacific/

Re-shaping India-US Defense Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific

The forthcoming inaugural meeting of the United States-India Ministerial 2+2 Dialogue provides a historic opportunity.

By Hemant Krishan Singh and Richard M. Rossow
August 24, 2018

It is time for the United States to recognize that the Indian Ocean is the next front line of world geopolitics and the emerging arena for a new “great game.” China’s aggressive inroads into the Indian Ocean through military bases, port leasing, and predatory economics present an imminent strategic challenge, as these advances will result in an Indo-Pacific that is less free, less open, less secure, and less prosperous for the United States and India.

In the midst of a global power flux, revival of strategic competition, rampant regional rivalries, and concerns about the future of a liberal order, India and the United States are well positioned to shape the future together in ways that sustain the interests of both countries.

The U.S. National Security Strategy describes India as central to U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy and an essential component of Indo-Pacific security architecture. This recognition also underscores the need to meet the core challenge of China’s economic and military assertiveness and its manifest desire to create a Sino-centric Asian order. The collapse of ASEAN unity since 2012 has significantly eroded ASEAN centrality in regional security architecture; China is now capable of controlling the South China Sea in all scenarios short of conflict.

U.S. efforts to deepen its engagement in the Indian Ocean Region must not merely be intended to draft India into the existing Asia-Pacific security architecture, but also to recognize the growing strategic salience of the Indian Ocean itself. To make an Indian Ocean Region that is as prosperous as East Asia, the United States needs to join hands with India and work more closely with countries in the region to develop a security architecture that underpins free and open trade, preserves sovereignty, and is designed for a century in which the Indian Ocean will remain a vital connector of the global economy.

As matters stand today, the United States does not have a robust, consistent footprint in the Indian Ocean. From India’s security perspective, the United States has virtually opted itself out of Central Asia and has only marginal commitments in the Indian Ocean. From the U.S. perspective, India must also progress pending proposals to augment and deepen the defense partnership.

Based on the foregoing, we offer the following recommendations for a revamped U.S. vision of the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific.”

Enlarge
The United States needs to understand that India’s security interests lie both to its west and east. While the United States is still trying to turn the clock back to regain lost strategic space in East and Southeast Asia, China is already driving into the Indian Ocean where it aims to establish an overwhelming presence. There is need for a holistic look at challenges in both the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

Engage
If India is indeed to be a central pillar of the U.S. vision for the Indo-Pacific, it must be more deeply consulted in the development of a U.S. strategy which reflects the interests of both strategic partners. This requires a nuanced broadening from a predominantly East Asia focus, driven primarily by U.S. alliances and historical legacies, to a “whole of the Indo-Pacific approach” which draws on shared interests to achieve shared objectives.

The United States and India need to jointly evolve a common strategy that acknowledges the challenge China presents in the Indian Ocean as well as the need to preserve the role of ASEAN in regional security. A possible three-tier security architecture can be considered:

  • An East Asian tier centered around U.S. alliances;
  • An ASEAN-centric central tier buttressed by a web of Trilaterals and the Quad; and
  • An Indian Ocean-centric tier alongside India (and Australia), where the United States commits to a greater coordination of defense assets, including Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR), and Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities.

Expound
The inability to articulate a wide range of specific actions through a standalone policy proved to be a central weakness of the “pivot” or “rebalance” under the previous U.S. administration. Recent pronouncements of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo offer a good start, but the United States needs to be more specific on how the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” strategy will alter U.S. presence and partnerships throughout the region. The United States and India, along with other Quad partners, also need to elaborate a detailed architecture for regional economic engagement, connectivity initiatives, and multilayered regional security architecture. Any such framework of enhanced U.S.-Indian (and particularly Quad) cooperation will certainly evoke a strong response from China. Policymakers and strategic communities in Quad capitals must try and mitigate this coercive challenge if the reborn Quad is to enjoy continued traction.

Conclusions: The Defining Role of US-India Defense Ties
It is inevitable that despite broad convergences, U.S.-India relations will continue to face challenges in both the diplomatic and economic domains. It is thus important for both strategic partners to recognize that intensifying discussions on defense cooperation have already led to a much deeper appreciation in Washington of India’s concerns and interests both to its east and its west. The United States must now put forward a clear vision on how the three commands covering the Indian definition of the Indo-Pacific (INDO-PACOM, CENTCOM, and AFRICOM) can work together on issues of defense cooperation with India.

The 10-year framework agreement on bilateral defense cooperation renewed in 2015 already provides the platform for strengthening defense ties from a strategic perspective, while preserving each country’s strategic independence. Recent steps taken by the U.S. administration and Congress to bolster India’s Major Defense Partner status have further incentivized efforts by both sides to keep pace with the evolving security scenario across the Indo-Pacific, especially in the Indian Ocean.

Strengthening maritime domain awareness mechanisms, synergizing ISR assets, enhancing anti-submarine warfare capability, improving the efficacy of our novel cooperative mechanism (the Defense Technology and Trade Initiative), and concluding interoperability agreements (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) and Bilateral Exchange and Cooperative Agreement(BECA)) need to be vigorously pursued.

Finally, if there is one big idea that merits consideration as a symbol of U.S.-Indian defense cooperation in the Indo-Pacific, it is the enlargement of Malabar into a two-phase exercise next year: the first involving INDO-PACOM in the eastern Indian Ocean, and the second engaging CENTCOM in the western Indian Ocean. This will provide a qualitative boost to mutual confidence in the defense partnership and show Indian policymakers that the Indian Ocean is, indeed, part of Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy.

The forthcoming inaugural meeting of the United States-India Ministerial 2+2 Dialogue (scheduled for September 6) provides a historic opportunity to lay the foundations of balanced and upgraded bilateral defense and security relations that deliver mutual reinforcement and preserve a stable balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.

Mr. Richard M. Rossow is senior adviser and Wadhwani Chair in U.S.-India Policy Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington D.C. Ambassador Hemant Krishan Singh is director general of Delhi Policy Group, New Delhi.

This article originally appeared as a DPG Policy Brief at delhipolicygroup.org on August 23 and as a CSIS Commentary on CSIS.org.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...in-nearly-four-decades-agencies-idUSKCN1LD0OP

World News August 28, 2018 / 12:53 AM / Updated 3 hours ago

Russia to hold its biggest war games since fall of Soviet Union

Andrew Osborn
4 Min Read

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia will next month hold its biggest war games since the fall of the Soviet Union, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Tuesday, a massive military exercise that will also involve the Chinese and Mongolian armies.

The exercise, called Vostok-2018 (East-2018), will take place in central and eastern Russian military districts and involve almost 300,000 troops, more than 1,000 military aircraft, two of Russia’s naval fleets, and all of its airborne units, Shoigu said in a statement.

The maneuvers will take place at a time of heightened tension between the West and Russia, which is concerned about what it says is an unjustified build-up of the NATO military alliance on its western flank.

NATO says it has beefed up its forces in eastern Europe to deter potential Russian military action after Moscow annexed Ukraine’s Crimea in 2014 and backed a pro-Russian uprising in eastern Ukraine.

The war games, which will take place from Sept. 11-15, are likely to worry Japan, which has already complained about a Russian military build-up in the Far East, something Moscow has linked to Tokyo’s roll-out of the Aegis U.S. missile system.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is due to attend a forum in the Russian city of Vladivostok over the same period, and a Japanese Foreign Ministry official said on Tuesday that Tokyo always paid attention to shifts in Russian-Chinese military cooperation.

Shoigu said the war games would be the biggest since a Soviet military exercise, Zapad-81 (West-81) in 1981.

“In some ways they will repeat aspects of Zapad-81, but in other ways the scale will be bigger,” Shoigu told reporters, while visiting the Russian region of Khakassia.

Shoigu said that both Russia’s Pacific and Northern Fleets would take part, while the Russian Ministry of Defense has said that Chinese and Mongolian military units will also participate.

“A MORE ASSERTIVE RUSSIA”
Asked if the cost of holding such a massive military exercise was justified at a time when Russia is faced with higher social spending demands, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said such war games were essential.

“The country’s ability to defend itself in the current international situation, which is often aggressive and unfriendly towards our country, means (the exercise) is justified,” Peskov told reporters on a conference call.

When asked if China’s involvement meant Moscow and Beijing were moving towards an alliance, Peskov said it showed that the two were cooperating in all areas.

China and Russia have taken part in joint military drills before but not on such a large scale.

NATO spokesman Dylan White said that Russia had briefed the alliance on the planned exercise in May and that NATO would monitor it. Russia had invited military attaches from NATO countries based in Moscow to observe the war games, an offer he said was under consideration.

“All nations have the right to exercise their armed forces, but it is essential that this is done in a transparent and predictable manner,” White said in an emailed statement.

“Vostok demonstrates Russia’s focus on exercising large-scale conflict. It fits into a pattern we have seen over some time: a more assertive Russia, significantly increasing its defense budget and its military presence.”

Shoigu this month announced the start of snap combat readiness checks in central and eastern military districts ahead of the planned exercise.

“Imagine 36,000 armored vehicles - tanks, armored personnel carriers and armored infantry vehicles - moving and working simultaneously, and that all this, naturally, is being tested in conditions as close as possible to military ones,” Shoigu said on Tuesday.

Additional reporting by Katya Golubkova and Andrey Kuzmin in Moscow, Robin Emmott in Brussels and Elaine Lies in Tokyo; Editing by Andrew Bolton
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.rferl.org/a/us-mattis-private-soldiers-afghanistan/29458379.html

Afghanistan

U.S. Defense Secretary Downplays Private Soldiers In Afghanistan

August 28, 2018 20:57 GMT
RFE/RL

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis rebuffed suggestions that private military forces could join the fight in Afghanistan, and possibly replace regular U.S. troops.

Mattis made the comments at a Pentagon press briefing on August 28, where he was asked about such proposals that have been floated in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere.

"When Americans put their nation's credibility on the line, privatizing it is probably not a wise idea," Mattis said.

The main proponent of the idea has been Erik Prince, the former head of a controversial private military contractor once known as Blackwater.

A longtime Republican supporter and brother of President Donald Trump's education secretary, Prince has argued that using private mercenaries would help decrease the US military presence in Afghanistan after 17 years of war.

In recent weeks, Prince has engaged in a public relations campaign, including publishing online videos, to press his arguments.

About 14,000 U.S. troops are in Afghanistan, providing the largest contingent of NATO's mission and helping lead increasingly tense offensive operations against Taliban fighters.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm…..

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.rferl.org/a/france-says...litary-defense-reach-out-russia/29456958.html

Russia

France Calls On EU To Not Rely On U.S. Defense, Reach Out To Russia

August 28, 2018 02:55 GMT
RFE/RL

French President Emmanuel Macron is calling on the European Union to boost military cooperation and stop relying on the United States for defense while reaching out to Russia to develop a "strategic partnership."

In an address to French ambassadors on August 27, Macron appeared to leave behind his efforts in the last year to develop joint policies with U.S. President Donald Trump and instead criticized Trump for being an "unreliable" partner and "turning his back" on the "multilaterism" built by Western powers since World War II with such actions as pulling out of the global climate change agreement and Iran's nuclear deal.

The 40-year-old French president said he would put forward new proposals in the coming months for the EU to boost defense cooperation, as well as talks with Russia on their security relationship.

"Europe can no longer rely on the United States for its security. It is up to us to guarantee European security, and therefore European sovereignty," Macron told an audience of some 250 diplomats, lawmakers, and international relations experts.

