WAR 01-30-2016-to-02-05-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Possible Impact

TB Fanatic
russiandefpolicy ‏@russiandefpolic Jan 13
Kudrin: Can't avoid cutting defense spending.
Postpone rearmament a few years.

http://bit.ly/1PsnvIL .

CYoxT_UWAAMNYZf.jpg




russiandefpolicy ‏@russiandefpolic Jan 20
Good piece on Moscow basically opting for cheaper, proven Su-35
over T-50 / PAK FA.
http://reut.rs/1n98ep2 .


russiandefpolicy ‏@russiandefpolic 20h
Dep PM Rogozin: The OPK "will cut certain expenditures,
not priorities, but secondary ones."
http://bit.ly/1NK0srj .


russiandefpolicy ‏@russiandefpolic 7h
Russian unit in Arctic integrates reindeer into its operations.
http://bit.ly/1KRtm99 .
CaHieDNWEAAxWAo.jpg


^^^ LOL :xpnd:
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
The Four Horsemen - Week of 02/02 to 02/09
Started by Ragnarok‎, Today 06:45 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?483633-The-Four-Horsemen-Week-of-02-02-to-02-09

BREAKING Explosion on board an A321 few mins after taking off from Mogadishu
Started by Possible Impact‎, Today 06:48 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...A321-few-mins-after-taking-off-from-Mogadishu

Official: Withheld Clinton emails contain 'operational' intel, put lives at risk
Started by thompson‎, Yesterday 09:25 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...s-contain-operational-intel-put-lives-at-risk

AP: Washington DC bill would pay people stipends to not commit crimes
Started by Possible Impact‎, Today 10:57 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ould-pay-people-stipends-to-not-commit-crimes
_

:dot5::dot5::dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://aa.com.tr/en/politics/skorea-reveals-intrusion-by-chinese-military-jets-/514034

SKorea reveals intrusion by Chinese military jets

Seoul-Beijing relations under increasing strain as South Korea looks to strengthen defense capabilities following North Korea’s nuclear test last month

02.02.2016  
By Alex Jensen

SEOUL

South Korea warned away a pair of Chinese military aircraft over the weekend, according to the South’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Tuesday.

The planes flew close to Jeju Island Sunday before retreating -- South Korea’s military took “necessary surveillance and tactical measures”, according to a JCS spokesperson.

The South’s air defense identification zone overlaps with that of China, adding further tension to an incident that came as Seoul and Beijing have failed to agree on an appropriate response to North Korea’s claimed hydrogen bomb test at the start of the year.

Ties between South Korea and China had blossomed in recent years under the influence of high-profile political meetings and booming bilateral trade.

But with Beijing declaring its reluctance to impose heavy sanctions on its traditional ally North Korea, that relationship has come under strain.

China did appear to be taking some action Tuesday, as a report from Japan’s Kyodo News claimed that Beijing’s delegate to stalled six-party talks on denuclearizing North Korea had made an unexpected trip to the reclusive state’s capital Pyongyang.

Seoul has been leaning in the last few weeks towards its own military partnership with the United States.

Statements out of the South’s defense ministry and ruling party suggest that local momentum has been gathering in favor of deploying a U.S. missile defense system known as THAAD, or the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.

Beijing has repeatedly expressed its opposition to such a move, suggesting that it would be a pretext for Washington to spy on China.

Meanwhile, Russia’s ambassador to Seoul told reporters Tuesday that the deployment of THAAD in South Korea would “not be helpful to peace and security in Northeast Asia nor to the resolution of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.”

Alexander Timonin said that Russia was “paying close attention to the increased contacts over the issue between relevant organizations of the U.S. and [South Korea]”.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://aa.com.tr/en/economy/south-korea-seeks-true-partners-in-middle-east-/513948

South Korea seeks "true partners" in Middle East

Seoul official draws comparisons between security threats facing South Korea and nations in Middle East

02.02.2016 ƒU ƒ±
By Alex Jensen

SEOUL

South Korea¡¦s vice foreign minister vowed Tuesday to boost relations with the Middle East, stressing the need for global solutions to present day nuclear weapon threats following North Korea¡¦s claimed hydrogen bomb test last month.

Lim Sung-nam was addressing a forum in Seoul when he called for ¡§true partners¡¨ in the region on political, economic and cultural terms.

While comparing the need for cooperation in resolving security challenges on both the Korean Peninsula and in the Middle East, the vice minister also had a message for the latter.

¡§It¡¦s my heartfelt hope that the Islamic values of tolerance and peaceful coexistence will be fully realized,¡¨ local news agency Yonhap quoted Lim telling the South Korea-EU International Conference on Middle Eastern and North African Affairs.

"This will be invaluable in addressing the difficulties in the region," he added.

South Korean firms and investors have recently been showing heightened interest in doing business with Iranian counterparts following the lifting of sanctions on Tehran.

But the South¡¦s relationship with Turkey may serve as an inspiration for other nations in the Middle East.

The two sides expanded their free trade agreement last year to include services and investments, although their bond had already been sealed as allies during the 1950-53 Korean War.

Seoul has also held talks about a similar deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council, and South Korean President Park Geun-hye said last year after a four-nation tour of the Middle East that the region could be ¡§the answer to our prayer for economic revitalization¡¨.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/mini-red-octobersrussia-to-push-on-with-stealth-submarine-program/

'Mini Red Octobers:'Russia to Push on With Stealth Submarine Program

Despite some media reports to the contrary, the Russian Navy will continue building Lada-class subs.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
February 02, 2016

374 Shares
0 Comments

The Russian Navy will not stop the construction of Project 677 Lada-class diesel-electric attack submarines, the Russian Navy Deputy Commander-in-Chief, Vice-Admiral Alexander Fedotenkov, told TASS in January.

“Following the results of the operational testing of the Kronstadt and Velikiye Luki submarines, the Navy will determine its further quantitative need for the Project 677 Lada. The termination of these submarines’ construction is not being considered at present,” the vice-admiral said.

He denied media reports that the Russian Navy will focus on the fifth-generation diesel-electric attack submarine Kalina project at the expense of the Lada-class.

The Russian Navy initially planned to field three Lada-class submarines by 2018. However, delays in the program have so far only lead to the service entry of the lead vessel of the class, the St. Petersburg in 2010, which has been undergoing operational evaluation ever since.

The St. Petersburg was already laid down in 1997 at the Admiralty Shipyard in St. Petersburg. Construction of its sister ships, the Kronstadt and Velikiy Luki began in 2005 and 2006 respectively, yet production of the two Lada-class subs was put on halt for some time and then restarted in 2013.

Russian Navy sources recently interviewed by IHS Jane’s Defense Weekly have said that the likely induction date will be 2019 “due account taken of the shortcomings revealed during the Northern Fleet’s operation of the Project 677 lead ship, St Petersburg.”

Initially, the new attack subs were slated to receive an air-independent propulsion system (AIP), but the Rubin Design Bureau, the main developer of submarines in Russia, has been struggling with the technology.

According to the head of the Russian Navy’s shipbuilding department, Captain (1st Rank) Vladimir Tryapichnikov, a new AIP system will not be ready until the early 2020s:

We presume that an AIP will be developed in the near future, and the Rubin Design Bureau has started such work recently. They have laid a good foundation … Rubin’s designers keep on working hard [to develop the AIP], and we believe it will be developed in 2021-2022.

As I report in this month’s The Diplomat Magazine, Delays in the construction of Lada-class submarines, recently led to the recent announcement that six Improved Kilo-class submarines will be built for the Pacific Fleet. These new vessels will most likely be fitted with Klub (Kalibr) submarine-launched anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles.

The Lada-class purportedly has a very low acoustic signature due a special anti-sonar coating called “Molniya” (“Lightning”) with some defense analysts referring to it as the ‘Mini-Red October class.’ (The sub displaces 2,700 metric tons when submerged and only needs a crew of 38 sailors to operate.)

The submarine is also equipped with an advanced sonar system, and features six torpedo tubes and specialized vertical missile silos for anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles. Its principal mission will be coastal defense against enemy submarines and surface vessels, surveillance and reconnaissance as well as intelligence gathering missions.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/2-ch...south-koreas-air-defense-identification-zone/

2 Chinese Fighters Entered South Korea's Air Defense Identification Zone

Was China trying to send a message?

By Ankit Panda
February 03, 2016

4 Shares
4 Comments

South Korea authorities said on Tuesday that two Chinese fighters had entered South Korea’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) in the East China Sea, near Jeju Island. South Korea responded to the incident by scrambling fighters.

According to Jeon Ha-kyu, a spokesman for South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), the incident occurred on Sunday. The Chinese jets left South Korea’s ADIZ after receiving a warning message. ”We took necessary surveillance and tactical measures adequately,” he said.

It’s unclear if the jets were operating in that airspace as part of a regularly scheduled patrol or exercise, or if the incident was an intentional attempt to signal China’s assertion of its own ADIZ in that area. In November 2013, China declared an ADIZ in the East China Sea that partially overlapped with South Korea’s zone.

In its report, Yonhap suggested that the incident could have been an attempt by China to express its displeasure with renewed momentum between the United States and South Korea toward the latter’s adoption of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems. On Friday, a South Korean official said that THAAD would be helpful for South Korea’s defense.

The THAAD issue has reemerged at the forefront of the U.S.-South Korea alliance after Pyongyang’s nuclear test earlier this month and amid expectations that North Korea is gearing up for a long-range ballistic missile test later this month.

China vehemently rejects the implementation of THAAD in South Korea. Reiterating the Chinese government’s position on the matter last week, Hua Chunying, a spokesperson for the Chinese foreign ministry urged South Korea to “take into account others’ security interests as well as regional peace and stability.” She further urged “relevant countries” to use “caution,” noting that the “situation on the Korean Peninsula is highly sensitive.”

As I discussed early last year, diplomatic rhetoric between Seoul and Beijing has gotten exceptionally heated over the THAAD issue, despite an otherwise good working diplomatic relationship. Kim Min-seok, a South Korean spokesman for the defense ministry, cautioned China that while “a neighboring country can have its own opinion on the possible deployment of the THAAD system here by the U.S. forces in South Korea … it should not try to influence our security policy.”

The overlapping ADIZ issue between the two countries has largely not been addressed in a serious bilateral setting, barring a brief high-level meeting in late 2013. South Korea expanded its ADIZ in December 2013, days after China announced the creation of its ADIZ. The newly expanded ADIZ covered Ieodo, a submerged rock, that sits in the overlapping exclusive economic zones of China and South Korea.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://news.yahoo.com/north-koreas-february-satellite-launch-suspected-missile-test-200436984.html

North Korea's February satellite launch suspected to be missile test

International experts suspect that the country's satellite rocket launches are meant to disguise ballistic missile tests banned by UN sanctions.

Christian Science Monitor
By Molly Jackson
1 hour ago

North Korea plans to launch a four-year observation satellite into orbit in February, a UN agency announced Tuesday, intensifying worries over the reclusive country's long-range weapons programs soon after it claimed to have tested a hydrogen bomb in January.

According to a spokeswoman at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), North Korea will launch an Earth observation satellite for weather forecasting purposes some time between February 9 and 25, between 7 a.m. and noon, Pyongyang time. The IMO is a United Nations agency based in London. North Korea also notified the International Telecommunications Union, another UN agency based in Geneva, according to Kyodo News.

North Korea last launched a "Bright Star," or "Kwangmyongsong" satellite in 2012, claiming it was for weather forecasting or communications. Satellites, however, are launched with long-range rockets, and critics of the country's nuclear weapons program allege that the satellites are an excuse to test long-ranged missiles, going against the UN's sanctions on North Korea.

Pressure to increase sanctions has intensified since January 6, when North Korean state television announced it had conducted its fourth-ever nuclear test, a violation of existing sanctions. US officials studying local air and seismic activity at the time of the event say that North Korea may have tested components of a hydrogen bomb, but most likely not a finished hydrogen device, as claimed by the state.

News of the satellite also comes days after South Korea's Defense Ministry warned that the North may have been preparing a long-range ballistic missile test, based on satellite imagery of a known rocket launch site.

Experts believe that North Korea possesses some nuclear weapons, but debate whether it has the technology to attach a nuclear warhead to ballistic missiles and send them far overseas. Ballistic missile tests are banned under UN sanctions, but satellite launches are commonly viewed as disguised attempts to test North Korea's new missile technologies.

South Korean officials who analyzed debris from the North's 2012 satellite launch determined that the missile's range might be up to 6,200 miles, putting the western coast of the United States within reach.

The recent spate of tests has led Secretary of State John Kerry to put renewed pressure on China to rein in North Korea's nuclear program; the relatively small country's massive neighbor is one of its only allies. Roughly 25 million people are believed to live in North Korea, versus about double that in South Korea, and more than 1.3 billion in China.

"From North Korea's perspective, a schism between China and the U.S. is the ideal situation," Kim Han-kwon, a professor at South Korea's National Diplomatic Academy, told the YTN news network, as reported by CBS. Calls for greater sanctions increase risks to the North Korean regime, and Chinese leaders fear that a government collapse across the border would bleed into their own country.