Although the did not call for any break with NATO, the U.S.-led military alliance that has been the foundation of Western European security since World War II, Macron called for Europe to build a "strategic partnership" with Russia, despite differences with the Kremlin over Ukraine, Syria and other issues.

He qualified his call for talks with Russia, however, by saying Moscow must first make progress on putting an end to the conflict between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine.

Macron said he envisions a "revision of the European architecture of defense and security" as a result of "renewed dialogue on cybersecurity, chemical weapons, conventional weaponry, territorial conflicts, space security, the protection of the polar zones -- in particular with Russia."

New Geopolitical Realities
Macron's remarks follow a similar call for increased EU defense cooperation last week by German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, who has said Europe should "take an equal share of the responsibility" and "form a counterweight" to Washington in the world as Europe-U.S. relations cool.

"Obviously, it irritates us when President Trump describes Europe as an enemy of the U.S.A in the same breath as Russia and China, or calls NATO into question almost as a throwaway remark," Maas told a gathering of Romanian diplomats in Bucharest on August 27.

"It seems absurd that we in the European Union have to worry about reacting to U.S. tariffs that are justified on 'national security grounds'," Maas said, but he said this "absurdity" may simply reflect new geopolitical realities.

"'America First' was a wake-up call. Our answer to that must be: 'Europe United!,'" Maas said.

France and Germany have both backed the idea of a small joint European response force over the last year, and have announced plans to develop a fighter jet together.

While Macron's call for more European defense cooperation may resonate with Germany it is not clear whether newer members of the bloc in Eastern Europe will go along.

With the exceptions of France and Britain, all other European members of NATO have lived under the nuclear umbrella provided by the United States since World War II.

That NATO alliance with the U.S. has been especially important to newer members like Poland and the Baltic states, which have called for an increased NATO presence in their countries since Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014.

Since taking office, Trump has vacillated between criticizing NATO and pledging his commitment to the alliance at the same time he has been putting pressure on European allies to increase their defense spending to at least 2 percent of their economic output..

Many of the eastern bloc members already meet that goal. Trump has singled Germany out for criticism for not meeting the goal, though Berlin has announced plans to increase its military spending to 1.5 percent of gross domestic product by 2025.

A spokesperson for EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini said that the EU has already taken "decisive steps" to build up European security and defense in recent years, including the development of a joint defense fund and a new planning cell for EU military missions around the world.

In November, EU countries officially launched a new era in defense cooperation with a program of joint military investment and project development. Twenty-three of the EU's 28 member nations signed up to the process, known as permanent structured cooperation, or PESCO.

With reporting by AFP, dpa, and AP
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm…..

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ng-military-base-in-afghanistan-idUSKCN1LE0X0

WORLD NEWS AUGUST 29, 2018 / 2:42 AM / UPDATED 14 HOURS AGO

China denies planning military base in Afghanistan

Reuters Staff
2 MIN READ

BEIJING (Reuters) - China on Wednesday denied that it planned to build a military base in Afghanistan, after a Hong Kong newspaper said Beijing was constructing a training camp for Afghan troops to which it could also send its own soldiers.

The South China Morning Post, citing unidentified sources with ties to the Chinese military, said China was building the camp in the narrow Wakhan Corridor that links the two countries.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying dismissed the report, however.

“After looking into it, the relevant report is not true,” she told a daily news briefing.

“Since the construction and training, this situation, it doesn’t exist - it’s not true. So anything related naturally is not true,” Hua added, dismissing the assertion about China eventually sending its own soldiers.

She did not elaborate. The Defence Ministry did not respond to a request from Reuters for comment.

It was not the first time reports have pointed to China seeking a military presence in Afghanistan, although it has denied all of them.

In January, the defense ministry denied a similar report that it planned to build a military base in Afghanistan.

It has also previously dismissed reports that Chinese military vehicles were patrolling in the south Asian nation.

China has long worried that instability in Afghanistan could spill over into its violence-prone Xinjiang region, home to the Muslim Uighur people.

In recent years, hundreds of people have been killed in the far western region in unrest China blames on Islamist militants.

China has also worked with Pakistan and the United States to broker peace talks to end Afghanistan’s Taliban insurgency that has raged since the militants were ousted by U.S.-backed forces in 2001.

Last year, China opened its first overseas military base, in the Horn of Africa country Djibouti. It has previously denied having plans for other overseas bases, but the United States expects it to build more, with Pakistan a likely location.

Reporting by Michael Martina; Writing by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Clarence Fernandez

------------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dip...hina-building-training-camp-afghanistan-fight

China is helping Afghanistan set up mountain brigade to fight terrorism

Afghan embassy refutes claim China is building a training camp in Wakhan Corridor and says there will be ‘no Chinese military personnel on Afghan soil’

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 28 August, 2018, 10:44pm
UPDATED : Wednesday, 29 August, 2018, 8:18pm
Minnie Chan
COMMENTS: 66

China is helping Afghanistan to set up a mountain brigade in the country’s north to boost counterterrorism efforts, the Afghan embassy in Beijing said on Wednesday.

But “there will be no Chinese military personnel of any kind on Afghan soil at any time”, the embassy said in a fax to the South China Morning Post.

The embassy said the Afghan government appreciated China’s assistance and that the countries’ militaries were working in close coordination, without giving further details.

Sources close to the Chinese military earlier told the Post that China had funded and started building a training camp for Afghan troops in Afghanistan’s isolated Wakhan Corridor – a narrow strip of inhospitable and barely accessible land extending about 350km from the northern Afghan province of Badakhshan to China’s Muslim region of Xinjiang.

8125e106-aabe-11e8-8796-d12ba807e6e9_image_hires_201801.jpg

https://cdn1.i-scmp.com/sites/defau...11e8-8796-d12ba807e6e9_image_hires_201801.jpg

One of the sources said that once the camp was completed, the People’s Liberation Army was likely to send troops there, but the embassy denied the claim, saying no Chinese military personnel would be stationed in Afghanistan.

In Beijing on Wednesday, Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hua Chunying also dismissed the claims.

The war-torn Central Asian country has become increasingly important for China’s own security, as well as President Xi Jinping’s “Belt and Road Initiative”, a huge trade and infrastructure plan.

China set up its first overseas military base last year in Djibouti, a facility Beijing describes as a military logistics outpost for resupplying Chinese vessels on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions in the Indian Ocean.

Djibouti says US has no reason to worry about Chinese port deal>

The sources close to the military, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also told the Post the Afghanistan outpost would have a different role than the Djibouti base because it was located close to Xinjiang, which Beijing sees as the main source of the “three forces” – separatism, terrorism and extremism – behind a series of violent attacks in the region in recent years.

Watch: Heavy police presence in Kashgar, Xinjiang

“Construction of the base has started, and China will send at least one battalion of troops, along with weapons and equipment, to be stationed there and provide training to their Afghan counterparts,” one of the sources said.

China’s new alliance stirs US worries over possible ‘military base’ in El Salvador
He said that it was unclear when the PLA planned to open the camp and that it was considered a “costly but worthwhile project”.

Russian news agency Ferghana News reported in January that Beijing would finance a new military base in Badakhshan after defence ministers from the two countries agreed last year to work together to fight terrorism, citing General Davlat Vaziri from Afghanistan’s defence ministry.

At the time, China’s defence ministry denied it had a plan to build a “military base” in Afghanistan, but said Beijing had provided aid and support to its neighbour as part of security cooperation efforts, including counterterrorism operations.

The drones that have become part of China’s military strategy
Beijing-based military expert Li Jie said that China had ramped up its anti-terrorism measures but that it also needed to work with other countries in Central Asia and the Middle East.

“If they’re going to eliminate the so-called three forces, they need to go to their power bases and take them down,” Li said.

“But since the PLA is not familiar with the terrain, and with life in Afghanistan, bilateral cooperation is the best way to get win-win results.”

China has extended more than US$70 million in military aid to Afghanistan in the last three years, researcher Ahmad Bilal Khalil, from the Centre for Strategic and Regional Studies in Kabul, said in February. He added that Beijing feared that instability in the neighbouring country could threaten its growing economic interests across the region.

Song Zhongping, a military analyst in Hong Kong, said the camp would benefit both the Chinese military and its Afghan counterparts.

“A key function of the training base will be to strengthen anti-terrorism cooperation and military exchanges between Beijing and Kabul, which is also part of their efforts to stop separatists from infiltrating Xinjiang,” said Song, a military commentator for Phoenix Television.

China’s hi-tech police state in Xinjiang a boon for security firms
“Afghanistan is very weak on counterterrorism, and the authorities there are worried about a Taliban resurgence, but they can’t do anything about it without help from the US, China and other countries.”

Song added that China and Afghanistan had agreed to work together to fight terrorism because of concerns about the East Turkestan Islamic Movement joining forces with the Taliban.

Beijing has blamed the ETIM – a separatist group founded by militant Uygurs – for violent attacks in Xinjiang.

Li Wei, a counterterrorism specialist at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, said that in addition to providing military support, Beijing had also increased economic cooperation with Afghanistan, which is rich in natural resources, with more than 1,400 mineral deposits.

“Defence and [economic] development have always been the basis for mutual benefit,” Li Wei said. “That’s because if both sides just focus on security cooperation, it won’t be a sustainable relationship.”

Afghanistan has been an observer member of the China-led regional security bloc the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) since 2012.

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Beijing ‘building training camp in Afghanistan’
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.businessinsider.com/air..._term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief

Airstrike kills terrorist leader tied to deadly 2017 ambush on US troops in Niger

Ryan Pickrell 17h

A French airstrike on a terrorist camp in Mali killed a senior leader of the Islamic State affiliate in West Africa that killed four Green Berets in a deadly ambush in Niger last year, according to reports from the French military.

Mohamed Ag Almouner, a top official for the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, was found dead by a French-led unit after an airstrike by two Mirage fighters.

The strike also killed another member of the group, as well as two civilians.

A senior official with the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara was killed in a strike on a terrorist camp in Mali involving French warplanes and commandos, the French defense ministry confirmed Monday.

The lifeless body of Mohamed Ag Almouner, a senior leader for the ISIS affiliate that claimed responsibility for a deadly ambush that left four American Green Berets dead in Niger last year, was found on the battlefield by a French-led unit after an airstrike by two Mirage fighter jets Sunday, according to a report from Stars and Stripes, which cited a statement from the French military.

An unidentified member of the group was also killed.

In October 2017, armed Islamic State in the Greater Sahara militants ambushed US and Nigerien troops. Five Nigeriens and four Americans were killed while another ten people were wounded. During the firefight that ensued, US and Nigerien forces managed to kill nearly two dozen terrorists.

The four American special operations soldiers who lost their lives in the fight were: Sgt. La David Johnson, Staff Sgt. Dustin Wright, Sgt. 1st Class Jeremiah Johnson, and Staff Sgt. Bryan Black. The US Army Special Forces team leader Capt. Michael Perozeni, who was singled out for blame in an investigation into the ambush during which he was wounded, is reportedly being considered for a silver star, the military's third-highest valor award for gallantry.

The US military maintains a presence in Niger to "provide training and security assistance to the Nigerien Armed Forces, including support for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance efforts, in their efforts to target violent extremist organizations in the region," US Africa Command spokesman US Navy Lt. Cmdr. Anthony Falvo told CNN after the incident last year.

France has deployed thousands of troops to West Africa for Operation Barkhane, an effort to eradicate Islamist militants in the region.