"Because of the strategic interests at stake, China will be forced to further embrace North Korea," Professor Kim said.

This report includes material from Reuters and the Associated Press.


Related Stories

Japan puts defense forces on alert over possible N. Korean missile test Christian Science Monitor
Agency: North Korea plans satellite launch this month Associated Press
Japan puts military on alert for possible North Korean missile test Reuters
Speculation mounts of imminent N. Korea rocket launch AFP
North Korea may be readying long-range missile launch soon: Kyodo Reuters
How much do you know about nuclear weapons? Take our quiz.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
November Sierra......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-britain-idUSKCN0VB29H

World | Tue Feb 2, 2016 2:18pm EST
Related: World, Russia, Syria

Britain says Russia trying to carve out mini-state for Assad in Syria

ROME

Britain said on Tuesday Russia could be trying to carve out an Alawite mini-state in Syria for its ally President Bashar al-Assad by bombing his opponents instead of fighting Islamic State militants.

Russia and Britain have been trading barbs after British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told Reuters he believed President Vladimir Putin was fanning the flames of the Syrian civil war by bombing opponents of Islamic State.

Hammond dismissed Russian criticism that he was spreading "dangerous disinformation", saying there was a limit to how long Russia could pose as a promoter of the peace process while bombing Assad's opponents, who the West hopes can shape Syria once the president is gone.

"Is Russia really committed to a peace process or is it using the peace process as a fig leaf to try to deliver some kind of military victory for Assad that creates an Alawite mini state in the northwest of Syria?" Hammond told reporters in Rome.

Assad belongs to the minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam.

Asked if he thought Russia was guilty of war crimes in Syria, Hammond said: "On the face of it, and you have to investigate these things very carefully, there is indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas going on and, on the face of it, that would represent a breach of international humanitarian law."


(Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge; Editing by Gareth Jones)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0VB1CQ

Tue Feb 2, 2016 2:46pm EST

Syrian army threatens to encircle Aleppo as talks falter

BEIRUT/AMMAN/GENEVA | By Tom Perry, Suleiman Al-Khalidi and John Irish

A Syrian military offensive backed by heavy Russian air strikes threatened to cut critical rebel supply lines into the northern city of Aleppo on Tuesday, while the warring sides said peace talks had not started despite a U.N. statement they had.

U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura announced the formal start on Monday of the first attempt in two years to negotiate an end to a war that has killed 250,000 people, caused a refugee crisis in the region and Europe and empowered Islamic State militants.

But both opposition and government representatives have since said the talks had not in fact begun and fighting on the ground raged on without constraint.

De Mistura acknowledged that a collapse of the Geneva talks was always possible. "If there is a failure this time after we tried twice at conferences in Geneva, for Syria there will be no more hope. We must absolutely try to ensure that there is no failure," he told Swiss television RTS.

The opposition cancelled a meeting with him on Tuesday afternoon, and issued a statement condemning "a massive acceleration of Russian and regime military aggression on Aleppo and Homs", calling it a threat to the political process.

Rebels described the assault north of Aleppo as the most intense yet. One commander said opposition-held areas of the divided city were at risk of being encircled entirely by the government and allied militia, appealing to foreign states that back the rebels to send more weapons.

The main Syrian opposition council said after meeting de Mistura on Monday it had not, and would not negotiate unless the government stopped bombarding civilian areas, lifted blockades on besieged towns and released detainees.

Conditions are dire in a number of areas under siege by both sides, with many close to starvation. However, the Syrian Red Crescent delivered 14 truckloads of aid to the town of al-Tal north of Damascus on Tuesday, in an area surrounded by forces allied to the government.


SLIM CHANCES

The head of the Syrian government delegation also denied talks had started after discussions with de Mistura on Tuesday.

Bashar al-Ja'afari said after two and a half hours of talks that the envoy had yet to provide an agenda or list of opposition participants. "The formalities are not yet ready," he told reporters at the United Nations office in Geneva.

He also said that if the opposition "really cared" about the lives of Syrians it should condemn the killing of more than 60 people on Sunday by Islamic State bombers in a neighbourhood that is home to the country's holiest Shi'ite shrine.

A U.N. source said de Mistura had promised to present an opposition delegation list by Wednesday. Its makeup is subject to fierce disagreements among the regional and global powers that have been drawn into the conflict.

The refugee crisis and spread of the jihadist Islamic State through large areas of Syria, and from there to Iraq, has injected a new urgency to resolve the five-year-old Syria war.

But the chances of success, always very slim, appear to be receding as the government, supported by Russian air strikes, advances against rebels, some of them U.S.-backed.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called on Moscow to stop the bombing during the peace process. "We are beginning the talks, we are at the table and we expect a ceasefire," he said after a meeting in Rome of countries opposed to Islamic State.


"DECISIVE BATTLE"

The attack north of Aleppo that began in recent days is the first major government offensive there since the Russian air strikes began on Sept. 30.

The area safeguards a rebel supply route from Turkey into opposition-held parts of the city and stands between government-held parts of western Aleppo and the Shi'ite villages of Nubul and al-Zahraa which are loyal to Damascus.

"The supply routes were not cut but there is heavy bombardment of them by the jets," said a commander in the Levant Front rebel group who gave his name as Abu Yasine. "The Russian jets are trying to hit headquarters and cut supply routes."

The Russian jets had been working "night and day" for three days, he added, and reiterated the rebels' long-held demand for anti-aircraft missiles to confront the assault.

"If there is no support, the regime could besiege the city of Aleppo and cut the road to the north," said Abu Yasine, whose group is one of the rebel movements that have received military support from states opposed to Assad, funnelled via Turkey.

Advancing government forces seized the village of Hardatnin some 10 km (six miles) northwest of Aleppo, building on gains of the previous day, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring body.

Another rebel commander said he had sent reinforcements to the area. "We sent new fighters this morning, we sent heavier equipment there. It seems it will be a decisive battle in the north, God willing," said Ahmed al-Seoud, head of a Free Syrian Army group known as Division 13. "We sent TOW missile platforms. We sent everything there," he told Reuters.

U.S.-made TOW missiles, or guided anti-tank missiles, are the most potent weapon in the rebel arsenal and have been supplied to vetted rebel groups as part of a programme of military support overseen by the Central Intelligence Agency.

But while they have helped rebels to slow advances on the ground, they are of little use against fighter bombers.

The Russian intervention has reversed the course of the war for Damascus, which suffered a series of major defeats to rebels in western Syria last year before Moscow deployed its air force as part of an alliance with Iran.

In an interview with Reuters, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said Russian President Vladimir Putin was undermining international efforts to end the war by bombing opponents of Islamic State in an attempt to bolster Assad.

"The Russians say let's talk, and then they talk and they talk and they talk. The problem with the Russians is while they are talking they are bombing, and they are supporting Assad," Hammond said.

Russia's Foreign Ministry said Hammond was spreading "dangerous disinformation", while the Kremlin said his statements could not be taken seriously.


(Additional reporting by John Davison in Beirut, Stephanie Nebehay and Kinda Makieh in Geneva and Crispian Balmer in Rome; writing by Tom Perry; editing by Philippa Fletcher, Peter Graff and David Stamp)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://asia.nikkei.com/Viewpoints/V...collaboration-will-help-Asia-avoid-war?page=1

February 1, 2016 7:00 am JST
James Stavridis

Defense transparency and collaboration will help Asia avoid war

We are at the start of a dangerous arms race in Asia as nations in the region respond to rising and more assertive military power in China and growing instability on the Korea Peninsula. And the American "Pacific pivot" is failing to gain traction in the face of crises in Syria, threats from the Islamic State group, and ongoing tension with Russia over Ukraine.

China (which has the world's second largest defense budget) is on track to double its military spending by 2020. The Chinese are buying and building large aircraft carriers and are rapidly improving their offensive cyber capability.



Other Asian nations are responding. Japan has not only increased its defense budget but also passed legislation that will allow for offensive Japanese military action to defend allies under attack. Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, and virtually every other nation in the region are increasing defense spending. On average, East Asian nations are spending at least 5% a year more on defense. And we should remember that the U.S. and Russia, the first and third largest defense spenders in the world (and the two largest arms exporters), are also Pacific powers.

At the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, we saw less public strain between Asian leaders than in the past. But two years ago at Davos, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe described the Chinese-Japanese relationship as reminiscent of the antagonism between Great Britain and Imperial Germany on the cusp of World War I -- hardly a reassuring thought. Since then, the two leaders -- Prime Minister Abe and President Xi -- have appeared together at several events and there seems to be less overt tension. But from conversations with senior military and political leaders over the past few months, it is clear that there remains significant competition and indeed the potential for conflict.

Several nations involved in territorial disputes with China are moving closer to the U.S.. These include Japan, the Philippines, Australia and Vietnam. The completion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (which does not include China) will further align the signatories with the U.S..

On the Chinese side, in addition to a rapidly increasing defense budget, the construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea coupled with continued claims of essentially sovereign control over most of the South China Sea (an area roughly the size of Europe) have other Asian nations rattled. Chinese actions over the contested Senkaku islands, known in China as the Diaoyu, that are in significant dispute between China and Japan are also alarming, as is the political rhetoric out of Beijing on both Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Then there is the "North Korean problem." The North Koreans are armed with a small arsenal of nuclear weapons; led by an inexperienced, unstable, emotional, and medically challenged dictator; possessing technologically advanced ballistic missiles; and in a virtual state of war with their closest neighbor, South Korea.

India has historically stood apart from East Asian politics, reasoning that it has enormous internal challenges. But increasingly we are seeing India under dynamic Prime Minister Narendra Modi engaging in increased military and security cooperation with the U.S. and Japan, including the recently completed Malabar exercise.

Serious discrepancy

It appears unlikely that there will be any significant reduction in tensions or in defense spending over the next decade. What should the international community be doing to help create stability?

First, at the tactical level, the nations in the region should encourage military-to-military direct contact. This can lead to defined protocols to minimize the chances of accidental ship and aircraft collisions, misunderstandings that escalate into shooting incidents, and even prevention of cyber attacks on military command and control systems, which are particularly dangerous. Such military-to-military contact can be done bilaterally between the military staffs or organized in parallel to regional conferences.

When such regional gatherings do occur -- for example the Association of Southeast Asia Nations annual convocation -- having high level and candid political conversations about security can create a higher level of confidence. Alongside such governmental conferences, so-called "track two" events like the Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore are excellent venues for the exchange of views.

Third, finding ways for the militaries in the region to collaborate operationally, especially at sea, is important. This can be in simple maritime exercises that focus on noncombat operations -- medical diplomacy, disaster relief, and humanitarian operations. It can also include quasi-military training or operations together for events upon which the nations do agree -- piracy, for example, or humanitarian evacuations from a disaster zone.

Fourth, the use of international negotiating platforms to resolve territorial disputes. Putting such disagreements before international bodies like the International Court of Justice in the Hague, another mutually agreed United Nations body, a third-party government, or even an agreed upon binding arbitrator should be considered.

Fifth, a simple but significant improvement would be more transparency in defense spending. Several nations, notably China, have a serious discrepancy between their announced spending and their true aggregate spending as measured by independent observers. Even the U.S. tends to obscure intelligence spending. This creates suspicion. Letting everyone know about the precise level of defense spending can at least create a more realistic and serious conversation.

Overall, the arms race in East Asia is simply a reflection of the geopolitical tensions that will remain high in the region for the foreseeable future. While there are ways to reduce such tensions, they are unlikely to diminish as this turbulent 21st century unfolds: Buckle up.

Admiral Stavridis served as the 16th supreme allied commander of NATO and is today dean of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University in Massachusetts. He sailed and commanded multiple ships in the Pacific throughout his career.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Eco...-shipping-lane-could-become-China-s-Caribbean

February 1, 2016 1:00 pm JST

South China Sea

Important shipping lane could become 'China's Caribbean'

HIROYUKI AKITA, Nikkei senior staff writer

TOKYO -- The South China Sea will essentially be "a Chinese lake" by 2030, according to a recent study by a U.S. think tank.

The report sounds the alarm about China's growing challenge to U.S. dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. It assesses the Barack Obama administration's strategy for "rebalancing" military and other resources to the region and has sent shock waves through the defense and security communities.

The 270-page study by the U.S. Center for Strategic and International Studies was commissioned by the U.S. Defense Department on orders from Congress.

The report argues that the Chinese military is widely expected to have multiple carrier strike groups by 2030, one reason it gives for the South China Sea becoming "a Chinese lake."

Chinese hegemony?

"For rival claimants in the South China Sea, this is a game changer," the study says. "There will almost always be a Chinese [carrier strike group] floating in contested waters, or within a half-day's steaming time."

The CSIS argues that "the South China Sea will be virtually a Chinese lake, as the Caribbean or the Gulf of Mexico is for the United States."

There have been a number of analyses saying the military balance will tip in favor of China in the South China Sea. However, this report carries weight.