Sunday's airstrike also ended the lives of two civilians. "The French criteria for opening fire are particularly strict and aim at avoiding civilian casualties," the French military said in a statement, "The proven presence of civilians near the target would have led to the cancellation of the mission. An investigation is underway to determine how civilians were hit during this strike."

US Africa Command said that it "routinely works with our French partners in the Sahel region, who provide a bulk of the force with more than 4,000 military forces," adding that the US remains " committed to assisting the French-led operations to degrade violent extremist organizations and to build the defense capacity of ... Mali and its neighbors."
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/arrest-iranian-spies-u-s-just-tip-iceberg-lawmaker-warns/

Arrest of Iranian Spies in U.S. Just ‘Tip of the Iceberg,’ Lawmaker Warns

Iran spies stationed across U.S. a result of Obama-era cash payouts

BY: Adam Kredo Follow @Kredo0
August 29, 2018 5:00 am

The recent arrest of two Iranian agents alleged to have been running spy operations on U.S. soil is just "the tip of the iceberg" in terms of the Islamic Republic's efforts to conduct intelligence operations in America that could result in a terrorist attack, according to a leading lawmaker and U.S. officials who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon about the matter.

Following the arrest of two Iranian individuals charged with spying on Jewish and Israeli facilities in the California area, Rep. Peter Roskam (R., Ill.) told the Free Beacon it is likely Iran has stationed multiple regime-tied agents in the United States to conduct intelligence operations.

While the arrest of the two Iranians was met with shock in the press, Roskam said he was not surprised by the arrests, which have unearthed concrete evidence of the Islamic Republic's efforts to foment discord across the globe, including on American soil.

"This is the tip of the iceberg," Roskam said in an interview. "This is not a surprise and this is a result of the Iran regime getting financial support from the Obama administration in the Iran deal."

Iran has been emboldened by the lack of international repercussions on its malevolent behavior and may have increased its intelligence operations in America in the years since the landmark nuclear deal, he said.

Iran is "acting with impunity, that deal emboldened them," Roskam said. "This is an unmasking of that. Unfortunately it's all too predictable. Give a malevolent regime huge amounts of cash with no restraining influence and this is what happens."

The Trump Justice Department announced last week it had arrested two Iranians and charged them with spying on behalf of the hardline regime, a discovery that has refocused attention on the Islamic Republic's global spy operations.

Lawmakers and experts have been warning for some time that Iran has stationed what some described as "sleeper cell" agents across the United States. These agents are believed to operate with impunity and could lay the groundwork for a large-scale terror attack on American soil.

The two Iranian individuals—identified as Ahmadreza Mohammadi-Doostdar, a dual U.S.-Iranian citizen, and Majid Ghorbani, an Iranian citizen and resident of California—were formally charged by the Trump administration "with allegedly acting on behalf of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran by conducting covert surveillance of Israeli and Jewish facilities in the United States, and collecting identifying information about American citizens and U.S. nationals who are members of the group Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK)," an Iranian opposition group that promotes regime change in the Islamic Republic, the DOJ announced.

One U.S. official, agreeing with Roskam's assessment, told the Free Beacon Iran has been running "vast espionage and information operations in the United States" with virtual impunity. The arrest of the two recently charged Iranians denotes a significant shift in policy that could result in the capture of more agents.

"If there's anything that's become obvious in the last few months, it's that the Iranians are running vast espionage and information operations in the United States," said the source, who could only discuss the situation on background. "The Trump administration has been warning since day one that some of the windfall Iran got from the nuclear deal has been going into malign cyber operations."

"The propaganda network that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube uncovered was doubling as a hacking network that had been ramping up in the last couple of years," the source said, referring the recent uncovering of a massive social media influence campaign believed to be organized by Iran.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), also a vocal critic of the Iranian regime, told the Free Beacon the recent arrest of the two Iranians is cause for major concern.

"I am deeply alarmed by the Justice Department's new indictment against alleged Iranian agents," Rubio said. "Iran's regime has sponsored terrorist attacks against Americans abroad and our allies, and may now be seeking to target American citizens, as well as Jewish or Israeli facilities, on U.S. soil."

Roskam, in his comment to the Free Beacon, noted that "Iran's malevolence" toward Israel and other countries it considers an enemy is well documented.

"What's new here is a level of aggression against the United States and an impunity with which they're operating," the lawmaker said, referring to the spy operations on Jewish targets—a cornerstone of Iran's global terror operations, particularly its 1994 bombing of a Jewish facility in Argentina that sent shockwaves through the global Jewish community.

The operations on U.S. soil are "incredibly provocative and an indication where the Iranian regime is," Roskam said.

Iran has publicly stated multiple times over the past years that it has a vast espionage network that includes the United States. While many have dismissed these claims as posturing, Roskam said Iran should be taken at its word.

"The takeaway is we can take the Iranians at face value," he said. "They were declarative during the Iran negotiations: They were not willing to make any commitments as it relates to their state sponsorship of terror. It's clear they haven't. This can't be a surprise to anyone. It is entirely consistent with what they've been communicating. The surprise is the idea anyone thought they were slowing down or giving up their aggressive disposition."

Congress will play a prominent role in investigating the matter in the months to come. This will include working with federal law enforcement to ensure Iranian agents are not able to coordinate terror attacks on Jewish or Israeli facilities.

Earlier this year, Congress heard testimony from a panel of experts of former U.S. officials about Iran's "sleeper cell" networks in America.

Iran, through terrorists affiliated with Hezbollah, could easily launch strikes in America.

"They are as good or better at explosive devices than ISIS, they are better at assassinations and developing assassination cells," Michael Pregent, a former intelligence officer who worked to counter Iranian influence in the region, said during the April hearing. "They're better at targeting, better at looking at things," and they can outsource attacks to Hezbollah.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...tm_term=Editorial - Army - Daily News Roundup

To prepare for urban warfare, soldiers train for chemical attack, mass disaster response in Detroit

By: Todd South  
3 hours ago

As the Army and top leaders look to a potential urban fight in dense, dangerous and confusing terrain, their National Guard counterparts are working the complexities of urban response right now.

Recently, troops with the 46th Military Police Command of the Michigan National Guard began a three-year effort to respond to a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attack in Detroit. When they fill that role, soldiers in that unit fall under the command of the active Army, specifically U.S. Army North.

The first stage of the exercise ran for three days, from Aug. 21-23, with a “tabletop exercise” and terrain walk through for leaders and planners to identify who would do what as the Guard units fit into the intricate ways in which many groups coordinate disaster response in urban settings.

-

Fighting in a city? These 7 pieces of gear could help make soldiers, Marines more effective
From vehicles to weapons and communications gear, here are a few items that could make troops more effective.

By: Todd South

-

A key role of Task Force 46 and elements of the MP command is decontaminating those exposed to toxic elements in the CBRN environment. Local agencies, from city to state government and emergency response units, lead their respective areas, but Army assets can hit certain needs at a large scale.

“As you go, the intent is to fill larger gaps rather than take over,” said Robert Naething, deputy to the commanding general of U.S. Army North, which oversees such Army responses inside the United States.

Task Force 46’s key mission is mass decontamination and urban search and rescue, said Maj. Gen. Michael Stone, commanding general of the 46th MP Command and the task force.

While state and local emergency responders do have some capabilities to decontaminate, they’re somewhat limited to a few hundred people at a time.

A mass emergency CBRN event could produce tens of thousands of casualties, Stone said.

There have been similar training exercises with New York City and units at nearby Fort Hamilton, but the Detroit exercise is of a new type of planning between Army Forces Command and the Guard.

It was born, in part, out of the Army’s renewed focus on dense urban terrains, or urban environments.

It’s about going beyond initial responses and stabilization to adding in local experts, academic researchers and the cyber community, among others, to better flesh out all the varieties of situations units face in the urban terrain, Stone said.

While Guard units faced extreme challenges with urban responses to the 9/11 attacks in 2001 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005, cities have become even more interconnected and complex since those events of more than a decade ago.

For that reason, Guard units try to train in the cities they’re designated to help in such situations, rather than rely solely on training centers.

Being able to work with the people you might need in an actual environment and in the actual city where a disaster could take place means better coordination in extreme circumstances.

After this year’s walk through, the unit will meet in the spring for a command post exercise and culminate with a full field exercise with the entire mission command running through real-world type scenarios in mid-2020.

But the exercise doesn’t end there, nor does it end with Detroit, Stone said.

There are ongoing efforts to partner with cities such as Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix and Cleveland in the coming years so that command groups from the various Guard units and Army North can build out their plans and better coordinate with the local contacts in each area.

That’s an area where the Guard has had experience, Stone said. But with this new event, they’re bringing in not only the working agencies but experts in academia and industry who study disaster related problems.

But, since its inside the U.S., the chain of command is somewhat different than in war time scenarios.

“We’re never in charge, we’re always in support,” Naething said. "Either FEMA or DHS is typically in charge.”

And Stone said that soldiers will have to adapt beyond their normal training center rotations. Instead of chow halls and flushing toilets, they’ll be put into areas without power, water and food and must bring what they need or figure out alternatives, just like in a real-world scenario.

“We’ll have to figure out mobile kitchens to feed our soldiers,” Stone said. “We’re going to have terrain and distance problems, communications problems. We’ll be expeditionary, sleeping on the ground.”
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
EndGameWW3
@EndGameShowWW3
US Navy seizes hundreds of weapons from boat in Gulf of Aden
@CNNPolitics

US Navy seizes hundreds of weapons from boat in Gulf of Aden
cnn.com
8:56 PM · Aug 29, 2018
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm…..

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/future-terrorism-practitioners-view

The Future of Terrorism: The Practitioners’ View

by James Howcroft | Wed, 08/29/2018 - 12:24am | 0 comments

The 9/11 Commission identified “lack of imagination” within the counter-terrorism community as a key reason for the failure to stop the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. The failure to realize that airplanes themselves could be used as weapons contributed to the fact that the plot was not detected, and appropriate counter-measures were not taken. It is therefore important for counter-terrorism professionals to try to think from the terrorists’ perspective and to consider possible ways they might adapt and innovate in the future. The Program on Terrorism and Security Studies (PTSS) at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, brings together counter-terrorism professionals and practitioners from around the world for a month twice a year to study contemporary terrorism and the tools and strategies needed to combat it. The 68 participants from 48 countries who attended the PTSS in July 2018 were tasked to use their informed imagination and to think of plausible ways that terrorism might evolve within the next ten years. Participants were asked to provide their assessments in three main areas: motivations, tactics / weapons / technology and likely targets.

Motivations
The group concluded that Salafi-jihadist ideology will continue to play a major role in global terrorist motivations in the near term. A growing youth population with limited economic and social opportunities, exposed vicariously to excitement and adventure via modern social media will be susceptible to those peddling real-life adventure and purpose through membership in a terrorist organization - as was done so successfully by ISIS in recent years. Growing economic inequality, combined with frustration caused by limited employment opportunities for growing youth populations was thus noted as a continued driver for jihadist terrorism, but also for a potential resurgence in left-wing politically motivated violence.

As sizable populations move across borders due to either violence, climate issues or lack of economic opportunity, the growth of radical, anti-immigrant and anti-integration factions established to “defend” the host nations’ identity against foreign cultures and religions is likely. Just as probable will be the formation of reciprocal “self-defense” groups from within the immigrant community ready to use violence to achieve political power to protect their group against perceived marginalization. Existing terrorist organizations could just as well recruit from within the vulnerable and marginalized immigrant community by styling themselves as their defenders against a hostile or uncaring host nation’s population.

Finally, a backlash against advanced technology applications which replace unskilled labor may also become a concern. Economic inequality and job losses caused by technology will most likely be a challenge which governments will find difficult to address, leading to grievances ripe for exploitation. In such a scenario, the prospect of ‘technophobe’ terrorism is not unrealistic.

Tactics, Weapons and Technology
The PTSS participants noted that guns and explosives were the most widespread type of weaponry in use today. There was little expectation that this would change dramatically over the next decade. Guns and bombs have proven effective and are relatively easy to obtain and employ. While a great deal of resources have been devoted by governments to address the threat to civil aviation, terrorists have made widespread use of ordinary cars and trucks to carry out attacks in numerous venues to include Nice, Barcelona, Berlin, London, Stockholm and New York City. Due to the relative ease of carrying out these attacks and their recent successes, there is little reason to expect a drop in this particular tactic. Technological applications to expand the use of driverless cars and trucks present advantages for society, but also challenges requiring them to be safeguarded to prevent their use in remote attacks against civilian or governmental targets.

Terrorists have already started to use drones, at times in swarms, as observed within the past year both in Syria and Iraq. The proliferation of commercially-available, ever more-capable drones and the expansion of their roles in the business and delivery sectors will inevitably result in more frequent use by terrorists. The use of drones in the attempted assassination of Venezuelan President Maduro on the 4th of August 2018 is an early example of the expanded threat that drones will play in the future. The inevitable continued commercial advances in drone miniaturization and programming will present challenges for security services already struggling to adapt to the rapid evolution in drone technology.

The potential use of a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) while perhaps still unlikely, remains a tactic with the potential for outsized impact and influence on a civilian population. Increased urbanization and ever-increasing population densities will multiply and spread a WMD’s effect, whether it be chemical, biological or radiological in nature. Instantaneous and unfiltered social media-hosted communication within populations would fan panic and contagion and potentially overwhelm official attempts to provide accurate and appropriate information regarding the true nature and extent of the threat to its citizens.

There already exists an understanding among CT practitioners that there is convergence of actions and activities between organized criminal organizations and terrorists. This is neither unforeseen, novel nor calamitous and in some cases, it can open opportunities for exploitation by security officials. Participants noted that this terror-crime linkage is likely to grow and deepen, complicating efforts by uncoordinated agencies within governments to address this networked threat. The cyber realm is increasingly exploited by criminals and financial extortionists and it seems reasonable to expect terrorists, learning and adapting from their criminal brethren, to use this methodology to threaten governments to accede to their political demands. Indeed, cyber-skilled terrorists will increasingly exploit online vulnerabilities as governments and everyday consumers rely ever more on the internet. Looking to the future, the rapidly expanding “internet of things”, which is used to run devices and applications central to daily life, is likely to be susceptible to disruption, manipulation and coercion. With cyber operations in mind, it is worth highlighting the fact that most current definitions or understandings of terrorism contain an element of violence or threat of violence. Perhaps this understanding needs to be expanded to include actions which threaten the safety and well-being of populations. Examples might be threats or actual attacks on water or electricity supplies, banking, or air traffic control networks that don’t necessarily result in physical destruction.

Targets
The PTSS participants noted that public transportation networks, which are difficult to protect and expose large numbers of civilians to attack, are likely to remain targeted. While airlines and trains have been attacked in the past, ferries and cruise ships were specifically identified as transportation modes which appear to offer a number of advantages as targets from a terrorist perspective. Other soft targets like street festivals, sporting events and music venues will also remain attractive. Tourist locations that draw a large number of international visitors are difficult to protect in a way that doesn’t deter travelers. For terrorists, attacking such a target ensures widespread global reporting. The 2015 attacks at the Bardo Museum and Sousse beach in Tunisia killed citizens from fourteen nations throughout Europe, Asia, and South America. Such attacks of course also result in significant economic damage for the countries concerned.

The participants further noted the increasing likelihood of attacks by and on children. Indonesia witnessed attacks by families with children in May 2018 and children mounted attacks in Chechnya in August. As nations receive back their citizens who joined Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria and Iraq they have struggled to determine and apply the proper approach and methodology to address children, the so-called “cubs of the caliphate”. Terrorism attacks involving children, either as attackers or victims bring forth strong emotion. No population within societies is more precious than children. Attacks against schools are generally high impact and low-risk. Schools are generally expected to be safe places for children. School attacks shatter this assumption, generate tremendous publicity and arouse intense emotions. A government, under tremendous pressure from an emotional public, would need to take extreme and public measures to demonstrate its ability to protect the most vulnerable in society. Extreme, emotional response by government security forces would almost inevitably result in hasty, ill-prepared and counterproductive measures. However, brutal school attacks, while generating widespread publicity and fear, run the risk of galvanizing public support against a terrorist group, as was the case in the 2014 Tehrik-I-Taliban school massacre in Peshawar, Pakistan.

If growing inequality and economic woes are increasingly relevant motivators for terrorism in the future, the headquarters and other physical and human assets of large multinational corporations will likely be attractive targets. Attacks could be carried out against infrastructure and personnel in less security-capable countries, yet still have a global impact because of the reach of the targeted corporation. Attacks against faceless multinationals, usually owned and run by foreigners, as a blow against the inequality suffered by the population would be an attractive terrorist narrative to gain sympathy and support for its actions. Similarly, companies specializing in technology and automation are likely to present attractive targets for ‘technophobes’. Governments would be hard pressed to justify spending scare resources to defend wealthy corporations instead of their own citizens, meaning these multinationals would need to be largely dependent on themselves for warning, protection and deterrent measures, resulting in further privatization in the Counter Terrorism field.

The motivations, tactics and targets identified and discussed by the PTSS participants are not exhaustive by any means but provide an informal consensus by an experienced global team of CT practitioners. The possibilities identified require no fantastic technological advances, they are adaptations of tools, devices and applications that are widely and inexpensively available to ordinary citizens today and in which terrorists have already shown an interest. Similarly, the possible future grievances the participants identified are already present on the front pages of newspapers around the world. Once a grievance and possible weapons are identified, ascertaining possible targets is certainly possible if analysts and practitioners allow themselves to examine the threat from the terrorists’ perspective. Doing so will allow government leaders to make informed decisions regarding the allocation of finite resources in a way best suited to defend their citizens and their way of life.

About the Author(s)

James Howcroft
James Howcroft serves as the Director of the Program on Terrorism and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall Center. Professor Howcroft retired as a Colonel after 30 years as an Intelligence Officer in the United States Marine Corps. He served in a wide range of Marine Corps tactical and operational intelligence billets, from Infantry Battalion up to the Marine Expeditionary Force level. His combat tours include duty with the 2nd Marine Division in Operation Desert Storm and tours of duty as the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (G2) with both the 1st Marine Division and then the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in Iraq.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/endless-intervention-great-danger-convergence

Endless Intervention: The Great Danger of Convergence

by Bryan T. Baker | Mon, 08/27/2018 - 12:38am | 0 comments

Introduction

The modern national-state is the king of the jungle, but organized criminals, terrorists, traffickers, and insurgents have infiltrated this Leviathan, reducing its vigor and vitality in parasitic fashion. Some scholars see this illicit convergence as capable of bringing down the entire Westphalian system, ushering in a Hobbesian epoch full of violence and fear. While convergence is a threat to US national security and the Westphalian system, the degree of that threat has been overstated; a greater danger of convergence is its ability to draw the US into another seemingly endless series of interventions abroad, some of which may be morally questionable. In this essay I will argue that the threat of convergence to the Westphalian System has been exaggerated. Then, using the FARC and Colombia as a case study, I will argue that convergence is already being used to justify morally questionable interventions.

How Dangerous Is Convergence?

Distinguished researchers Hilary Matfess and Michael Miklaucic[ii] argue that the Westphalian system is weak and vulnerable today because terrorists, insurgents, and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), are increasingly challenging state authority by exploiting the permissive environments of sovereign states.[iii] According to these authors:

“The last ten years have seen unprecedented growth in interactivity between and among a wide range of illicit networks, as well as the emergence of hybrid organizations that use methods characteristic of both terrorists and criminal groups. In a convergence of interests, terrorist organizations collaborate with cartels, and trafficking organizations collude with insurgents.”[iv]

This phenomenon has been extraordinarily difficult for national-states to counter, because such states are not well suited to counter such complex and sophisticated non-state threats. This is due to how national-states initially formed. Dr. Charles Tilly, in his groundbreaking work, Coercion, Capital, and European States, argues that the national-state emerged as the dominant type of state in the world system because it was the most efficient at making war with other types of states. This was due to the advantages the national-state had in coercive power and in bringing resources to bear in wars. Due to these advantages, most states eventually adopted this model of organization as a survival mechanism.[v] Thus, the national-state emerged from a natural selection process that equipped it to counter other sovereign states—not illicit non-state actors. Though the national-state is infinitely more powerful than most illicit groups—as a lion is more powerful than a parasite—these groups evolved specifically to exploit the national-state system. Characteristics that are meant to keep a national-state safe from other national-states—such as state sovereignty, massive military power, and a plethora of natural resources—are all exploited by illicit groups to achieve their goals, while providing little utility to the state in its attempt to combat them.

Though dealing with illicit groups has always been an issue for national-states, Matfess and Miklaucic contend that convergence—or “the interactivity and hybridization of diverse illicit networks”[vi]—drastically raises the stakes. Like a parasite that takes control of its host, these scholars argue that growing convergence among such groups will lead to hybridization, and the capture of entire states. This will result in criminal national-states that do not conform to the rules and norms of the Westphalian system, but instead embrace an “ecosystem of crime and violence [that] threatens us all and much of the progress we have seen in recent centuries.”[vii]

Their thesis is not without its critics. Some argue, for instance, that highly ideological terrorist organizations tend to not want to work with criminal groups who are typically motivated by greed or the desire for power. Likewise, criminal groups who prefer to stay under the radar would be wise to avoid association with terror groups that intentionally draw attention to themselves through high profile attacks that elicit powerful responses from powerful states.[viii] Such analyses fail to recognize that world history is full of unlikely partners allied in the face of a common enemy; the US and USSR in World War II is a case in point. Thus, though these illicit groups may have widely varying goals and ideologies, and though they may despise other illicit groups, an assortment of factors can and does forge alliances of opportunity between such organizations.

Other detractors, like John Fishel, claim that insurgency, terrorism, and organized crime have co-existed throughout recorded history, and that their modern manifestations are very similar to those of the past.[ix] As proof for his thesis, Fishel puts forward piracy sponsored by Rome, the Barbary States, and the British Empire. He also mentions the Ku Klux Klan, their “low-grade guerilla warfare,” and their reign of terror in the South during Reconstruction. Taking Fishel’s comments on the KKK a step further, we can see this was clearly a convergent group that had both economic and political reasons for committing acts of violence that were committed with the tacit approval of Southern state governments. But an example of convergence that Fishel does not mention is perhaps even more telling. Could not the British in the 1770s have labeled American patriot groups like the Sons of Liberty as “convergent” groups of crime and terror? The Sons of Liberty were smuggling illicit goods to avoid British customs duties while committing acts of political violence (terrorism?) against British tax collectors.