It must be particularly irritating for U.S. strategists to read a forecast of the South China Sea becoming China's Caribbean. In recent years, geopolitical thinkers have concluded that a rising China is challenging U.S. dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.

From the 19th century to the early 20th century, the U.S. fought against Spain and took control of the Caribbean Sea, an important shipping lane. Controlling the Panama Canal helped the U.S. to gain hegemony over the Americas. In the Asia-Pacific region, the South China Sea is equally strategic, and China's hold on it would come at the cost of lost U.S. influence in this part of the world.

Study guide

This bold prediction alone would not have grabbed much attention in Washington, D.C., which has buildings full of think tanks. But the prediction coupled with the fact that the report was commissioned by the Defense Department has created buzz.

Some Congress members have been critical of the Obama administration for talking the rebalancing talk but failing to walk the walk. So the Republican-controlled Congress -- Obama is a Democrat -- mandated that the U.S. Defense Department commission a third party to compile a report and verify how effective the rebalance actually has been.

This led to the CSIS report. In a sense, one can call it a "semipublic" study. It notes that the Obama administration has channeled insufficient energy and budgetary resources into his strategy. It also calls on the government to inject more military capabilities into the region and to beef up security cooperation with Japan and other U.S. allies and partners.

In U.S. two-party politics, the Republicans and Democrats are prone to lash out at each other. This is especially so ahead of U.S. presidential elections, like now. Each party will begin choosing its presidential candidate on Monday night, when voters in the state of Iowa head to caucus halls.

The CSIS is considered by some as bipartisan, and one of the report's authors was Kathleen Hicks, who served as deputy under secretary of defense for policy in the Obama administration. Thus, one can say the report is politically neutral. It might also offer itself as a good study guide on Asia-Pacific strategy for anyone in the next administration.

Americans will vote for their next president in November, and the winner will take office early next year.

Casting a pall

Japan and Southeast Asian countries have already voiced concern over the Obama administration's response to China's growing assertiveness in the South China Sea.

In October, the U.S. government made it clear that the U.S. would not acknowledge the islands China is building up as Chinese territory. To underscore the point, the government said it would continue to dispatch U.S. military vessels within 12 nautical miles, about 22km, of the growing islands twice every three months.

On Oct. 27, the USS Lassen, a guided-missile destroyer equipped with the Aegis combat system, sailed within 12 nautical miles of the islands. The second sail-through only came on Jan. 30.

If China manages to essentially claim the South China Sea as its own, the ramifications would be felt around the world. Nearly half of all global exports of crude oil and liquefied natural gas pass through the South China Sea.

The bulk of Japan's crude oil imports from the Middle East make their way through the body of water, said a representative of a major Japanese energy company.

As such, the CSIS report can also be seen as casting a pall over Asia's stability and its ability to act as a driver of global economic growth in the years ahead.

Related stories
South China Sea: Beijing may impose air defense zone, Manila warns
South China Sea: Spratlys landing comes amid military grumbling, Vietnam feud
Rising tensions in Asia-Pacific: Think tank calls for second US carrier in Japan
Maritime tentions: Sea spats splitting Asia into pro-US, pro-China camps
South China Sea: Choppy waters near Subi Reef
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Yeah I know this is a little late....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1200917/1200917/

Coming Iran, DPRK Space Launches?

by Jeffrey Lewis | January 29, 2016 | 1 Comment

Both Iran and North Korea may be about to conduct space launches.

According to IRNA, Hossein Dehghan (ÍÓیä ÏåÞÇä, the guy on Rouhani’s left) told the Majlis (fa|en) that Iran would launch a Simorgh rocket (the thingy on Rouhani’s right) during the festivities to mark Iran’s revolution, which should run from 1-11 February.

While North Korea has not made an announcement, vehicle traffic at North Korea’s Sohae launch site has raised the prospect of a North Korean launch, possibly in advance of the late Kim Jong Il’s birthday on 16 February.

In other words, Iran and North Korea could launch rockets within a week or so of one another during mid-February. Happy Valentine’s Day!

I thought I would make a few remarks about setting expectations.

Iran’s Simorgh has some obvious similarities to the North Korea’s Unha launcher — although with some interesting differences. The first stage of Iran’s Simorgh represents a similar approach to that taken by North Korea with the Unha. The Simorgh appears to be a cluster of Shahab-3 engines, just as the Unha first stage is a cluster of Nodong engines. (The Shahab-3 is a variant of the Nodong.)

The Simorgh isn’t an ICBM, but it is close enough that a launch will get a lot of attention. David Wright was quoted as saying the Simorgh could deliver a 1-ton payload to about 4,000 km. Michael Elleman has argued that “Reaction to a Simorgh satellite launch should be measured and consistent with the long-term threat it poses.” One can dream.

What North Korea might launch, on the other hand, is interesting. Over the past year, North Korea has modified the Sohae launch site to make it much harder to monitor — covering railheads and building a moveable launch gantry.

The Unha-3, launched in 2012, was a bit larger larger than the Unha-2, launched in 2009. David Wright has a nice description of the differences, but you can see them in the models shown to Kim Jong Un.

North Korea might launch another Unha-3 or a similarly sized rocket, but there is a more interesting possibility. North Korea has increased the height of the original gantry at Sohae and displayed models of something much larger called the Unha-9 in strange places like flower exhibitions and Moranbong Band concerts.

And then there is the possibility of something completely different. In 2013, Bill Gertz reported that Iran and North Korea were cooperating on development of a new “80 ton rocket booster.” According to one of Gertz’s sources, “It is completely new from what they have done so far.” The Treasury Department has now confirmed that cooperation, sanctioning three Iranian individuals for their “work on an 80-ton rocket booster being developed by the North Korean government.”

For a few weeks, my colleagues at MIIS and I have been trying to figure out what this 80-ton booster might be — and what it means for Iran-DPRK missile cooperation. Maybe it is the first stage of the proposed Unha-9 or something that draws on the Simorgh. But now we’ve stopped. At least for the moment. After all, we’re probably about to get a lot of new data.


Comments

RAJ47 (History)
January 29, 2016 at 10:49 pm

https://twitter.com/rajfortyseven/status/693066259609432065
https://twitter.com/rajfortyseven/status/693075387652427776

Not the first time Iran tracking USNavy CV.
Collaboration or not, with increased missile capability, Iran seems to be in a threatening mode.

___

NKOREAPOLITICS290515e_2x.jpg

http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2016/01/NKOREAPOLITICS290515e_2x.jpg

___

The referenced comparison article.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://allthingsnuclear.org/dwright/a-comparison-of-north-koreas-unha-2-and-unha-3

A Comparison of North Korea’s Unha-2 and Unha-3

David Wright, co-director and senior scientist | April 8, 2012, 16:03 pm EST

Photos released today after reporters visited the North Korean launch site confirm that the Unha-3 launcher currently on the pad is very similar to the Unha-2 that North Korea launched in April 2009 (see Figure 1). The first two stages of the Unha-2 launch seemed to work as expected but the third stage did not ignite.

Figure 1: Images from AFP (left) and AP (right).



The viewing angle of the two photos is somewhat different, but despite that they show that the stages of the two rockets appear to be the same length and diameter. I expected this would be the case since I assumed North Korea would continue to work with the technology it demonstrated in 2009.

By computer modeling, I find that an Unha-3 that is a slightly modified Unha-2 is compatible with the announced locations of the splashdown zones for the first two stages, which differ significantly from the zones announced for the 2009 launch of the Unha-2. Here’s why:

When North Korea launched eastward in 2009, its rocket gained speed due to the rotation of earth. This extra speed is 0.35 km/s at the latitude of North Korea, compared to the required burnout speed of about 7.8 km/s to place a satellite in orbit at about 500 km altitude (which Pyongyang announced as the planned orbital altitude). Since North Korea will instead launch in a southern direction this time, it does not get that boost from the earth’s rotation and needs to get more speed out of the launcher to place the satellite in a 500-km orbit.

A natural way to do that would be to increase the amount of fuel in the third stage so that it can accelerate to a higher speed. Our previous modeling of the Unha-2 launch led us to believe that the third stage was not carrying as much fuel as it could, in which case increasing the fuel amount would not require changing the size of that stage.

Adding that extra mass to the upper stage would decrease the speeds at burnout of the first two stages since they have to lift more mass. These two stages would therefore be expected to splashdown somewhat closer to the launch site.

And in fact I find the numbers work out (see Figure 2). I started with my computer model of the Unha-2 (red curves below), which is based on the technology and known trajectory parameters for the 2009 launch. In particular, my model can place a satellite into orbit at an altitude of about 500 km, and the stages fall to earth at the locations reported for the 2009 launch (dotted lines). The solid red bars along the horizontal axis show the size of the 2009 splashdown zones that North Korea announced prior to that launch.


Figure 2. A comparison of computer modeling of the Unha-2 launch from 2009 (red) and a potential Unha-3 launch (blue) that carries more fuel in its third stage. The solid lines show the launcher’s trajectory; in both cases the launcher burns out and releases the satellite at range of about 2,100 km and an altitude of about 500 km. The dotted lines show the trajectories of the empty stages when they are dropped from the rocket and fall to earth. The announced splashdown zones for the two cases are shown by the solid bars just below the horizontal axis.

I then modeled the Unha-3 by keeping the first two stages the same as those for the Unha-2, and increasing the fuel in the upper stage as well as its burntime. (For my model, I increased the fuel mass in the third stage by 1-2 tons and the burntime by 50 seconds.) To place the satellite in a 500-kilometer orbit, I then had to have the launcher fly on a somewhat steeper trajectory, as shown by the solid blue line in Figure 2. What I found was that this configuration could lift the satellite to about 500 km—the altitude North Korea announced—and give it the additional speed it needs to stay in orbit. At the same time the stages fall in the new splashdown zones (shown by the blue bars under the horizontal axis).

There may be other ways to get the splashdown zones, etc., to work, but this may be the simplest.

It’s worth pointing out that I expect this trajectory to differ in two ways from that of a typical ballistic missile test. First, the launcher will fly on a steeper trajectory than would a ballistic missile on an optimum trajectory. Second, the burntime will be considerably longer than you would expect for a ballistic missile, since the launcher needs a long third-stage burntime to get the satellite to high altitude with high speed. The launch will still teach North Korea about rocket technology it could use in a missile, but it should be clear from the trajectory whether this was actually an attempt to launch a satellite.

Note added 4/9: From a better photo of the third stage, it appears that this stage is longer by 0.3-0.4 m that the upper stage on the Unha-2 in 2009, which is consistent with the idea that North Korea has increased the amount propellant in this stage for this launch.

Previous post on North Korea. Next post.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...-china-japan-philippines-taiwan-sea/79493736/

Powers Jockey for Pacific Island Chain Influence

By Christopher P. Cavas, Defense News 4:40 p.m. EST February 1, 2016

Pacific Island Chains Measure Regional Influence

WASHINGTON — The extensive chains of Pacific islands ringing China have been described as a wall, a barrier to be breached by an attacker or strengthened by a defender. They are seen as springboards, potential bases for operations to attack or invade others in the region. In a territorial sense, they are benchmarks marking the extent of a country’s influence.

“It’s truly a case of where you stand. Perspective is shaped by one’s geographic and geostrategic position,” said Andrew Erickson, a professor with the China Maritime Studies Institute at the Naval War College.

“Barriers is a very Chinese perspective,” said Erickson. “It reflects a concern that foreign military facilities based on the islands may impede or threaten China’s efforts or influence.”

The springboard concept can work offensively or defensively.

“Many Chinese writings express concerns that the chains can be used as springboards for projection and forces against China. But some sources imagine future contingencies where China itself might have growing influence and presence, with Taiwan being most relevant in that regard,” Erickson said.

“Benchmarks speak to the idea that as China increasingly engages in blue-water operations and limited forms of power projection, having more ships through the first island chain offers a set of milestones by which the People’s Liberation Army Navy – or PLAN – can measure its growing presence and capabilities.”

Senior officials and analysts in the West frequently refer to the first and second island chains ringing China to describe both the region’s geography and predict Chinese intentions. Erickson, in a new paper co-authored with Joel Wuthnow of the National Defense University and published in The China Quarterly, carried out a comprehensive, five-year examination of Chinese literature to determine how mainland China views the chains. He reported that the idea originated in the west during the Cold War – Chinese sources often credit 1950s US Secretary of State John Foster Dulles as the concept’s progenitor.

But the notion, Erickson pointed out, isn’t new – it derives from the region’s physical characteristics. Still, the chains have risen in political thinking to become benchmarks that in many ways define the field of play as China’s regional maritime power expands.

“You won’t find in a single authoritative source a precise official consensus on what the chains mean,” Erickson said. “But if you look at a variety of Chinese sources you see a larger pattern that speaks to Chinese concerns about foreign sources having influence over the region and over outstanding disputes. This is not a figment of China’s geostrategic imagination.”

Those concepts play out in numerous fashions, from the weapons China develops to the kinds of exercises and operations the military carries out.