Matfess and Miklaucic believe that such assertions are naive and discount modern enablers like transportation advances, communication and information technology, and the unprecedented profits to be found in the illicit markets of the modern world. These allow illicit groups “to avail themselves of lethal technology, military-grade weaponry, real-time information, and professional services of the highest quality, including legal, accounting, security, and paramilitary services.”[x] For Matfess and Miklaucic these modern enablers dramatically raise the stakes. They argue that this convergence between illicit groups really could bring down the Westphalian system and usher in a Hobbesian new world order based on violence and fear.[xi] This fear is overblown. First, as stated above, world history is full of examples of convergence; not much is new here beyond the technology advances, which the ‘good guys’ also benefit from. Second, parasites rarely kill their host.[xii] Why would illicit groups want to bring down a Westphalian system which they have learned to exploit so successfully? Furthermore, the Westphalian concept of state sovereignty actually protects criminal leaders who manage to gain control of a state by protecting them from foreign intervention and giving them a near monopoly on illicit (and licit) activity in their territory.[xiii] Therefore, while convergence is a real threat that the US should counter, it is not Armageddon. The idea of convergence does invoke fear, however, and it is the fear of convergence that poses the greatest threat to countries like the United States.

Exploiting the Threat?

During the Cold War, the United States justified a multitude of military interventions and proxy wars abroad—some justified, some not—by citing the need to contain communism. The United States also sent piles of development aid (itself, or through International Monetary Fund or World Bank loans) to its developing world allies in the cause of containment. Often, this aid wound up in the accounts of dictators that were guilty of egregious human rights abuses in their home countries; said rights abuses were largely ignored by America because countering the Soviet Union trumped all else, or because the US wanted natural resources from said countries.[xiv] William Easterly, renowned development economist at New York University, contends that the Global War on Terror (GWOT) is the new communism—that America will overlook an assortment of human rights abuses perpetrated by its allies, if said allies are willing to cooperate in the GWOT or provide the US with natural resources.[xv]

This already troubling phenomenon becomes increasingly problematic in a world of convergence, where an assortment of illicit activities are likely to be viewed by US decisionmakers through the GWOT lens. The result could be another half-century of morally questionable US interventions abroad. In order to explore this idea further, I will consider an instance in this century where the US has already overlooked rights abuses in order to tackle a convergent illicit group and gain natural resources.

Rights Abuses in Colombia

The FARC[xvi] is commonly referenced in papers on convergence because the group conducted guerrilla warfare, terrorism, drug trafficking, and a host of other illicit activities. The group also had ties to an al-Qaeda affiliate[xvii] and to the Hugo Chavez regime.[xviii] According to renowned insurgency scholar Bard O’Neil however, the FARC should be characterized as a classic Egalitarian Insurgency—one that sought to create a new social, political, and economic system based on distributional equality.[xix] This insurgency was the result of extreme social, economic, and political inequality in rural Colombia,[xx] as well as the fact that wealthy landowners frequently sent death squads to attack the poor and take their land.[xxi] Though the FARC did utilize terrorism, such tactics are common in civil war and do not automatically make a group commensurate with al-Qaeda. Also, while the FARC largely funded their insurgency through the drug trade,[xxii] the FARC’s motivations for fighting were based on grievance, not greed. Perhaps the best evidence in support of this assertion is the fact that, despite earning billions from the drug trade,[xxiii] FARC leaders spent decades in the jungle living in primitive conditions and enduring constant hardships.[xxiv] This is in stark contrast to the gaudy mansions and decadent lifestyles of those, like Pablo Escobar, who were in the drug business for non-ideological reasons.

Thus, while this insurgent group did utilize some of the techniques of terrorist organizations and drug cartels, they were something very different, say, from the so-called Islamic State or the Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Yet, when the US government (USG) went after the FARC through Plan Colombia, the action was largely sold to the American people as a counter-narcotics initiative.[xxv] Then, a few years later (after 9/11) the US government began labeling the group as “narcoterrorists” so that efforts against the FARC could be grafted into the Global War on Terror.[xxvi]

In order to sell the image of the FARC as narcoterrorists—as opposed to egalitarian insurgents—the US government launched a propaganda campaign at home and in Colombia.[xxvii] In this campaign, US Secretary of State Colin Powell informed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the FARC should be classified in the same category as al-Qaeda, Senator Bob Graham claimed that the situation in Colombia warranted making it the main theater in the Global War on Terror, and the head of US Southern Command labeled drugs a ‘weapon of mass destruction’.[xxviii] The campaign worked. In July of 2002 the US Congress passed a $28 billion counterterrorism bill that included $35 million to support efforts in Colombia.[xxix]

Thus far in this paper, the FARC has been cast in a relatively sympathetic light. But the group, of course, was guilty of all sorts of kidnappings, massacres, acts of terrorism, and drug related activities. Why then, was US intervention against the FARC ill-conceived? First, all of those illicit acts—though terrible—were in response to legitimate grievances against a state that had failed to live up to its basic responsibility of maintaining a state monopoly on violence. Second, in supporting the Government of Colombia (GOC) in its war on the FARC, the US was indirectly supporting right-wing death squads—which, by the way, were also heavily involved in the drug trade and frequently committed acts of terror—that regularly colluded with the GOC in the war against the guerrillas.[xxx] By the 1980s, these paramilitary groups were committing a majority of human rights abuses in Colombia; one study in 1999 by Human Rights Watch showed that 78% of human rights abuses committed were attributable to these paramilitaries.[xxxi] Therefore, in aiding the GOC, the US was tacitly allied with groups that were arguably even worse than the FARC.

If the FARC was not really an international terrorist organization like al-Qaeda, and if other groups were committing more human rights abuses than they were, why was the US so keen on attacking them? Senator Graham’s argument for classifying the FARC as a terrorist organization on par with al-Qaeda provides an answer. In October of 2001, Graham claimed that out of the nearly five hundred terrorist attacks committed against the United States in 2000, 44% percent occurred in Colombia. What Graham failed to disclose was the fact that the vast majority of said attacks were bombings of oil pipelines associated with US companies; not a single US citizen was killed in the attacks he referenced.[xxxii] If US motives for involving itself in Colombia’s civil war were not already clear enough based on Graham’s statement, things became abundantly more so in late 2002 when the Bush administration asked Congress to authorize $94 million in order to assist the Government of Colombia in protecting oil pipelines in the country so that American oil supplies would be secure during the Global War on Terror— US Special Forces troops were subsequently sent to train GOC forces to protect said pipelines.[xxxiii] Now, this author will admit that there were also good reasons to intervene against the FARC. The fact remains, however, that this intervention was morally questionable, and that it was largely justified based on the idea of convergent threats.

Recommendations

According to Scott Helfstein and John Solomon—scholars writing for the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, “Appending the label ‘criminal’ or ‘terrorist’ on a particular organization that may or may not always be consistent with its raison d'être, objectives and motives could create problems for countering such groups in the future.”[xxxiv] This statement appears prophetic in the FARC’s case. Though the group technically no longer exists as an insurgency, FARC demobilization camps around Colombia are experiencing massive depopulation; the former guerrillas are disappearing,[xxxv] and allegedly joining Mexican transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), the National Liberation Army (ELN), and other illicit groups that are carving up the FARC’s former territory.[xxxvi] This is because the root causes that led to the creation of the FARC were never fully remedied. The Colombian countryside remains impoverished, violent, and at times isolated from the state. Furthermore, land inequality actually worsened over the life of the FARC insurgency; Colombia currently has the most unequal land distribution in Latin America with “the largest one percent of landholdings concentrat[ing] 81 percent of land, leaving only 19 percent of land distributed among the remaining 99 percent of farms.”[xxxvii] So what will demobilizing FARC fighters do, become farm laborers for Colombia’s ultra-rich? Of course not, that would be contrary to everything the group fought for. Thus, they will take their martial skills to other organizations. Had the US and the GOC dealt with the FARC as they deserved to be—as belligerents in a civil war with legitimate grievances—and had grievances been redressed, Colombia may very well have experienced peace. Instead, Colombia will just have to deal with the same security problems in their latest manifestations.

While convergence certainly poses a threat to US national security, the US must be careful to evaluate every group’s raison d'être before joining the fight against them. Or, to be clearer, Congress should duly conduct this evaluation before authorizing funding for future interventions, even if US government agencies are adamant in their internal classification of a particular group. The linkages of convergence can make almost any illicit group appear to be narcotics-based or terror-based, but such labels may not adequately reflect the reason the group exists in the first place—said labels may be applied and exaggerated to secure congressional funding or public support for intervention. This can result in combating symptoms, instead of the root causes that brought that group into existence in the first place. It can also result in the dismantling of one group, only for it to be replaced by those that are far worse—for convergent groups are not only parasites, they’re Hydras.

Bibliography

Brown, Kimberley. "Why Are Former FARC Rebels Leaving Reintegration Camps?" Colombia News | Al Jazeera. March 30, 2018. Accessed April 02, 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/farc-rebels-leaving-reintegration-camps-180327141706796.html.
Bruce, Victoria, Karin Hayes, and Jorge Enrique Botero. Hostage nation: Colombia’s Guerrilla Army and the Failed War on Drugs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010.
Colombia's Challenge: Addressing Land Inequality and Consolidating Peace | Oxfam International Blogs." https://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blogs/17...ddressing-land-inequality-consolidating-peace.
Felter, Claire, and Danielle Renwick. "Colombia's Civil Conflict." Council on Foreign Relations. January 11, 2017. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/colombias-civil-conflict.
Easterly, William. The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor. New York: Basic Books, a Member of the Perseus Book Group, 2015. Pg. 6, 9, 105, 118
Felbab-Brown, Vanda. Shooting Up: Counterinsurgency and the War On Drugs. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2009.
Fishel, John T. "Afterword." In Gangs, Pseudo-Militaries, and Other Modern Mercenaries: New Dynamics in Uncomfortable Wars, by Max G. Manwaring, 167-82. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2011.
Forero, Juan. "New Role for U.S. in Colombia: Protecting a Vital Oil Pipeline." The New York Times. October 04, 2002. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/...colombia-protecting-a-vital-oil-pipeline.html.
Helfstein, Scott, and John Solomon. Risky Business: The Global Threat Network and the Politics of Contraband. Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, 2014.
"Lincoln's Spot Resolutions." National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed March 31, 2018. https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/lincoln-resolutions.
Leech, Garry M. The FARC: The Longest Insurgency. Halifax: Fernwood Pub., 2011.
Matfess, Hilary, and Michael Miklaucic, eds. Beyond Convergence: World without Order. Washington, D.C.: Center for Complex Operations, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 2016.
"'Mexican Drug Cartels Are Rearming Colombia's Demobilized Guerrillas'." Colombia News | Colombia Reports. February 06, 2018. Accessed April 02, 2018. https://colombiareports.com/mexican-drug-cartels-rearming-demobilized-farc-guerrillas/.
Miklaucic, Michael and Brewer, Jacqueline, eds. "Convergence: Illicit Networks and National Security in the Age of Globalization." National Defense University Press. April 01, 2013. Accessed April 02, 2018. http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/...ational-security-in-the-age-of-globalization/.
Nordqvist, Christian. "Parasites: Types, in Humans, Worms, and Ectoparasites." Medical News Today. February 16, 2018. Accessed April 02, 2018. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/220302.php.
O'Neill, Bard E. Insurgency & Terrorism: From Revolution to Apocalypse. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2005
Paulo, Robin Yapp in Sao. "South American Drug Gangs Funding Al-Qaeda Terrorists." The Telegraph. December 29, 2010. Accessed March 31, 2018. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...n-drug-gangs-funding-al-Qaeda-terrorists.html.
"The FARC and Colombia's Illegal Drug Trade." Wilson Center. November 25, 2014. Accessed March 30, 2018. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-farc-and-colombias-illegal-drug-trade.
Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, Capital and European States, A.D. 990 - 1992. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Pg 9
"United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect." United Nations. Accessed April 02, 2018. http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.html.
End Notes
Hilary Matfess is a researcher with the Institute for Defense Analysis.

[ii] Michael Miklaucic is the Director of Research, Information, and Publications at the Center for Complex Operations.

[iii] Matfess, Hilary, and Michael Miklaucic, eds. Beyond Convergence: World without Order. Washington, D.C.: Center for Complex Operations, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, 2016. Pg ix.

[iv] Matfess and Miklaucic ix

[v] Tilly, Charles. 1992. Coercion, Capital and European States, A.D. 990 - 1992. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Pg 11 and 17

[vi] Matfess and Miklaucic x

[vii] Matfess and Miklaucic ix-x

[viii] Matfess and Miklaucic x

[ix] Fishel, John T. "Afterword." In Gangs, Pseudo-Militaries, and Other Modern Mercenaries: New Dynamics in Uncomfortable Wars, by Max G. Manwaring, 167-82. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 2011.

[x] Matfess and Miklaucic x-xi

[xi] Matfess and Miklaucic xiv

[xii] Nordqvist, Christian. "Parasites: Types, in Humans, Worms, and Ectoparasites." Medical News Today. February 16, 2018. Accessed April 02, 2018. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/220302.php.

[xiii] "United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect." United Nations. Accessed April 02, 2018. http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.html.

[xiv] Easterly, William. The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor. New York: Basic Books, a Member of the Perseus Book Group, 2015. Pg. 6, 9, 105, 118

[xv] Easterly 118

[xvi] Las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia—Ejército del Pueblo, will be referenced in this paper as simply ‘the FARC.’

[xvii] Paulo, Robin Yapp in Sao. "South American Drug Gangs Funding Al-Qaeda Terrorists." The Telegraph. December 29, 2010. Accessed March 31, 2018. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...n-drug-gangs-funding-al-Qaeda-terrorists.html.

[xviii] Miklaucic, Michael and Brewer, Jacqueline, eds. "Convergence: Illicit Networks and National Security in the Age of Globalization." National Defense University Press. April 01, 2013. Accessed April 02, 2018. http://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/...ational-security-in-the-age-of-globalization/.

[xix] O'Neill, Bard E. Insurgency & Terrorism: From Revolution to Apocalypse. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, 2005. Pg. 20

[xx] Felbab-Brown, Vanda. Shooting Up: Counterinsurgency and the War On Drugs. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2009. Pg. 77

[xxi] Bruce, Victoria, Karin Hayes, and Jorge Enrique Botero. Hostage nation: Colombia’s Guerrilla Army and the Failed War on Drugs. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010. Pg. 22

[xxii] Felbab-Brown 79-80

[xxiii] "The FARC and Colombia's Illegal Drug Trade." Wilson Center. November 25, 2014. Accessed March 30, 2018. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-farc-and-colombias-illegal-drug-trade.

[xxiv] Leech, Garry M. The FARC: The Longest Insurgency. Halifax: Fernwood Pub., 2011. Pg. 72

[xxv] Leech 77

[xxvi] Leech 87

[xxvii] Leech 87

[xxviii] Leech 86 and 87

[xxix] Leech 87

[xxx] Leech 106-107

[xxxi] Leech 105-106

[xxxii] Leech 86

[xxxiii] Forero, Juan. "New Role for U.S. in Colombia: Protecting a Vital Oil Pipeline." The New York Times. October 04, 2002. https://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/04/...colombia-protecting-a-vital-oil-pipeline.html.

[xxxiv] Helfstein, Scott, and John Solomon. Risky Business: The Global Threat Network and the Politics of Contraband. Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, 2014. 20

[xxxv] Brown, Kimberley. "Why Are Former FARC Rebels Leaving Reintegration Camps?" Colombia News | Al Jazeera. March 30, 2018. Accessed April 02, 2018. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/farc-rebels-leaving-reintegration-camps-180327141706796.html.

[xxxvi] "'Mexican Drug Cartels Are Rearming Colombia's Demobilized Guerrillas'." Colombia News | Colombia Reports. February 06, 2018. Accessed April 02, 2018. https://colombiareports.com/mexican-drug-cartels-rearming-demobilized-farc-guerrillas/.

[xxxvii] "Colombia's Challenge: Addressing Land Inequality and Consolidating Peace | Oxfam International Blogs." https://blogs.oxfam.org/en/blogs/17...ddressing-land-inequality-consolidating-peace.

Categories: Colombia - FARC - Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia - El Centro

About the Author(s)

Bryan T. Baker
Bryan T. Baker is an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army Reserve. He also teaches Humane Letters - with an emphasis on American history and literature - at a classical preparatory academy in the Phoenix area. Bryan holds a B.A. in Political Science and History from the University of Arizona. He is currently completing a M.A. in International Security through the same institution. Follow Bryan on twitter @therealbbakes - The views represented in his articles are those of the author alone and do not reflect those of any government or organization with which he is associated.
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Russia to hold Mediterranean drills involving 25 warships and 30 aircraft
September 1-8 with the involvement of 25 warships and 30 aircraft, the Defense Ministry reported on Thursday.


"In accordance with the training plan of the Russian Armed Forces, large-scale drills of the grouping of forces (troops) of the Russian Navy and the Aerospace Force will be conducted on September 1-8, 2018 in the Mediterranean Sea under the direction of Navy Commander-in-Chief Admiral Vladimir Korolyov," the ministry said.

The Mediterranean drills will involve warships of the Northern, Baltic and Black Sea Fleets and the Caspian Flotilla and the aircraft of long-range, military transport and naval aviation, the ministry said.

During the drills in the Mediterranean Sea, there are plans "to deploy a grouping of over 25 warships and support vessels led by the missile cruiser Marshal Ustinov," the ministry said.

"In the international airspace, training tasks will be practiced by about 30 aircraft, including the strategic Tu-160 missile-carrying bombers, the Tu-142MK and Il-38 anti-submarine warfare planes, Su-33 fighter jets and Su-30SM aircraft of naval aviation," the ministry said.

In accordance with the plan of the drills in the Mediterranean Sea," the grouping will practice a set of tasks of air defense, anti-submarine and anti-sabotage warfare and also mine counter-measures support," the ministry noted.

For the purpose of ensuring the safety of shipping and flights, the areas covered by the drills will be declared dangerous for navigation and flights in advance, in accordance with international legislation, the Russian Defense Ministry said.



More:
http://tass.com/defense/1019265
 

danielboon

TB Fanatic
Vincent Lee

Verified account

@Rover829
6h6 hours ago
More
Reuters: #CHINA FOREIGN MINISTRY SAYS "IRRESPONSIBLE" #US REMARKS ON CHINA AND #NORTHKOREA ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND
 

night driver

ESFP adrift in INTJ sea
Vincent Lee

Verified account

@Rover829
6h6 hours ago
More
Reuters: #CHINA FOREIGN MINISTRY SAYS "IRRESPONSIBLE" #US REMARKS ON CHINA AND #NORTHKOREA ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND

well, yeah, inconvenient, contradictory to the agenda truths ARE hard to understand.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
This is not going to end well....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...warning-to-enemies/ar-BBMGBJl?ocid=spartandhp

Exclusive: Iran moves missiles to Iraq in warning to enemies

By John Irish and Ahmed Rasheed
13 mins ago

Iran has given ballistic missiles to Shi'ite proxies in Iraq and is developing the capacity to build more there to deter attacks on its interests in the Middle East and to give it the means to hit regional foes, Iranian, Iraqi and Western sources said.

Any sign that Iran is preparing a more aggressive missile policy in Iraq will exacerbate tensions between Tehran and Washington, already heightened by U.S. President Donald Trump's decision to pull out of a 2015 nuclear deal with world powers.

It would also embarrass France, Germany and the United Kingdom, the three European signatories to the nuclear deal, as they have been trying to salvage the agreement despite new U.S. sanctions against Tehran.

According to three Iranian officials, two Iraqi intelligence sources and two Western intelligence sources, Iran has transferred short-range ballistic missiles to allies in Iraq over the last few months. Five of the officials said it was helping those groups to start making their own.

"The logic was to have a backup plan if Iran was attacked," one senior Iranian official told Reuters. "The number of missiles is not high, just a couple of dozen, but it can be increased if necessary."

Iran has previously said its ballistic missile activities are purely defensive in nature. Iranian officials declined to comment when asked about the latest moves.

The Iraqi government and military both declined to comment.

The Zelzal, Fateh-110 and Zolfaqar missiles in question have ranges of about 200 km to 700 km, putting Saudi Arabia's capital Riyadh or the Israeli city of Tel Aviv within striking distance if the weapons were deployed in southern or western Iraq.

The Quds Force, the overseas arm of Iran's powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has bases in both those areas. Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani is overseeing the program, three of the sources said.

Western countries have already accused Iran of transferring missiles and technology to Syria and other allies of Tehran, such as Houthi rebels in Yemen and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

Iran's Sunni Muslim Gulf neighbors and its arch-enemy Israel have expressed concerns about Tehran's regional activities, seeing it as a threat to their security.
Israeli officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the missile transfers.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Wednesday that anybody that threatened to wipe Israel out "would put themselves in a similar danger".

MISSILE PRODUCTION LINE
The Western source said the number of missiles was in the 10s and that the transfers were designed to send a warning to the United States and Israel, especially after air raids on Iranian troops in Syria. The United States has a significant military presence in Iraq.

"It seems Iran has been turning Iraq into its forward missile base," the Western source said.

The Iranian sources and one Iraqi intelligence source said a decision was made some 18 months ago to use militias to produce missiles in Iraq, but activity had ramped up in the last few months, including with the arrival of missile launchers.

"We have bases like that in many places and Iraq is one of them. If America attacks us, our friends will attack America's interests and its allies in the region," said a senior IRGC commander who served during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

The Western source and the Iraqi source said the factories being used to develop missiles in Iraq were in al-Zafaraniya, east of Baghdad, and Jurf al-Sakhar, north of Kerbala. One Iranian source said there was also a factory in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The areas are controlled by Shi'ite militias, including Kata'ib Hezbollah, one of the closest to Iran. Three sources said Iraqis had been trained in Iran as missile operators.

The Iraqi intelligence source said the al-Zafaraniya factory produced warheads and the ceramic of missile moulds under former President Saddam Hussein. It was reactivated by local Shi'ite groups in 2016 with Iranian assistance, the source said.

A team of Shi'ite engineers who used to work at the facility under Saddam were brought in, after being screened, to make it operational, the source said. He also said missiles had been tested near Jurf al-Sakhar.

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon declined to comment.

One U.S official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Tehran over the last few months has transferred missiles to groups in Iraq but could not confirm that those missiles had any launch capability from their current positions.

Washington has been pushing its allies to adopt a tough anti-Iran policy since it reimposed sanctions this month.

While the European signatories to the nuclear deal have so far balked at U.S. pressure, they have grown increasingly impatient over Iran's ballistic missile program.

France in particular has bemoaned Iranian "frenzy" in developing and propagating missiles and wants Tehran to open negotiations over its ballistic weapons.

Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian said on Thursday that Iran was arming regional allies with rockets and allowing ballistic proliferation. "Iran needs to avoid the temptation to be the (regional) hegemon," he said.