“It looks like we’re seeing a broad-based Chinese effort to become familiar with a variety of different ways to get through the island chains,” Erickson noted. “It’s not hard to imagine that China would want to develop experience with as many different ways as possible to get through the chains.”

China’s development of short-range ballistic missiles is also related to its thinking about the first island chain, Erickson said.

“The vast majority of those weapons appear targeted at Taiwan, which many Chinese authorities see as a key point in the first island chain,” he said. “The vast majority of the missiles I’ve mentioned are designed to target very specific land bases. It’s only very recently that we see a small but growing portion of conventional ballistic missiles developed with the intent of being able to threaten US and perhaps allied naval vessels.”

The Chinese Navy, Erickson pointed out, operates the world’s largest conventional submarine missile force. “The vast majority of those missiles having the right range to appear to be targeted at various US and allied military bases in the region, almost all of which are somewhere along the first island chain.”

Subtle differences in how the US and China view the chains are evident, Erickson said, in maps produced by the US Defense Department and the Chinese Navy. The Pentagon map, he noted, “doesn’t show South Korea as part of the chain, but the PLAN book very much does show it as belonging to the first island chain.”

Another key difference is in how the Chinese depict the chains joining up in Japan, stretching across the Sea of Okhotsk to the southern tip of Russia’s Kamchatka peninsula – a feature absent from the US map.

The differences indicate different ways of thinking about the chains, Erickson said.

“I don’t think the DoD map is the best possible expression about how the Chinese Navy thinks about the chains – the PLAN map is,” he noted. “This is a case of differences in nuance, not in fundamental differences. I don’t think DoD has gotten this wrong, it’s just a different focus.”

China’s recently aggressive island-building strategy, Erickson observed, is related to the springboard and barrier concepts.

“The chain traditionally has made use of existing geography, but you could argue that China is now making its own island chain – as a springboard for itself and to create a barrier to others,” Erickson said. “I haven’t yet seen Chinese sources that refer to this artificial island construction development as an island chain type thing, but if we look at it conceptually we’re really talking about similar things. That’s one reason I think there’s so much US, regional and allied concern about Chinese activities in the South China Sea.”

Among countries in the region, Russia and Korea are less involved with island chain concepts. “Russia has bigger geostrategic problems to worry about,” Erickson said, while South Korea “by necessity is so focused on security threats from the north that that is the fundamental factor affecting their nation’s geostrategic orientation.”

Japan, across the seas from Russia and Korea, is in a different position.

“In many ways Japan is as central to island chain thinking as one can get,” Erickson said. “Japan constitutes the largest portion of the first and second chains as any other nation. It is a nation of more than 6,000 islands. It is as close to a natural sea power as a nation can get.”

Before World War II, Japan also described the western Pacific in island chain terms.

“Back when imperial Japan was trying to gain control of the first, second and even a third chain – the Aleutians – there was a concern that if Japan didn’t control the Philippines, Guam and Hawaii the Americans would, to Japan’s geostrategic detriment,” said Erickson. “At the outset of World War II, Japan made an extraordinary effort to use part of the chains as a springboard, and they were indeed benchmarks of Japanese military progress. That was only halted then the US turned island-hopping in the other direction.

“Today, Japan is concerned about Chinese attempts to influence and control areas and to develop weapon systems vis-a-vis these island chains,” Erickson added. “And there’s a lot of Japanese concern about ongoing Chinese efforts to penetrate the chains using increasingly powerful and complex groups of naval vessels. I think Japan feels very much connected to these island chains. As China looks to the chains and aspires to do things, I think Japan feels very targeted by that, it feels it very acutely.”

Taiwan, unsurprisingly, often stands out in the attention it receives in Chinese writings.

“Many Chinese sources emphasize their view of Taiwan’s status as a key node on the first island chain,” Erickson said. “Some Chinese sources see this not only as a springboard against mainland China, but a number of sources express aspirations of eventually [bringing the island] under mainland control, perhaps in a very robust fashion that would allow for some form of Chinese-controlled military facilities. We see discussion of ports, particularly on the east coast of Taiwan, allowing for China to conclusively break out of the confines of the first island chain once and for all.

“I see no other part of an island chain that is really in the category of what some Chinese strategists ultimately aspire to control and own themselves,” Erickson said. “That definitely sets Taiwan apart.”

And while most attention is focused on the first island chain running south along the eastern edge of the South China Sea, the significance of the second chain, which includes the US territory of Guam, could grow.

“A number of Chinese sources see this as a rear staging area for US and allied forces,” Erickson said.

“But the second island chain will grow in China’s geostrategic thinking. As China continues to send naval forces afield, it will be a benchmark.”

Over time, he added, “China can do more to hold Guam and other parts of the second island chain at risk.”

Email: ccavas@defensenews.com
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...er-unmanned-jet-x47-northrop-boeing/79624226/

US Navy’s Unmanned Jet Could Be a Tanker

Christopher P. Cavas, Defense News 3:53 p.m. EST February 1, 2016

Strike role would be put off

Comments 10

WASHINGTON — One of the biggest questions facing the future of US Navy carrier-based aviation is what will be the primary mission of its new unmanned jet. Some believe the aircraft — to be produced by the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program — should be a stealthy strike jet able to penetrate an enemy’s defenses without risking a pilot. Others want a spy plane, able to launch from a carrier and produce high-quality, real-time intelligence.

The Navy was set to announce a choice in late summer 2014, but continuing controversy inside the service, the Pentagon and Capitol Hill led leadership to suspend any decision pending a service-wide review of unmanned and intelligence assets.

Now it would seem a decision has been made between strike and recon. The winner?

Aerial refueling.

Enter the Carrier-Based Aerial-Refueling System, or CBARS.

Very few details are known about CBARS — some sources were familiar with the effort but not the acronym. But it seems a significant portion of the UCLASS effort will now be directed to produce a carrier-based aerial tanker, able to refuel other planes low on gas.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter could reveal the decision Tuesday morning when he’s to speak about the fiscal 2017 budget submission at the Economic Club in Washington. The budget itself is scheduled to be delivered to Congress on Feb. 9.

Several sources contacted for this article confirmed the role of CBARS will be primarily tanking, “with a little ISR [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance].”

Strike capabilities, the sources all said, would be put off to a future version of the aircraft.

If so, the choice of a tanking role for UCLASS would be at odds with Congress, where enthusiasm for a strike aircraft has been strong.

House and Senate advocates differed with the administration’s 2016 UCLASS request and with each other and, in the end, a compromise provision in the 2016 defense authorization act provided $350 million for the program, well over the Pentagon’s $135 million request.

But Congress directed the Navy to “develop a penetrating, air-refuelable, unmanned carrier-launched aircraft capable of performing a broad range of missions in a non-permissive environment.” The aircraft, Congress said, “should be designed for full integration into carrier air wing operations — including strike operations — and possess the range, payload, and survivability attributes as necessary to complement such integration.”

Congress made no mention of a need for an unmanned aerial tanking capability.

Since fall 2014, the Pentagon has been undertaking a comprehensive, service-wide review of its unmanned intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities. It is not yet clear how much of the ISR review will be made public.

UCLASS supercedes the Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstration (UCAS-D) program which produced the Northrop Grumman X-47B demonstrator aircraft. The Navy’s two X-47Bs conducted a series of sea-based trials in 2013 and 2014, proving the ability to launch and recover aboard an aircraft carrier at sea. Further trials in 2015 proved the aircraft could conduct aerial refueling — but as a receiving plane, not as a tanker.

Northrop and Boeing were the prime contenders for UCLASS. It is not clear how the competing designs can be adapted to the tanking role.

Aerial refueling is largely a byproduct of the jet age, where hungry engines ate fuel at much higher rates than propeller-driven aircraft. Refueling also gives combat planes the ability to carry out missions at far longer ranges, across oceans and continents, and it is not unusual for carrier-based strike aircraft to refuel several times in the course of a single combat mission.

A number of carrier aircraft were adapted to handle the tanking role, including the A-3 Skywarrior, A-6 Intruder and S-3 Viking. F/A-18 Strike Hornets also carry out the role, fitted with refueling pods for individual missions but able to be quickly reconfigured for strike roles.

Should the UCLASS be developed as a tanker, it could mark a first for naval aviation — the first time an aircraft was introduced as a tanker.

It would also be unusual to develop such a sophisticated aircraft for the tanking mission, where generally less-complex aircraft are sufficient.

An earlier version of this story misreported the location of Defense Secretary Carter's appearance on Tuesday.

_

Comments

Phil Verhey ·
Huntsville, Ontario

Good! This is great news! It means the navy isn't lustening to idiots who know nothing of the job tgat needs to be done and that the navy was intelligent enough to realise that once you remove the pilot, lufe support & weapon systems.. you can put A LOT of feul onboard, and they need to... carrier jets need fuel frequently, the more feul in the air the safer it is & more flexible the missions can be... it also allows fighters to get out further to protect against standoff missiles that can destroy a carrier and escorts from very far away (the F-35C will aid in this as they can go out further w...See More

Like · Reply · Jan 31, 2016 10:24pm

Phil Salvatore

I think the Navy dearly wants to get this into production as soon as they can while the two opposing sides decide which combat mission it will have. The Navy needs to get DT and OT underway and complete so they can clear the decks for the F/A-XX. If the development schedule for UCLASS slides, it will force the development schedule of the F/A-XX to slide with it and I think the Navy is very anxious not to let that happen. There is only so much DT/OT money to go around and the Navy cannot afford to have two big combat jet programs in DT and OT at the same time.

Like · Reply · Feb 1, 2016 2:22pm
....

Jay Matthew King ·
Radiologic Technologist Radiology Instructor at Kaplan Inc.

Actualy this makes perfect sense. If we are to believe that during the gulf war 2 the Iraqis followed our tankers and then plotted an appropriate time and distance to say Baghdad then they could have a better chance of targeting our stealth strike aircraft. If we were to have a stealth tanker then it provides a much larger target area with much reduced signature for the strike aircraft. Now if only we can actually get the stealth aircraft off the ground i.e. F-35.

Like · Reply · Jan 31, 2016 10:57pm

Greg Yamasaki ·
Las Vegas, Nevada

Except that it would probably have non-stealthy gigantic external fuel tanks and the refuleling probe basket sticking out the back

Like · Reply · Feb 1, 2016 11:54am
..

Phil Salvatore

Greg Yamasaki Why? UCLASS will have a large internal bay for weapons and/or sensors, otherwise it won't be L-O. Use that space and weight allowance for fuel. The drogue can be faired into the belly like the tail hook is. It's not so far fetched.

Like · Reply · Feb 1, 2016 2:14pm
....

Joe Schmuckatelli ·
Hard Knock U

LOL. A late CYA approach for a Navy that summarily cut out the S-3 way to early, makes due with an $85M tanker F-18E/F self-licking ice cream cone, and recently arrogantly rejected good ideas for COD and tanker aircraft in order to placate the USMC and select the V-22!

Just a natural inclination for these boys to kick the can down the road.....

They are slowly destroying naval aviation the nation has known since WWII; not on purpose but from two decades of bad decsions and a failure to do the right thing.

Like · Reply · Feb 1, 2016 5:50am

Phil Salvatore

The V-22 has a range advantage and did not require any kind of flight test program. Both alternatives would have required full DT and OT. The current version of the C-2A cannot be built today. I derivative of the E-2D with it's new engines and avionics would have required a full lenght billion dollar flight test program. Ditto the L-M proposals. The V-22 was a pretty easy choice to make, and the right one.

Like · Reply · Feb 1, 2016 2:18pm · Edited
..

Joe Schmuckatelli ·
Hard Knock U

Phil Salvatore
You are seeing only one sector of a 360 degree view. I've lived and flown off carriers for a living, doing the unglamerous overhead tanking for an actual 6 years at sea living in a stateroom during a 20 year career.

What I said is entirely true. I've seen it all, from the inside of acquisition and that gives me the right to say it. This "new" (not) idea to make UCLASS a tanker is just a "can kick down the road" from unimaginative people who just settle for what we've got...have for 20 years or so.

UCLASS will end up being a bigger flop than F-35! I can't see any machine flying an aircraft rendevous down low, bad wx & low viz on a nervous "Trick r' Treat" LTJG whose heart is beating 180 a minute.

those who do are stuck on stupid.

Like · Reply · 4 hrs
....

Bob Besal

Based on my extensive experience--there will always be a mission for a manned tanker overhead the CV. The dynamics of hawking a low-state aircraft--or two or more at the same time--below a low overcast, and putting the tanker in just the right spot at one-o'clock high after he bolters--or chasing him down on the bingo radial-- well, you can't do that sitting some little compartment on the ship. The operator (aviator!) has to be in the environment to pull that off. When it's dark and raining or any combination, it is some of the most intense, demanding flying short of combat.