In March, the three nations proposed fresh EU sanctions on Iran over its missile activity, although they failed to push them through after opposition from some member states.

"Such a proliferation of Iranian missile capabilities throughout the region is an additional and serious source of concern," a document from the three European countries said at the time.

MESSAGE TO FOES
A regional intelligence source also said Iran was storing a number of ballistic missiles in areas of Iraq that were under effective Shi'ite control and had the capacity to launch them.

The source could not confirm that Iran has a missile production capacity in Iraq.

A second Iraqi intelligence official said Baghdad had been aware of the flow of Iranian missiles to Shi'ite militias to help fight Islamic State militants, but that shipments had continued after the hardline Sunni militant group was defeated.

"It was clear to Iraqi intelligence that such a missile arsenal sent by Iran was not meant to fight Daesh (Islamic State) militants but as a pressure card Iran can use once involved in regional conflict," the official said.

The Iraqi source said it was difficult for the Iraqi government to stop or persuade the groups to go against Tehran.

"We can't restrain militias from firing Iranian rockets because simply the firing button is not in our hands, it's with Iranians who control the push button," he said.

"Iran will definitely use the missiles it handed over to Iraqi militia it supports to send a strong message to its foes in the region and the United States that it has the ability to use Iraqi territories as a launch pad for its missiles to strike anywhere and anytime it decides," the Iraqi official said.

Iraq's parliament passed a law in 2016 to bring an assortment of Shi'ite militia groups known collectively as the Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF) into the state apparatus. The militias report to Iraq's prime minister, who is a Shi'ite under the country's unofficial governance system.

However, Iran still has a clear hand in coordinating the PMF leadership, which frequently meets and consults with Soleimani.

(Additional reporting by Phil Stewart and Jonathan Landay in Washington; editing by David Clarke)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummmm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/08/russia-co-opting-angry-young-men/150926/?oref=d-skybox

Russia Is Co-opting Angry Young Men

Fight clubs, neo-Nazi soccer hooligans, and motorcycle gangs serve as conduits for the Kremlin’s influence operations in Western countries.

BY MICHAEL CARPENTER
THE ATLANTIC
READ BIO
AUGUST 30, 2018

Deep in the forests of Slovakia, former Russian Spetsnaz commandos trained young men from a right-wing paramilitary group called the Slovak Conscripts. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014, some of these freshly-minted paramilitaries went to fight with Russian forces in eastern Ukraine while others stayed at home to agitate against nato as a “terrorist organization.”

On the streets of the French city Marseille, Russian soccer hooligans sporting tattoos with the initials of Russia’s military intelligence service, GRU, brutally attacked English soccer fans in June 2016, sending dozens of bloodied fans to the hospital. Alexander Shprygin, an ultranationalist agitator and the head of the All-Russian Union of Supporters (a soccer fan club that he claims was established at the behest of the Russian Federal Security Service, or FSB), was arrested during the melee and deported from France.

In Budapest’s Fiumei Road Cemetery in May 2017, a Russian motorcycle gang carrying giant red flags displaying the Soviet hammer and sickle rode up to a World War II memorial. Somewhat incongruously, the tattooed bikers, accompanied by pinstriped Russian Embassy diplomats, disembarked from their motorcycles to lay red carnations in front of the memorial and then posted a video clip of it online.

It seems almost too strange to be true: fight clubs, neo-Nazi soccer hooligans, and motorcycle gangs serving as conduits for the Kremlin’s influence operations in Western countries. It sounds more like an episode of The Americans with a dash of Mad Max and Fight Club mixed in. Yet this is exactly what is happening across Europe and North America as Russia’s intelligence services co-opt fringe radicals and angry young men to try to undermine Western democracies from within. And not just in the virtual world, but in real life.

Part of the appeal of this strategy is its sheer outlandishness. It may seem implausible that Russia’s secret services could recruit or radicalize skinheads or social outcasts in the West. The Kremlin can easily argue that whatever ties exist between far-right groups in Russia and the West occur spontaneously, and have no connection to the Russian state. But whether it be Serb ultranationalists in Montenegro or neo-Nazis in Hungary, the hand of Russia’s intelligence services has in many cases already been exposed. Russia’s ongoing war in eastern Ukraine, waged using separatist proxies under the firm command and control of the Russian military, has provided a convenient recruiting ground for right-wing fanatics from Brazil to Belarus.

After the Kremlin accelerated its covert war against Western democracies in the aftermath of its invasion of Ukraine, Russia’s intelligence services dramatically ramped up their “active measures” (in Russian intelligence jargon, aktivnyye meropriyatiya or “active measures” refers to a broad range of covert influence and/or subversive operations) using radical-right and fringe groups. These groups serve as the perfect unwitting agents to accomplish Moscow’s twin goals of destabilizing Western societies and co-opting Western business and political elites.

By forging ties to radical groups on the far right, and sometimes on the far left, the Kremlin has developed convenient local surrogates that can amplify its talking points, even as Russian trolls reinforce the divisive narratives such groups spread online.

It would be a mistake, however, to think that the partnerships between the Kremlin and these groups are always marriages of convenience. Many are genuine partnerships based on a shared aversion to liberal democracy and a desire to undermine it.

The Kremlin’s recruitment of skinheads, biker gangs, soccer hooligans, and street fighters does not usually appear geared toward the armed overthrow of democratic governments. Far more often, the recruitment, indoctrination, and manipulation of fringe right-wing groups seems aimed at sowing political chaos in Western democracies and subverting or weakening democratic institutions. But occasionally, as in Ukraine, these proxies can operate directly in support of Kremlin operations.

An imposing figure at 6 foot 3, Alexander Zaldostanov, a former dental surgeon with scraggly shoulder-length hair and a goatee, is now the leader of a Russian motorcycle gang called the Night Wolves. Typically photographed in black-leather biker gear, Zaldostanov is a well-known figure in Russia: He was a torchbearer for the 2014 Sochi Olympics and a recipient of the Order of Honorfrom Russian President Vladimir Putin for “patriotic education of youth.” An ardent nationalist, Zaldostanov tries to evoke the spirit of romantic imperialism and conquest modeled on Russia’s famous Cossack horsemen, as well as a countercultural rebelliousness designed to appeal to Russian Millennials and youth. The Night Wolves’ unifying “ideology,” to the extent that one exists, is based on contempt for the West, which is portrayed as feeble, decadent, rootless, and libertine. Zaldostanov once suggested “death to faggots” would be an appropriate motto for the “anti–color revolution” group he founded with the ultranationalist politician Nikolai Starikov and others.

After arriving in Sevastopol in February 2014, Zaldostanov took charge of a detachment of Night Wolves and set up roadblocks around the city. A couple weeks later, the bikers helped storm the Ukrainian naval headquarters to force the surrender of the beleaguered forces stuck inside, marking a decisive turning point in Russia’s semi-covert operation to annex the peninsula. The Night Wolves’ operational role in this armed takeover was second only to Russia’s infamous “little green men,” Russian special-operations forces with their insignias removed. As far as the GRU’s psychological operations (“psy-ops”) were concerned, however, the Night Wolves played the leading role.

Russian state-owned media, and some Western journalists who followed suit, portrayed the Night Wolves as patriotic locals acting spontaneously in support of the Russian putsch, reveling in the attractive story line and the accompanying photographs and video footage of tattooed bikers. The Kremlin’s narrative of “tough guys” taking matters into their own hands was carefully stage-managed to distract attention from the story the Kremlin did not want told: the Russian military’s coordinated attack on Ukraine.

Although the exact nature of the Night Wolves’ ties to Russia’s secret services is still somewhat murky, the U.S. government believes that, at a minimum, their operations in Crimea from February to March 2014 were closely coordinated by the GRU. When the United States sanctioned the Night Wolves in December 2014, the Treasury Department noted in a press release that “the Night Wolves have been closely connected to the Russian special services.” The statement enumerated the group’s actions in support of the takeover of Crimea, including intimidation, criminal activities, abduction, storming a gas-distribution station, and exfiltrating members of Viktor Yanukovych’s regime from Ukraine.

The Night Wolves’ links to the Kremlin are, however, readily apparent. Putin has met with the bikers numerous times since 2009, and he personally hopped onto a Harley Davidson three-wheeler to ride alongside them in the port city of Novorossiysk in August 2011. (One has to wonder, though, about his choice of vehicle.) Whatever the original impetus may have been for establishing the club, by 2010 it had been thoroughly transformed. The Kremlin political strategist Vladislav Surkov—who later oversaw Russia’s covert operations in eastern Ukraine— supported the idea of using the Night Wolves as an anti-Western spectacle to galvanize Russian-nationalist sentiment, according to Peter Pomerantsev, an expert on Russian information warfare. It was also reportedly Surkov who gave the Night Wolves prime-time billing on Russian television, transforming the obscure biker club into a household name.

One series of Night Wolves “shows” for children (subsidized by the Kremlin) featured Russian characters chastising Americans for threatening Russia with sanctions, bragging about their country’s nuclear weapons, and “denouncing the ‘stupidity’ of the west,” The Guardian reported. Today, the Night Wolves often stage elaborate concert-like performances across Russia that double as nationalist rallies and Cirque du Soleil–type extravaganzas, at which they sell branded motorcycle gear and market their own clothing line.

As their ties to Russia’s intelligence services deepened following the Crimean operation, the Night Wolves expanded their activity into a number of European countries. The Night Wolves’ visit in March 2018 to the Bosnian entity of Republika Srpska was underwritten by a $41,000 grant from the Kremlin, according to The New York Times, and had a clear geopolitical aim: to provide visible support to the pro-Kremlin president of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, and tacitly support his calls for the secession of Republika Srpska from the rest of Bosnia. (Secession would result in the breakup of Bosnia’s fragile multiethnic state and preclude its membership in nato and the European Union, a key Kremlin foreign policy goal). Outside of Republika Srpska and Serbia, the Night Wolves are viewed with suspicion, if not outright hostility. Georgia, Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states have banned the Night Wolves from entering their countries, understanding their mission as fomenting confrontation and chaos within Western societies on behalf of the Kremlin. Slovak President Andrej Kiska recently called the Night Wolves “a tool of the [Putin] regime” and “a serious security risk” for Slovakia.

However, while some Western countries have banned the individual members of the Russian Night Wolves by putting them on visa blacklists, constitutionally they cannot prevent their own citizens from establishing local Night Wolves chapters. Such local chapters exist in Ukraine, Slovakia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Germany, Serbia, and Bosnia. Most of these offshoots are run by Russian émigrés, many of whom are likely dual citizens. In the United States, according to the Miami Herald, a former FSB official, Svyatoslav Mangushev,established a biker club in South Florida called “Spetsnaz,” which was loosely modeled on the Night Wolves.

In 2014, during the same year that the original Night Wolves were leading armed attacks to seize the Crimean peninsula, one of the members of the Spetsnaz club petitioned the Night Wolves headquarters in Moscow for permission to formally establish a U.S. Night Wolves affiliate. According to the Miami Herald, one of Mangushev’s business partners at the time was a Russian government official who had invested nearly $8 million in South Florida real estate (though where he got the capital for such investments, given his government salary, remains a mystery). Today, the Spetsnaz motorcycle club is defunct, perhaps as a result of the extensive media attention it attracted. But the curious case of this pro-Kremlin biker club in South Florida illustrates both the far-flung and opportunistic nature of Russia’s covert-influence operations.

To understand how far-right fringe groups can be mobilized by Russia’s intelligence services, one need only consider the case of Montenegro, where the government claims the GRU sought to organize a coup d’état to assassinate the country’s prime minister and sow chaos during the country’s most recent parliamentary election, in October 2016. The GRU’s plan, according to Montenegro’s chief special prosecutor investigating the coup, involved using cyberattacks to hack into popular messaging apps like Viber and WhatsApp and spreading false rumors that the vote count had been rigged by the ruling party. Using this disinformation, prosecutors allege, the GRU sought to mobilize protesters into the streets. Next, a group of hired mercenaries, dressed up in stolen Montenegrin police uniforms, was to storm into the Parliament building and fire on protesters to sow mayhem and disorder. In the ensuing chaos, the prime minister was to be assassinated in order to render the country rudderless.

To mask its involvement in such a daring operation against a country on the cusp of nato membership, the GRU reportedly turned to fringe, radical-right groups to carry out its planned attack. Aleksandar Sindjelic, a cooperating government witness in the case, claims to have been a key ringleader. Sindjelic identified two Russians as GRU officers, saying that they organized and financed the plot, and described the operation in great detail. Sindjelic, who is wanted on murder charges in Croatia, is a Serb ultranationalist who had fought on behalf of pro-Russian forces in Ukraine.

Back at home in Serbia, Sindjelic was a member of the local Serbian chapter of the Night Wolves motorcycle club. His co-conspirators shared similar backgrounds as radical nationalists and many were either petty criminals or foot soldiers for organized-crime groups in the region. After Montenegro made public the alleged plot, Putin’s national-security adviser, Nikolai Patrushev, immediately flew to Belgrade to extricate the fugitive operatives from Serbia. The two men, Eduard Shishmakov and Vladimir Popov, flew back to Moscow the day after Patrushev’s visit. They are now being tried in absentia, along with 12 individuals being held in Montenegro. The trial has not yet concluded. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump, following his meeting with Putin in Helsinki, has publicly questioned the U.S. commitment to defending Montenegro in the event of an attack, despite the country’s status as a natoally.

Russian fight clubs provide another example of how largely innocuous groups that exist independently of the Kremlin can be instrumentalized by Russia’s intelligence services. One particular type of martial-arts club, based on the systema combat style, which has its origins in medieval Russia, is popular with Russian special forces. Systema uses a fluid and improvisational fighting style, less bound by rules than judo or karate, and is designed to inflict maximum pain and lethal blows on an opponent. Aside from the hard-core nature of its enthusiasts, systema clubs operate just as normal judo or karate clubs do, holding classes and training sessions in Russia and many other countries, including the United States.

In the West, the majority of systema clubs are exactly what they appear to be. However, according to an investigation by the EU Observer, a number of systema fight clubs in Europe and North America prominently display their links to Russia’s special forces and even use GRU or FSB insignia in their promotional materials. They appeal to nationalistically minded expatriates such as military veterans, and tap into a particular Russian-nationalist subculture that extols the secret services, much like that Spetsnaz club in South Florida. Many systema practitioners also travel regularly to Russia to receive advanced training.

Boris Reitschuster, a German expert who has written extensively on systemafight clubs in Europe, alleges that even if the vast majority of members are ordinary fight-club enthusiasts, these groups are actively being used by Russia’s intelligence services to recruit agents. Reitschuster cites the estimate of a Western intelligence agency that in Germany alone, systema clubs have been used to recruit between 250 and 300 agents.

In such cases, however, the term agent may be somewhat misleading. While systema clubs may include Russian intelligence agents in the traditional sense of the term (that is, active-duty officers), many others are likely “agents of influence” who do not necessarily serve in the GRU with a rank or formal affiliation. Such agents of influence are not typically used to access secret information, and many are unaware of their own manipulation by a foreign intelligence service.

If some Russian fight clubs in Europe and North America harbor a small fraction of GRU-affiliated agents instrumentally tapping into the street-fighting milieu to drive home an anti-Western (and pro-Russia) message, then their activity is not much different from the trolls who work for Russia’s Internet Research Agency. The key difference would be that the indoctrination and recruitment is being done in person rather than online.

Neo-Nazis, skinheads, soccer hooligans and similar violence-prone groups on the radical right also have the potential to serve as ready, often unwitting, Kremlin agents of influence who can be manipulated to undermine Western democratic institutions. The Kremlin makes use of far-right groups for a number of reasons. First, these groups can be manipulated and indoctrinated through social media, which makes them ripe targets for organizations like the Internet Research Agency, whose trolls can mobilize their members with carefully crafted messaging. Second, these groups are likely to find the Kremlin’s ideology of “traditional Russian values” appealing, particularly when contrasted with Western liberal values such as individual rights, tolerance, and self-expression. Right-wing groups are more easily drawn into the Russian orbit with anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ, and anti-feminist rhetoric and by a narrative that stresses a collectivist, tribal, and racially exclusive worldview.

Finally, the Western radical right is attractive to the Kremlin not only because it provides a pool of recruits—often angry young white men—for stirring up social protests, but also because it serves as a backdoor for establishing ties with far-right political parties and anti-establishment politicians. The Kremlin views such politicians—like France’s Marine Le Pen, Germany’s Frauke Petry, and Italy’s Matteo Salvini—as battering rams that can be used to demolish democratic institutions and to challenge the political establishment’s support for nato, the EU, and transatlantic ties. Although the Kremlin’s effort to co-opt Western politicians is beyond the scope of this article, it is a key reason why Russia invests resources in cultivating fringe radicals in the West.

For obvious reasons, however, the Kremlin tries to hide its support for far-right groups, both in Russia and elsewhere. A BBC documentary on Russian neo-Nazi soccer hooligans secretly recorded the leader of Moscow’s Spartak “ultras” explaining that his army of followers served as “Putin’s foot soldiers.” Shortly after the documentary aired, Russian police issued a call for all those who had been interviewed in the film to report immediately to local stations across Russia and sign forms saying they had been coerced into lying by the BBC.

Despite efforts to hide such ties, the evidence of the Russian state’s support for far-right circles across Europe is mounting. István Györkös, a Hungarian neo-Nazi who leads a far-right paramilitary group called the Hungarian National Front, serves as a perfect example of the sort of radical militant Russia’s intelligence services target. The Hungarian National Front is a neo-Nazi hate group that glorifies the Waffen-SS and regularly attacks the United States, Jews, LGBTQ persons, and liberals. It holds paramilitary combat-training sessions and extols Hungary’s fascist Arrow Cross movement, which was active in the 1930s and during World War II. Although it is unclear exactly how Györkös’s ties to Russian intelligence were first established, in 2012 Györkös launched a website called hidfo.net, which glorified Putin’s Russia and began disseminating Kremlin propaganda.

In October 2016, Hungarian law-enforcement officers arrived at Györkös’s home to investigate reports of illegal weapons use on his property. In the ensuing confrontation, Györkös shot one of the detectives, prompting a wide-ranging investigation in which Hungarian authorities discovered that Györkös had regularly been holding combat training sessions for members of the Hungarian National Front in the woods outside his home. More shockingly, the authorities learned that these exercises were attended by active GRU officers who were serving under diplomatic cover at the Russian Embassy in Budapest.

Similar cases have been documented in other European countries. In Sweden, when law enforcement authorities investigated a bomb attack on a refugee center in the western town of Gothenburg in January 2017, they discovered that the neo-Nazis who had perpetrated the attack had received weapons training from a Russian paramilitary group. The group, Partizan, is tolerated by the authorities and operates freely in Russia. Its weapons-training courses are run on behalf of an ultranationalist organization called the Russian Imperial Movement, which was actively involved in the Russian war in eastern Ukraineand whose current geopolitical aim, according to one member, is to create a “Right Wing International.” In Denmark, law-enforcement authorities learned that the leader of the Danish far-right National Front, Lars Agerbak, also received weapons training in Russia. After being convicted for breaking gun laws in Denmark, Agerbak moved to Russia. Although these may seem like isolated cases, the far-right community in Europe is large and growing, and its ties to the Russian state are commonplace. In the Czech Republic, the radical-right and staunchly pro-Russian Czechoslovak Soldiers in Reserves, which, like the Hungarian National Front, regularly organizes combat training, was estimated in 2015 to have 6000 members.

In the United States too, the alt-right and Kremlin ideologues share a common cause. While many of these ties are the result of mutual admiration more than active recruitment, the recent charges against the gun-rights advocate Maria Butina for serving as a Russian agent prove the Kremlin is also actively seeking to cultivate groups on the American right.

Fringe-right groups already consider the Kremlin an ally. At the alt-right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August 2017, chants of “Russia is our friend!” were commonplace. Richard Spencer, who led the Charlottesville rally and directs an alt-right organization called the National Policy Institute, has praised Putin as a protector of the white race. His website, altright.com, features such articles as “Why Anti-Racism is Nothing but a Lie” and defends the alt-right’s associations with Putin by arguing that “Russia is one of the few countries left that supports and upholds Pro-European values such as strength, unity, racial awareness, etc.” Similarly, the alt-right figure Alex Jones fawns over Putin and has hosted the Kremlin’s court ideologue Alexander Dugin on his show. Even the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is seen in a positive light by American right-wing groups, which portray him as a savior of Christian minorities, echoing a common Kremlin propaganda line. Matthew Heimbach, an American white nationalist who has extensively praised Putin, sums up the alt-right’s views when he says “I see Russia as kind of the axis for nationalists … and that’s not just nationalists that are white—that’s all nationalists.”

To understand how fringe groups like soccer hooligans, neo-Nazis, and hard-core fight-club enthusiasts would attract the attention of Russia’s intelligence services, it is important to understand that fringe radical groups have a history of being co-opted by Russian intelligence. In the Soviet Union, the KGB had entire departments focused on penetrating and, if necessary, eliminating groups on the fringes of society that operated independently of the state and were not authorized by the Communist Party. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the KGB could no longer maintain a vast gulag of prisoners and more often favored co-opting groups hostile to the state (though, to be sure, the Russian state has a history of exploiting criminal groups that extends back to the Soviet and even Tsarist periods). Rather than constantly chasing after delinquent groups in attempts to arrest their members only to discover new members popping up elsewhere, Russia’s intelligence services at some point decided it was far easier to allow a few informally sanctioned groups to exist so long as they could be monitored and (at least partially) controlled.

The lessons for the United States and its allies are clear. Russia’s manipulation of fringe far-right groups is part of a deliberate strategy to undermine Western democratic institutions. Russia’s trolls and intelligence services prey on social outcasts in order to radicalize them and recruit them to wage war on their countries’ liberal institutions. To do this, the Kremlin reinforces their belief that liberal democracy is rotten and cultivates their restless anger and propensity toward violence. In addition to stoking anger and resentment, the Kremlin also uses covert financing to bankroll their destructive agenda. These efforts occur both in person, via martial-arts studios and motorcycle clubs, and in the virtual world of social media, where they are largely hidden from law enforcement and the general public. The strategy for fighting against this radicalization will therefore have to meld together what is known about combatting domestic hate groups with an updated counterintelligence toolkit. Finally, the effort to identify, expose, and disrupt Russia’s manipulation of anti-democratic groups is likely to succeed only when it transcends national boundaries and involves active coordination among all democratic states susceptible to this particular form of malign influence.

Michael Carpenter is Senior Director at the Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement at the University of Pennsylvania and a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council. He is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia. FULL BIO
 
Top