Like · Reply · 1 · Feb 1, 2016 10:34am

Byron King ·
Editor, Energy & Scarcity Investor and Outstanding Investments at Agora Financial, LLC

Concur with comments... add that it's a mixed bag here. Seems like a cautious, Big Navy build-out -- seek incremental, low risk, cost-controlled development of autonomous tech, pending future developments. Once deployed, autonomous drone tanker means "saving" many flight crew from time in overhead orbit; plus prospect of keeping same bird flying multi-cycles, depending on fuel load. Frees crew flight time for better-quality training. Stripped-down aircraft, mostly built for tanking, reduces cost per flight hour -- although internal volume may also have plug-ins for anything from ESM/EW boxes to stand-off ordnance packages. Autonomous drone can accompany strike or other missions; tanker version extends mission range overall. Best news is that Navy will capitalize on X-47B tech... move ahead.

Like · Reply · Feb 1, 2016 3:01pm
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...certainly-top-defense-official-says/79664776/

Is France at War? Its Forces Certainly Are, Top Defense Official Says

By Pierre Tran 6:13 p.m. EST February 1, 2016
Comments 1

PARIS – France may not formally be in a state of war but its services are at war in the Middle East and Africa, with troops also deployed for domestic security against the Islamic State threat, Army Gen. Pierre de Villiers, chief of the Defence Staff, told journalists on Friday.

“Are we at war?” he said. “Officially, no.” That could be seen as though the French were sitting in cafés, he said, adding, “but for us in the forces, without any doubt, yes.”

Deployment of the Air Force transport and fighter aircraft, Army troops and Navy first rank frigates clearly exceeded the “operational contract,” he told the defense journalists association at the new defense headquarters at Balard on the edge of the capital.

DEFENSE NEWS

France, Russia To 'Strengthen' Information Exchange on IS

Asked about a possible French intervention against IS forces in Libya, de Villiers said the options included disengaging from another theater to redeploy in such a campaign or boosting the budget to gain further capability, which also took time. “There is a deficit of capability,” he said.

A global strategic review is needed if France were to intervene in Libya, and the services would be just one factor in that study, he said. The crises in Iraq and Libya reflected a previous lack of such a strategic approach.

French defense spending is some 1.7 to 1.75 percent of gross domestic product and needs to be boosted to the 2 percent goal set by NATO, and earlier than the 2025 target, he said.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?483667-Military-leaders-Register-women-for-draft
__

Will women be required to register for selective service?
Started by Betty_Roseý, 12-03-2015 07:01 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...be-required-to-register-for-selective-service

Army Sec: American Women Could Be Required to Register for Draft if Combat Jobs Integrated
Started by Housecarlý, 10-13-2015 01:24 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Register-for-Draft-if-Combat-Jobs-Integrated

OPINION: Women in combat raise difficult questions
Started by Housecarlý, 12-26-2015 08:14 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ION-Women-in-combat-raise-difficult-questions

All Combat Roles Now Open to Women, Defense Secretary Says
Started by Dozdoatsý, 12-03-2015 05:08 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...oles-Now-Open-to-Women-Defense-Secretary-Says

___

You knew this was coming.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/...rmy-marines-women-combat-jobs-draft/79695978/

Military leaders: Register women for draft

By Leo Shane III, Military Times 12:38 p.m. EST February 2, 2016
Comments 102

The Army and Marine Corps' top uniformed leaders both backed making women register for the draft as all combat roles are opened to them in coming months, a sweeping social change that could complicate the military’s gender integration plans.

Both services, along with the Navy, have begun work to open all military jobs to any service member after a decision by Defense Secretary Ash Carter in December to lift all gender-based restrictions on combat and infantry roles.

On Tuesday, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller told senators during a Capitol Hill hearing that full integration of those jobs will likely take a few years, to overcome logistical and cultural issues.

One of those complications will be how to handle the Selective Service System, which requires all men ages 18 to 26 to register for possible involuntary military service.

Women have always been exempt, and past legal challenges have pointed to the battlefield restrictions placed on them. With that reasoning moot, lawmakers will need to determine what becomes of the system.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus Jr. said there needs to be “a national debate” over what the changes mean, balancing social concerns over the idea of drafting women with the reality of national security and military readiness.

But the uniform leaders were more blunt in their assessment.

“It's my personal view in light of integration that every American physically qualified should register for the draft,” Neller said. Milley echoed those remarks, saying “all eligible men and women” should be required to register.

The comments drew support from some Democratic lawmakers — “I agree with you,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. — but concerned looks from Republicans on the Senate Armed Services Committee, who spent most of the hearing criticizing how abruptly the decision to drop gender restrictions was made.

Several pressed military leaders over whether job standards would be lowered to allow women into combat roles, a charge officials repeatedly refuted.


MILITARYTIMES

All combat jobs open to women in the military


Milley and Neller said no quotas for positions have been set. Mabus said that watering down physical standards is “unacceptable under the law, and unacceptable to me and every other senior leader in the Pentagon, because it would endanger not only the safety of Marines, but also the safety of our nation.”

But committee chairman Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said military officials still have not provided enough study or implementation plans to justify the rapid changes laid out by military leaders.

“I am concerned that the department has gone about things backward,” he said. “This consequential decision was made and mandated before the military services could study its implications, and before any implementation plans were devised to address the serious challenges raised in studies.”

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa — the only female veteran on the Senate committee — said she fully supported the changes “as long as standards are not lowered” to boost the number of women in combat jobs or force them to meet quotas.

“We need to ensure we don’t set up men or women for failure,” she said. “It’s clear we need to ensure that we’re taking into account the impact this could have on women’s health.

Marine Corps officials had requested to leave some of their infantry and combat jobs closed to women, citing a service study showing concerns about unit effectiveness. Carter denied those requests.


MILITARYTIMES

Congress offers praise, wariness on women in combat

For many advocates, the controversy over women in combat jobs is an outdated debate.

Army leaders noted at Tuesday’s hearing that more than 9,000 women have already earned the Combat Action Badge for actions in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 1,000 women have been killed or wounded in that fighting.

Leo Shane III covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He can be reached at lshane@militarytimes.com.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Will destroy N Korea missile if it poses threat to territory, warns Japan
Started by Shacknasty Shagratý, Yesterday 10:00 PM

-

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-satellite-idUSKCN0VB1NY

Business | Wed Feb 3, 2016 5:28am EST
Related: World, United Nations, Japan, South Korea

Japan military on alert over North Korea's planned rocket launch

SEOUL/TOKYO | By Jack Kim and Nobuhiro Kubo

Japan put its military on alert on Wednesday to shoot down any North Korean rocket that threatens it, while South Korea warned the North it would pay a "severe price" if it goes ahead with a satellite launch that South Korea considers a missile test.

North notified U.N. agencies on Tuesday of its plan to launch what it called an "earth observation satellite" some time between Feb. 8 and 25.

North Korea has said it has a sovereign right to pursue a space program by launching rockets, although the United States and other governments suspect that such launches are in reality tests of its missiles.

"We have defenses ready to deal with all threats, but in view of the announcement I have put the Self Defense Force's Aegis destroyers and our PAC-3 units on alert and issued an order to shoot down any ballistic missile threat," Japan's defense minister, Gen Nakatani, told media briefing.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said he would work with the United States and others to "strongly demand" that North Korea refrain from what he described as a planned missile launch.

Tension rose in East Asia last month after North Korea's fourth nuclear test, this time of what it said was a hydrogen bomb.

A rocket launch coming so soon after the nuclear test would raise concern that North Korea plans to fit nuclear warheads on its missiles, giving it the capability to launch a strike against South Korea, Japan and possibly targets as far away as the U.S. West Coast.

North Korea last launched a long-range rocket in December 2012, sending an object it described as a communications satellite into orbit.

South Korea said the North should immediately call off the launch, which is a violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, the South's presidential Blue House said in a statement.

"North Korea's notice of the plan to launch a long-range missile, coming at a time when there is a discussion for Security Council sanctions on its fourth nuclear test, is a direct challenge to the international community," the Blue House said.


Related Coverage
› Russia says deeply concerned by North Korea's planned rocket launch

"We strongly warn that the North will pay a severe price ... if it goes ahead with the long-range missile launch plan," it said.


'EXTREMELY CONCERNED'

China, under U.S. pressure to use its influence to rein in the isolated North, said North Korea's right to space exploration was restricted under U.N. resolutions.

China is North Korea's sole main ally though China disapproves of its nuclear program.

"We are extremely concerned about this," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a briefing.

"In the present situation, we hope North Korea exercises restraint on the issue of launching satellites, acts cautiously and does not take any escalatory steps that may further raise tensions on the Korean Peninsula."

Reports of the planned launch drew fresh U.S. calls for tougher U.N. sanctions that are already under discussion in response to North Korea's Jan. 6 nuclear test.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said the United Nations needed to "send the North Koreans a swift, firm message".

A spokeswoman for the International Maritime Organization, a U.N. agency, said the agency had been told by North Korea it planned to launch the "Kwangmyongsong" satellite.


Related Coverage
› South Korea to tell planes to avoid areas potentially affected by North's rocket launch
› China says extremely concerned by North Korea satellite launch plan

North Korea said the launch would be conducted in the morning one day during the announced period, and notified the coordinates for the locations where the rocket boosters and the cover for the payload would drop.

Those locations are expected to be in the Yellow Sea off the Korean peninsula west coast and in the Pacific Ocean to the east of the Philippines, Pyongyang said.

South Korea told commercial airliners to avoid flying in areas of the rocket's possible flight path during the period.

The launch is likely to be from the North's Tongchang-ri station near the Chinese border.

U.S. officials said last week North Korea was believed to be preparing for a test launch of a long-range rocket, after activity at the site was observed by satellite.


(Additional reporting by Ju-min Park in Seoul and Ben Blanchard in Beijing; Editing by Tony Munroe and Michael Perry, Robert Birsel)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.janes.com/article/57650/russian-submarine-activity-topping-cold-war-levels

Military Capabilities

Russian submarine activity topping Cold War levels

Nicholas de Larrinaga, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
02 February 2016
Comments 8

Key Points
•NATO is seeing Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic return to Cold War levels
•Russian submarines have also made a major jump in technical capability, according to NATO's top naval commander

Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic is currently equalling or even surpassing Cold War levels, according to NATO's top naval officer.

The North Atlantic was again and area "of concern" for the alliance, Vice Admiral Clive Johnstone, Commander of NATO's Maritime Command, said, with the commanders of his submarine cells currently reporting "more activity from Russian submarines than we've seen since the days of the Cold War".

Not only are Russian submarines returning to Cold War levels of operational activity, but Russian submarines have made a major jump in technological performance, Vice Adm Johnstone said, with NATO seeing "a level of Russian capability that we haven't seen before".

Russia, he said, "through an extraordinary investment path not mirrored by the West" has made "technology leaps that [are] remarkable, and credit to them." Russian submarines now "have longer ranges, they have better systems, they're freer to operate", he said. The alliance has also "seen a rise in professionalism and ability to operate their boats that we haven't seen before", noted Vice Adm Johnstone, adding, "that is a concern".

Together, this meant that the level of Russian submarine activity NATO is currently seeing in the North Atlantic is "very different from the period of quiet submarine activity that perhaps we've seen in the past".

However he added, "I think none of that would worry us if we knew what the game plans were or we knew why they were deploying or what they were doing … we don't understand what the strategic and operational objectives are of the Russian state." This was because "a lot of what the Russians are doing at the moment we don't understand, and is obscure and is shrouded in other activity which makes us nervous, and makes nations nervous".

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options ihs.com/contact


To read the full article, Client Login

(350 of 1152 words)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/obama-nato-funding-budget/index.html

In bid to counter Putin, Obama seeks to quadruple military spending in Europe

By Kevin Liptak, CNN White House Producer
Updated 4:15 PM ET, Tue February 2, 2016 | Video Source: CNN

Washington (CNN)—President Barack Obama's administration said Tuesday it was seeking to expand U.S. military spending in Europe four-fold in a bid to reassure allies still unsettled by Russia's incursion into Ukraine.

The new spending would increase to $3.4 billion under the new plan, which is set to be formally unveiled next week as part of Obama's final presidential budget.

The Pentagon also said Tuesday it was ramping up spending for the battle against ISIS, doubling last year's request to $7 billion.

The White House said that figure would allow for "continuous U.S. armored brigade rotations" through stations in central and eastern Europe, as well as ramped-up U.S. participation in NATO military exercises and the deployment of additional combat vehicles and supplies to the region.

Obama has sought to affirm the U.S. commitment to NATO ever since Russia annexed sections of Ukraine in 2014, causing alarm in other neighboring countries, some of which belong to the military alliance.

In a statement, the President said Tuesday's announcement "should make clear that America will stand firm with its allies in defending not just NATO territory but also shared principles of international law and order."

He said at an upcoming meeting of NATO leaders in Poland the discussion would center on bolstering military commitments among the nations.

"It is clear that the United States and our allies must do more to advance our common defense in support of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace," Obama said.

Jens Stoltenberg, the NATO secretary general, said the move was a "clear sign of the enduring commitment by the United States to European security."

"It will be a timely and significant contribution to NATO's deterrence, and collective defense," he said in a statement.

But Yury Melnick, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, told CNN that the actions are "destabilizing and detrimental to the European security."

"These steps are intended to establish new facts on the ground, and are in contradiction to the NATO-Russia Founding Act principles. There should be no doubt that Russia under any circumstances will be able to defend its citizens and national security interests," Melnick said. "At the same time, confrontation is not our choice, and the right path for the U.S. and NATO in Europe, if they want to return to normal relations with Russia, would be de-escalation, self-containment, and responsibility in their military posture."

CNN's Brian Todd contributed to this story.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinese-defector-reveals-beijings-secrets/

Chinese Defector Reveals Beijing’s Secrets

U.S. intelligence is debriefing brother of former presidential aide, translating documents

BY: Bill Gertz
February 3, 2016 5:00 am


A defector from China has revealed some of the innermost secrets of the Chinese government and military, including details of its nuclear command and control system, according to American intelligence officials.

Businessman Ling Wancheng disappeared from public view in California last year shortly after his brother, Ling Jihua, a former high-ranking official in the Communist Party, was arrested in China on corruption charges.

Ling Wancheng, the defector, has been undergoing a debrief by FBI, CIA, and other intelligence officials since last fall at a secret location in the United States, said officials familiar with details of the defection who spoke on condition of anonymity. The defector is said to be a target of covert Chinese agents seeking to capture or kill him.

Among the information disclosed by Ling are details about the procedures used by Chinese leaders on the use of nuclear weapons, such as the steps taken in preparing nuclear forces for attack and release codes for nuclear arms.

Other secrets revealed included details about the Chinese leadership and its facilities, including the compound in Beijing known as Zhongnanhai. That information is said to be valuable for U.S. electronic spies, specifically for cyber intelligence operations targeting the secretive Chinese leadership.

Spokesmen for the White House, FBI, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security declined to comment on the case.

Other officials said Ling defected sometime in the summer of 2015 after his brother, once the senior administrative aide to former Chinese leader Hu Jintao, came under suspicion for leaking state secrets.

Intelligence officials said Ling, if confirmed as a legitimate defector in debriefings over the next several months, would have the most privileged information of any defector from China to the United States in more than 30 years.

“This is an intelligence windfall,” said one senior official.

The events surrounding Ling’s defection and his brother’s arrest appear to be part of a complex internal power struggle in China led by current leader Xi Jinping targeting hundreds of Party leaders and officials. Under the guise of a nationwide anticorruption drive within the Chinese leadership, Xi is said to be systematically removing rivals from previous administrations.

Officials said Ling Wancheng is being kept under tight security after U.S. intelligence agencies detected the activity of covert Chinese agents tasked with tracking down Chinese nationals sought by the government.

The defection was triggered by the arrest of Ling’s brother, Ling Jihua, a former presidential aide who secretly obtained some 2,700 internal documents from a special Communist Party unit he headed until 2012. The unit was in charge of storing and archiving classified documents.

Ling Jihua then gave the documents to his brother, who owns a $2.5 million residence in Loomis, California, near Sacramento. The classified documents were transferred between the brothers as a safety measure: They were intended to be used as leverage to dissuade Chinese authorities from taking action against Ling Jihua.

According to the officials, Ling Wancheng, the defector, kept the documents for safekeeping and was directed to release them to U.S. authorities in the event Ling Jihua were arrested.

China announced in July it was prosecuting Ling Jihua for disclosing secrets, taking bribes, conducting illicit sexual affairs, and using his position to benefit relatives. The former official is currently undergoing harsh interrogation in China.

Ling Jihua reportedly has been a main source for corruption investigations that helped bring down China’s security czar, Zhou Yongkang, as well as two senior military officials

Ling Jihua held the post of chief of the secretariat of the Party’s Political Bureau under Hu Jintao until 2012. The position is equivalent to that of the White House chief of staff, with broad access to the most sensitive details available exclusively to senior Chinese leaders.

In August, after the New York Times reported the Chinese government had asked the Obama administration to return Ling Wancheng, State Department spokesman Mark Toner told reporters Ling was not suspected of criminal activity.

“I’m not aware that he’s suspected of breaking any U.S. laws, but that’s a matter for the FBI or for other domestic law enforcement agencies,” Toner said Aug. 3.

Last month, Liu Jianchao, the Chinese official in charge of Beijing’s anti-corruption campaign, told Reuters that Ling was in the United States.

“As for the case of Ling Wancheng, the Chinese side is handling it and is communicating with the United States,” Liu said Jan. 14.

Secretary of State John Kerry met in Beijing with Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi last week and discussed “law-enforcement, pursuit of fugitives and their illicit money,” according to state-run media reports.

A State Department official said the Ling case was not discussed during Kerry’s meetings in Beijing.

The Chinese have looked at the case as a criminal case while the U.S. government is treating the defection as an intelligence matter, making Ling’s repatriation to China unlikely.

Michael Pillsbury, a China specialist with the Hudson Institute, said Chinese defectors with access to secrets are rare and usually need careful protection.

Pillsbury’s 2015 book The 100-Year Marathon draws on data provided by five Chinese defectors.

“Over the last three decades, Chinese defectors have been a vital source of insights about the secrets Beijing wants to keep from Washington,” said Pillsbury.

“Very few defectors wrote about it or gave interviews,” he added.

One important defector was Yu Qiansheng, an official with the Ministry of State Security, who defected in 1985 and revealed that CIA analyst Larry Wu-Tai Chin was a spy for China. Yu is the brother of current Chinese Politburo Standing Committee member Yu Zhengsheng, currently one of the most powerful leaders in China.

More recently, China’s leading dissident, the astrophysics professor Fang Lizhi, revealed details about secret internal debates in a book.

“Let’s hope more defectors come out to reveal Beijing’s secret debates,” Pillsbury said.

Former State Department China hand John J. Tkacik said Ling likely can provide new details of Chinese power struggles, such as the cases of ousted security chief Zhou Yongkang and imprisoned regional Party chief Bo Xilai.

“But the most important intel he could provide would be on the inner workings of China’s global financial strategies, the extent to which the Chinese have infiltrated both global financial markets, both with human assets and network penetrations, and have used these tools to fuel their incredible accumulation on wealth,” Tkacik said.

Ling also could reveal details of China’s agricultural, industrial, and media purchases in the United States and how they fit within Beijing’s broader strategy to coopt the U.S. economy, Tkacik said.

“How much useful intelligence the Bureau can get from Ling will be a measure of how seriously the U.S. government takes China’s financial threat to the U.S. economy,” he added.

The first details of the Ling case were disclosed in two dissident Chinese magazines in Hong Kong, Qianshao and Chenming, in November. The London Sunday Times first reported the magazines’ disclosures, some of which were confirmed by U.S. officials.

According to the Chenming, China’s senior internal security chief Meng Jianzhu disclosed details of what he called one of China’s most damaging betrayals at a closed-door meeting of Party officials in southern China.

Ling Jihua was accused of carrying out the document theft some time between June 2012 and his arrest on July 20, 2015.

After the arrest, a special task force of Chinese security and intelligence agencies was formed to assess the damage. The task force finished its work in September.

As a result, 72 senior officials out of a total 85 officials in 19 offices under Ling Jihua were replaced and at least 55 people were under investigation by last fall.

The Chenming report said that as a result of the compromises, Chinese Politburo offices came under cyber attack for several months. Additionally, telephone and computer equipment was replaced over security concerns.

Ling Wancheng was said to have had unrestricted access to Ling Jihua’s office and is therefore suspected of making off with the classified documents, the magazine said.

According to Qianshao, the second magazine, Meng said at the meeting that Ling, as a gatekeeper of the Communist Party’s most important secrets, “stole a great many top-secret documents from the archives concerning the Party and the state, kept [them] in his personal possession, [and] ultimately got them to America.”

The documents were taken during a month-long transition after Ling Jihua was replaced in July 2012. The office he headed was in charge of protecting government and military secrets.

During an investigation of Ling’s residence, Chinese authorities discovered that 2,700 secret documents had been photocopied. Most of the photocopies had been produced after September 2012, when Ling Jihua was transferred to another government ministry.

The secrets included security passcodes and communications codes used at Zhongnanhai, blueprints, and command and control information used by Communist leaders and the State Council, the cabinet, and the Central Military Commission.

Launch procedures for firing nuclear missiles used by Party leaders and People’s Liberation Army leaders also were leaked.

China’s nuclear arsenal and the conditions for its use are among Beijing’s most closely guarded secrets. Very little information is held by U.S. intelligence agencies on how China would use nuclear weapons and when it would conduct nuclear attacks.

Analysts say the magazines’ publication of details on the Ling case appears linked to two current senior Chinese officials who reportedly have voiced concerns about Ling Jihua’s loyalty to senior Party leaders.

Wang Huning, one of the closest national security aides to current leader Xi Jinping, and Wang Qishan, the anti-corruption campaign leader, were said to have warned Hu Jintao that Ling Jihua was unreliable. The officials’ claims to have warned about Ling suggest one of the officials may have leaked the information.

According to Chengming, Hu Jintao suffered a stroke during a meeting on the Ling affair and was hospitalized. Hu was last seen in public in early May 2015.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Ling Wancheng, who lived in California under the names Wang Cheng and Jason Wang, was an avid golfer and executive of a golf management and financial firm called Asian Pacific Group, which owns golf courses in California and Nevada. He had lived in the Loomis mansion since 2013.

Efforts to contact an Asian Pacific Group executive, Li Shuhai, were unsuccessful.

The newspaper reported that two agents from the Department of Homeland Security questioned neighbors about Ling in the spring or summer of 2015.

Ling Wancheng was a former journalist for two state-run Chinese news outlets and later became a wealthy financial investor with a Beijing firm called Huijin Lifang Investment Management Center.

Real estate records indicate Ling was married to Li Ping.

Efforts to contact Ling Wancheng were unsuccessful.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...raine-is-back-so-why-won-t-anyone-say-so.html

DIRTY WAR
02.02.16 10:00 PM ET

The War in Ukraine Is Back—So Why Won’t Anyone Say So?

Violence in East Ukraine is spiking but Western pols are silent.

Pierre Vaux

Russia’s dirty war in Ukraine is far from frozen, and despite the deteriorating situation, the West appears keen to turn a blind eye.

While the fighting in southeast Ukraine has rumbled on incessantly throughout the winter, inducing conflict fatigue and a drop in media coverage, the last weeks have seen a marked spike in the number of attacks.

Ukrainian officials are reporting up to 71 attacks a day, with most of the fighting concentrated around the separatist-held cities of Donetsk and Gorlovka, as well as the countryside east of the Azov port city of Mariupol.

Both sides accuse each other of daily using heavy mortars, which were supposed to have been withdrawn in accordance over a year ago in accordance with the first Minsk agreement.

According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which monitors the ceasefire, this month saw the return of the use of Grad multiple-launch rocket systems and 152 mm artillery. Both were reportedly used on two consecutive days in separatist-held Gorlovka.

January 26 and 27 saw a multitude of reports from Donetsk residents on social media of intense fighting in the north of the city, where the front line runs alongside the ruins of the airport and the suburbs of Peski and Avdeyevka. Dozens of Twitter and VKontakte (Russia’s Facebook equivalent) users across the city reported a powerful explosion and shockwave on the 27th, for which there is still no credible explanation. Some users claimed that the shelling was the heaviest heard since the final assault on Donetsk Airport at this time last year.

Furthermore, over the last few days, we have seen the targeting of frontier checkpoints, which allow civilians to enter and leave separatist-held territory, by Russian-backed fighters, raising the possibility that the government may be forced to close these vital passages to avoid casualties.

The January 13 call, put forth by the new Russian representative at the Minsk peace talks, Boris Gryzlov, for an immediate, total ceasefire has clearly amounted to nothing.

The Ukrainian and separatist leaderships are pursuing diametrically opposed plans regarding the holding of local elections in the occupied regions of the Donbass—a key element of the Minsk cease-fire agreements.

While Kiev, and the text of the Minsk deal itself, says the elections must be held in accordance with Ukrainian law, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, the leader of the self-declared Donetsk People’s Republic (DNR), last week restated his commitment to barring all major Ukrainian political parties and conducting the votes under DNR ‘law.’

The prospects for another element of the Minsk process—the exchange of prisoners of war, are looking gloomy too. On January 28 the head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) delegation to Ukraine, Alain Aeschlimann, told reporters that his organization had been allowed access to only four of the 133 Ukrainian prisoners the separatists claim to hold.

On January 25 former President Leonid Kuchma, the lead Ukrainian negotiator in direct talks with the Russian-backed separatists, said that he now thinks that many of those prisoners are already dead. The separatists are, he suggested, using the negotiations over the number of prisoners to stall and buy time.

All this comes amidst a grim backdrop. The ICRC says that over a thousand people are still missing as a result of the conflict in the Donbass, and disease, fostered by a breakdown in infrastructure and thousands of casualties caused by the fighting, is spreading rapidly.

Ukraine (as well as southern Russia) is now in the grips of an epidemic of H1N1 variant flu, which has infected 18 regions of the country and killed at least 171 people. Schools have been closed indefinitely in Kharkiv. In separatist-held Donetsk, well over 2,000 people have turned to doctors with complaints of viral respiratory infections so far this year. The sister Lugansk “People’s Republic” reports an even worse situation, with more than 10,000 people infected and dozens of quarantine zones introduced. Both Eduard Basurin, a DNR military spokesman, and Vadim Solovyov, an MP in the Russian State Duma, have claimed that the flu outbreak in Ukraine originated from an American biological warfare facility in government-controlled Kharkiv.

This of course, combined with a (most likely Russian) cyber attack that caused a blackout late last year and the stand-off at the frontier with occupied Crimea over imports, only adds to the deep-seated mistrust between Kiev and the Russian side.

Yet on January 22, US Secretary of State John Kerry said that sanctions on Russia could be lifted within “these next months” if the Minsk agreements were implemented in full.

Leaving aside the fact that sanctions were first introduced in response to Russia’s occupation and annexation of Crimea—a completely separate issue on which there is not even a hint of progress, Kerry’s suggestion that Minsk could be fully realized in the space of a few months is absurd.

Poroshenko has said that there must be a ceasefire before the “special status” law, that would establish semi-autonomy for the occupied areas of the Donbass and establish the legal framework for local elections, comes into effect. And even if those highly contested electoral plans come to fruition, the Minsk agreements stipulate the withdrawal of all foreign (i.e. Russian) forces from Ukraine and the return of government control of all of the border with Russia before full implementation looks near.

Kerry’s hint at rapprochement is part of a wider trend.

The German and Finnish governments continue to pursue the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project with the Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom, a policy that flies in the face of moves to achieve European energy independence and is opposed by Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states.

In the UK, despite a devastating conclusion from the public inquiry into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, which found that the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) had organized the radiological assassination, and that then FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev and even President Vladimir Putin himself had “probably” ordered it, the government has refrained from rocking the boat.

During the House of Commons debate that followed the publication of the Litvinenko Inquiry report, the home secretary, Theresa May, opposed calls from across the house for the introduction of a British equivalent to the US Magnitsky Act — a broad sanctions bill aimed at corrupt and human rights-abusing Russian officials — and announced little more than the lukewarm punitive measure of freezing any UK assets belonging to the two assassins, who have been living under Kremlin protection (one as an MP) for almost a decade since the murder.

The reason for both Kerry and May’s soft approach to Russia derives from Western hopes that Putin will be of assistance in Syria. “We will continue to call on President Putin for Russia, as one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to engage responsibly and make a positive contribution to global security and stability,” May said. “They can, for example, play an important role in defeating [ISIS] and, together with the wider international community, help Syria work towards a stable future.”

But this means turning a blind eye not only to the killing of Litvinenko, but Russia's annexation of Crimea and invasion of the Donbass for the sake of a hope that Putin may be turned to work with the West on Syria. If Russia can, with impunity, use radioactive polonium to murder a British citizen in London or shoot down a passenger airliner over Ukraine, then how can we collaborate on “serious crime” or “aviation security?”

The hope here is profoundly misplaced.

While Russia “could” play an important role in fighting ISIS, they are not and have used the cover story of doing so to further aims that run directly contrary to the (publicly stated, at least) aims of the UK, US and France. The vast majority of Russian air strikes in Syria are aimed not at ISIS-held territory, but areas controlled by opposition groups. This includes US-supplied Free Syrian Army units. When they do carry out strikes in ISIS-held land, they bomb water treatment plants and grain silos, which the Russian Ministry of Defense attempts to pass off as oil refineries. Meanwhile, there are reports that Russia actually spent the years prior to the direct military intervention last September dispatching domestic jihadists to wage war in Syria with groups including ISIS itself.

The worst effect of this is that by devastating the opposition, which includes both nationalists and Islamists of shades varying from moderate to the fundamentalist, while leaving ISIS relatively unscathed, Putin and Bashar al-Assad are ensuring that the moderates are squeezed out and the jihadists' appeal to bombed and abused Sunnis is strengthened.

Furthermore, if the Assad regime succeeds, with the help of Russian air and ground forces, in retaking rebel-held areas like Idlib and Aleppo, then the refugee crisis that is already causing a breakdown in the EU Schengen system of free movement will worsen dramatically.

It is by no means a stretch to say that the breakup of the European Union is a foreign policy goal for the Kremlin. Russia has fostered relationships with far-right Eurosceptic parties across the EU, with the virulent, neo-Vichyist Front National even receiving millions of euros from a Kremlin-linked Russian bank. This month has even seen Russian state TV spreading a fabricated story of a German teenager being gang-raped by immigrants and the Russian embassy in London posting starkly racist tweets about Germany being trampled beneath the feet of migrants.

Western governments now appear set to ignore Russian malfeasance, not only in Ukraine and Syria, but at home in the EU, for the sake of fantasy and financial gain.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/if-russia-started-a-war-in-the-baltics-nato-would-lose-quickly/

Report

If Russia Started a War in the Baltics, NATO Would Lose — Quickly

War games show NATO’s eastern flank is vulnerable. To deter Moscow, the United States will need to deploy heavy armor on a large scale, a new study says.

By Dan De Luce
February 3, 2016
Dan.DeLuce
@dandeluce

f Russian tanks and troops rolled into the Baltics tomorrow, outgunned and outnumbered NATO forces would be overrun in under three days. That’s the sobering conclusion of war games carried out by a think tank with American military officers and civilian officials.

“The games’ findings are unambiguous: As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members,” said a report by the Rand Corp., which led the war gaming research.

In numerous tabletop war games played over several months between 2014-2015, Russian forces were knocking on the doors of the Estonian capital of Tallinn or the Latvian capital of Riga within 36 to 60 hours. U.S. and Baltic troops — and American airpower — proved unable to halt the advance of mechanized Russian units and suffered heavy casualties, the report said.

The study argues that NATO has been caught napping by a resurgent and unpredictable Russia, which has begun to boost defense spending after having seized the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine and intervened in support of pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine. In the event of a potential Russian incursion in the Baltics, the United States and its allies lack sufficient troop numbers, or tanks and armored vehicles, to slow the advance of Russian armor, said the report by Rand’s David Shlapak and Michael Johnson.

“Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, all bad,” it said.

The United States and its NATO allies could try to mount a bloody counter-attack that could trigger a dramatic escalation by Russia, as Moscow would possibly see the allied action as a direct strategic threat to its homeland. A second option would be to take a page out of the old Cold War playbook, and threaten massive retaliation, including the use of nuclear weapons. A third option would be to concede at least a temporary defeat, rendering NATO toothless, and embark on a new Cold War with Moscow, the report said.

However, the war games also illustrated there are preemptive steps the United States and its European allies could take to avoid a catastrophic defeat and shore up NATO’s eastern defenses, while making clear to Moscow that there would no easy victory.

A force of about seven brigades in the area, including three heavy armored brigades, and backed up by airpower and artillery, would be enough “to prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states,” it said. The additional forces would cost an estimated $2.7 billion a year to maintain.

The report was released Tuesday, the same day Defense Secretary Ash Carter unveiled plans to add more heavy weapons and armored vehicles to prepositioned stocks in Eastern Europe to give the Pentagon two brigade sets worth of heavy equipment on NATO’s eastern frontier. As it stands now, there are two U.S. Army infantry brigades stationed in Europe — one in Italy and the other in Germany — but they have been stretched thin by the constant demands of training rotations with allies across the continent. The new $3.4 billion plan outlined by Carter and the White House would add another brigade to the mix, but it would be made up of soldiers from the United States, rotating in for months at a time.

Late last month, Gen. Philip Breedlove, commander of U.S. European Command, released a new strategy anticipating — and pushing back against — the call for more rotational forces. Flying troops in and out of the region “complements” the units who call Europe home, he wrote, but they’re no “substitute for an enduring forward deployed presence that is tangible and real. Virtual presence means actual absence.”

David Ochmanek from the Rand Corp., a former senior Pentagon official who has studied the challenge posed by Russia’s military, called the administration’s budget proposal for European forces an important step and an “encouraging sign.”

“Heavy armored equipment, pre-positioned forward, is the sine qua non of a viable deterrent and defense posture on the alliance’s eastern flank,” Ochmanek told Foreign Policy. But he said much more needed to be done to strengthen NATO’s defenses.

The findings from the war games will be warmly welcomed by senior officers in the U.S. Army, who have struggled to justify the cost of maintaining a large ground force amid budget pressures in recent years and a preference for lighter footprints. And the report will reinforce warnings from top military leaders, including the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph Dunford, that Russia may represent the number one threat to U.S. interests.

In early 2012, the Obama administration announced the withdrawal of two heavy brigades and their equipment from Germany, cutting deeply into the U.S. Army’s traditional, large footprint on the continent. Since then, the service has been slowly trying to move some hardware back into Germany for use in training exercises with NATO partners. Last year, U.S. Marines also began to roll a small number of Abrams tanks into Romania for a series of exercises with local forces.

Since Russia’s intervention in Ukraine sparked alarm in Eastern Europe, the United States has repeatedly vowed to defend Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in the event of an attack, citing its mutual defense obligations under the NATO alliance. In a September 2014 speech in Tallinn, President Barack Obama made an explicit promise to protect the Baltic countries.

“We’ll be here for Estonia. We will be here for Latvia. We will be here for Lithuania. You lost your independence once before. With NATO, you will never lose it again,” Obama said.

But the Rand report said “neither the United States nor its NATO allies are currently prepared to back up the president’s forceful words.”

The borders that the three Baltic countries — all former Soviet republics — share with Russia and Belarus are about the same length as the one that separated West Germany from the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. But in that era, NATO stationed a massive ground force along the frontier with more than 20 divisions bristling with tanks and artillery.

Tanks are few and far between now in NATO countries, the report said. Germany’s arsenal of about 2,200 main battle tanks in the Cold War has declined to roughly 250. Britain, meanwhile, is planning on pulling out its last brigade headquarters left on the continent.

With only light infantry units at the ready in the Baltics, U.S. and NATO planners are also worried about the continued Russian arms buildup in the exclave of Kaliningrad on the Baltic coast between Poland and Lithuania, and Moscow’s intention to build a new air force base in Belarus, just south of the Polish-Lithuanian border.

The war games run by Rand underscored how U.S. and NATO forces lack the vehicles and firepower to take on their Russian adversaries, which have maintained more mechanized and tank units. NATO ground troops also lacked anti-aircraft artillery to fend off Russian warplanes in the Baltic scenario.

“By and large, NATO’s infantry found themselves unable even to retreat successfully and were destroyed in place,” the report said.

In the war games, although U.S. and allied aircraft could inflict damage on the invading Russian forces, they also were forced to devote attention to suppressing Russia’s dense air defenses and defending against Russian air attacks on rear areas.

Although it was unclear if deploying more troops and armor would be enough to discourage Russia from gambling on an attack in the Baltics, NATO’s current weak position clearly did not pose a persuasive deterrent, the report said.

By undertaking “due diligence” and bolstering NATO’s defenses, the alliance would send “a message to Moscow of serious commitment and one of reassurance to all NATO members and to all U.S. allies and partners worldwide,” it said.

FP‘s Paul McLeary contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/01...n-geneva-will-fail-russia-iran-united-states/

There Is No Plan B if the Syria Peace Talks Fail

And, trust me, they will. So what comes next?

By James Traub
February 1, 2016

Ok got the text to cut and paste......

The Syrian peace talks that were to start last Monday, then Friday, just might get underway this week. But even if the Syrian regime accepts a U.N. resolution requiring an end to the starvation sieges it has imposed — as Syrian rebels are demanding as a precondition for joining the talks — the war is likely to go on and on, generating even more deaths and ever more refugees. The talks have virtually no chance of ending in a peace agreement.

The good news for the administration of President Barack Obama is that the talks may not end at all. Staffan de Mistura, the U.N. envoy charged with cajoling everyone to get into the same Geneva hotel, if not the same room, has said that he expects to shuttle among the parties for six months. The “process,” it seems, may long outlive even the strongest intimations of failure. As with the now-defunct Palestinian “peace process,” the Obama administration will thus be enabled to cling to the battered raft of diplomacy even as it ships water — at least until the last plank disappears.

Cynicism on this subject is cheap, I know. No solutions are in the offing and certainly not the “carpet-bombing” of the Islamic State favored by that swaggering Texan, Ted Cruz. It is absolutely true, as the administration maintains, that only diplomacy can ultimately stanch the bloodshed in Syria. And ending the Syrian civil war is in turn indispensable to the goal of eradicating the Islamic State. But the “Geneva process” is no more likely to succeed today than it was the last time it was tried, in 2014. Should they ever sit down, those on the other side of the table — the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, Russia, and Iran — will not feel compelled to accept any offer to which Syria’s rebels or their backers in the region could possibly agree.

So what’s Plan B? Ha. There is no Plan B.

Last year, de Mistura hoped to build a cease-fire from the ground up by negotiating a series of local freezes. That effort has stalled.
Now that Assad is reclaiming territory from the rebels thanks to Russian air support, he has no incentive to agree to any halt save as a precursor to surrender by the rebels.

You could say that we are back where we were in 2013, when Secretary of State John Kerry was arguing that Assad would come to the negotiating table only if his “calculus” changed because he felt that he was losing the fight. But back then the Syrian civil war was merely an unspeakable humanitarian catastrophe about which Obama concluded he could do very little. That was before the rise of the Islamic State. While Assad’s barrel bombs don’t threaten U.S. national security, the Islamic State’s fantasies of replacing the nation-state system with a global caliphate very much do. Obama finally did intervene in Syria to bomb Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s fanatical jihadis, but not Assad.

Since a cease-fire in Syria would, at least in theory, facilitate a unified effort to take on the Islamic State, the administration now has a powerful motive to press the rebels to accept the best offer Assad makes, be it ever so onerous. Officials have insisted that they will do no such thing. Kerry and others have resolutely repeated the formulation that Assad must go, even if only at the end of a transition process. Some of the key actors in the region, including the UAE, have signed on to this proposition; others, including Saudi Arabia and Turkey, have resisted but might come around.

It probably doesn’t matter. Assad won’t accept that formula, and there are currently no signs that either Russia or Iran will force him to do so. At that point, the Obama administration, which will be running out the string on its tenure, will have to choose between a cynical commitment to a dead-end diplomatic process and helping the rebels finally change the calculus at a time when Assad has far stronger support than he did during the last two rounds of negotiations, in 2012 and 2014.

A tough-minded cynic — let alone a mere realist — might tell the rebels that the time has come to take what’s on offer, even if it’s a flimsy sugar coating on defeat. But that would be a mistake, and not just in moral terms, because it has become clear that the Islamic State cannot be defeated without the help of the Syrian rebels. Why is that? First, it’s widely understood that the Islamic State cannot be dislodged by bombing alone, any more than a group of supremely dedicated insurgents can be. A ground force must do the hard work of routing them from urban areas under their control. In Iraq, the Islamic State may be uprooted through a combination of American bombing and ground assaults by the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga. In Syria, the army belongs to the Assad regime, and the Kurds can’t and will not go far beyond Kurdish-majority zones. Any act of liberation by non-Sunni forces would be likely to outrage the Sunnis now under the Islamic State’s thumb, provoking a new round of sectarian bloodshed. That rules out Western forces. Sunni states, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, could furnish such a ground force, but they won’t. Each has enemies (the Kurds, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood, in order) that preoccupy them more than Baghdadi’s men.

That leaves one and only one force — the rebels (not including al-Nusra Front, the al Qaeda affiliate) but certainly encompassing the nationalistically minded Salafists, such as Ahrar al-Sham. Jean-Pierre Filiu, a French diplomat and scholar of the Arab world, has called for the West to organize and support the rebels in an assault on the Syrian city of Raqqa, the caliphate’s capital. His logic runs as follows: The expanding circle of the Islamic State’s terrorist attacks abroad (Paris, and more recently Istanbul and Jakarta) shows that it can no longer be “contained.” The West must therefore act to reverse its triumphal narrative, which fuels recruitment of new warriors; the greatest blow to that narrative would be the fall of Raqqa. Filiu told me that the rebels from whom the Islamic State seized Raqqa, now concentrated around Aleppo, would be prepared to take on the Islamic State and could succeed with Western support.

One rebel coalition has even offered to incorporate elements of Assad’s army that “are not directly connected to the Assad family.”

“But,” I asked, “wouldn’t the Russians bomb the rebels?”

“That’s the problem,” Filiu said. Washington would have to not only lead a bombing campaign against the Islamic State but also insist that Russia leave the good rebels alone.

I have no idea if this is plausible. Of the four experts whom I asked about Filiu’s plan, only one, Hassan Hassan, a Syrian journalist and co-author of ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, agreed that rebel forces were both willing and capable. Charles Lister, a leading authority on the Syrian opposition and author of The Syrian Jihad, said that he thought Filiu was absolutely right that “taking [the Islamic State] on definitively in cities like Raqqa is the only way to genuinely dent the movement’s momentum and confidence,” but nevertheless concluded that a fragmented opposition reeling from attacks by the Assad regime and Russian bombers cannot be organized right now.

There are two very different ways to achieve the conditions necessary to make the rebels a meaningful anti-Islamic State force. The first is that the Geneva negotiations somehow succeed and Assad agrees to a nationwide cease-fire and the Russians stop bombing the rebels. Senior American military officials have already concluded that they will need to send hundreds of more troops to Syria and Iraq to engage in training, surveillance, and intelligence work; they would provide support to both Kurdish and Arab rebel forces in Syria. The other alternative, of course, is that the negotiations fail and the Obama administration concludes that, as a matter of national self-interest, it must take the lead in supporting the mainstream rebels and organizing support among its coalition partners, demonstrating to Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Iranians that Assad has no long-term prospect of remaining even as master of a rump state in western Syria. At some point, the coalition would also have to establish a no-fly zone that would allow rebels to move eastward from Aleppo to the Islamic State-held city of Manbij and then on to Raqqa. This would, of course, require some very tough diplomacy with Russia, which until now has largely had its way in Syria.

Maybe there’s another, better way. But if it’s true that the rebels are not an impediment to the war against the Islamic State but rather a powerful potential ally, we have to treat them that way. In the face of the impending talks, they have proved far more organized and coherent than they have been in the past, banding together behind a former Syrian military leader to form the High Negotiations Committee. It would be wonderful if everyone could get together at Geneva and agree on a collective good. But just in case that doesn’t happen, we need to be ready with Plan B.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUSKCN0VC1VQ

World | Wed Feb 3, 2016 3:32pm EST
Related: World, Syria

Syrian army and allies breaks rebel siege of Shi'ite towns: army

BEIRUT | By Laila Bassam


The Syrian army and its allies have broken a three-year rebel siege of two Shi’ite towns in northwest Syria, government and rebel groups said on Wednesday, cutting off a main insurgent route to nearby Turkey.

The two towns of Nubul and Zahraa, with an estimated 60,000 population, are connected to the border by areas under the control of Kurdish militias that provided them some access.

Al Manar, television channel of Lebanon’s Hezbollah militant group, joined Syria's army and state media in reporting the breakthrough, which it said came after the army moved in from towns secured in a recent offensive in northern Aleppo province.

A Levant Front rebel said the siege was broken "after three days of legendary resistance by the revolutionaries facing the Russian military machine, an after more than 500 raids by Russian air planes".

"Less than 3 km separate the regime from cutting all routes to opposition-held Aleppo," said Rami Abdulrahman, head of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, said. "It did in three days what it failed to do in 3-1/2 years."

Also on Wednesday, U.N.-mediated talks in Geneva to end the war in Syria were paused until Feb. 25. U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura said they had not failed but urgently needed help from international backers led by the United States and Russia.


Related Coverage
› Aleppo offensive uproots hundreds, kills aid workers: U.N.

The Syrian government and its allies were meanwhile pressing offensives against rebels south of Aleppo, once Syria's biggest city and commercial centre, and against Islamic State to the east of the city split between government and rebel control.

Alongside heavy Russian aerial support, the advances have been made possible by ground troops from Lebanon's Shi'ite Hezbollah movement and Iranian-backed militias that support President Bashar al-Assad's government.

The Russia air strikes that began in September tilted the war in Assad's favour after setbacks earlier in 2015 brought rebel groups close to the coastal heartland of his Alawite sect

"The Syrian army and its allies have totally broken the siege on Nubul and Zahraa," a senior army official told Reuters, referring to Hezbollah fighters and other militias fighting alongside government forces

Al Manar TV said pro-goovernment militias from the besieged towns were able to link up with advancing Syrian army troops after the town of Maarsteh al Khan fell to them.

Breaking the siege opens a direct route for the Syrian army to Kurdish-controlled Afrin and brings them closer to areas run by Turkish-backed insurgents near the Turkish border.

Defence strategists say the two heavily garrisoned towns could become a launching pad for the Syrian army and its allies for wider territorial gains in northern Aleppo province and to tighten the encirclement of the rebel-held part of Aleppo city.


Related Coverage
› Russian military adviser killed in Syria on Feb. 1: agencies

"Ending the siege means the supply route to terrorists from Turkey to Aleppo has been severed," a Syrian military source said.

Syria's state-run news channel Al-Ikhbariyah quoted Nubul mayor Ali Balawi as saying the siege by mainly Islamist rebels was "cruel and caused much hardship", with severe shortages of humanitarian goods. The only route that brought some food and essential goods came from Afrin to the north of the town.

The Syrian army also pressed ahead in southern Syria where it made advances near Deraa city in the town of Atman after securing the town of Sheikh Maskin last month.


(Additional reporting by Tom Perry and Suleiman Al-Khalidi; Editing by Tom Heneghan)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-satellite-idUSKCN0VB1NY

Business | Wed Feb 3, 2016 5:35pm EST
Related: World, United Nations, Japan, South Korea

Pressure mounts on North Korea to abandon rocket launch

SEOUL/TOKYO | By Jack Kim and Nobuhiro Kubo


International pressure grew on North Korea to call off a planned rocket launch, seen by some governments as another missile test, while Japan put its military on alert to shoot down any rocket that threatens its territory.

North Korea notified United Nations agencies on Tuesday of its plan to launch what it called an "earth observation satellite" some time between Feb. 8 and 25.

Pyongyang has said it has a sovereign right to pursue a space programme, although the United States and other governments suspect such rocket launches are tests of its missiles.

Japan's defence minister, Gen Nakatani, told a media briefing on Wednesday he had issued an order to shoot down any "ballistic missile threat".

Tension rose in East Asia last month after North Korea's fourth nuclear test, this time of what it said was a hydrogen bomb.

A rocket launch coming so soon after would raise concern that North Korea plans to fit nuclear warheads on its missiles, giving it the capability to launch a strike against South Korea, Japan and possibly targets as far away as the U.S. West Coast.

North Korea last launched a long-range rocket in December 2012, sending an object it described as a communications satellite into orbit.

South Korea warned the North it would pay a "severe price" if it goes ahead with the launch.


Related Coverage
› France urges North Korea to avoid tensions with ballistic test
› U.N. chief urges North Korea not to use ballistic technology

"North Korea's notice of the plan to launch a long-range missile, coming at a time when there is a discussion for (U.N.) Security Council sanctions on its fourth nuclear test, is a direct challenge to the international community," the presidential Blue House said in a statement.

Russia's Foreign Ministry said Pyongyang was demonstrating "an outrageous disregard for the universally recognised norms of international law," while France said the launch would merit a firm response from the international community.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged North Korea not to use ballistic missile technology, which is banned by Security Council resolutions.


Related Video

Video

U.S. warns North Korea against satellite launch

'EXTREMELY CONCERNED'

China, under U.S. pressure to use its influence to rein in the isolated North, said Pyongyang's right to space exploration was restricted under U.N. resolutions.

China is North Korea's sole main ally, though Beijing disapproves of its nuclear programme.

"We are extremely concerned about this," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang told a briefing on Wednesday.

"In the present situation, we hope North Korea exercises restraint on the issue of launching satellites, acts cautiously and does not take any escalatory steps that may further raise tensions on the Korean peninsula."


Related Coverage
› South Korea to tell planes to avoid areas potentially affected by North's rocket launch
› China says extremely concerned by North Korea satellite launch plan

Reports of the planned launch also drew fresh U.S. calls for tougher U.N. sanctions that are already under discussion in response to North Korea's Jan. 6 nuclear test.

A spokeswoman for the International Maritime Organization, a U.N. agency, said it had been told by North Korea of the plan to launch a satellite.

The Washington-based North Korean monitoring project 38 North said commercial satellite images of North Korea's Sohae launch site taken on Monday showed activity consistent with preparations for a launch within North Korea's given timeframe, but no indications that this was imminent.

North Korea said the launch would be conducted in the morning one day during the announced period, and gave the coordinates for the locations where the rocket boosters and the cover for the payload would drop.

Those locations are expected to be in the Yellow Sea off the Korean Peninsula's west coast and in the Pacific Ocean to the east of the Philippines, Pyongyang said.

South Korea told commercial airliners to avoid flying in areas of the rocket's possible flight path during the period.


(Additional reporting by Ju-min Park in Seoul, Ben Blanchard in Beijing and David Brunnstrom in Washington; Editing by Dean Yates and Jonathan Oatis)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm........

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.northkoreatech.org/2016/02/03/launch-plans-indicate-largely-unchanged-unha-3/

Launch plans indicate largely unchanged Unha 3 rocket

Posted By: Martyn Williams
February 3, 2016

Rocket drop zones listed in maritime warnings issued by North Korea indicate its planned February satellite launch will take place on a rocket not dissimilar to the Unha-3 that it used on two previous launches in 2012.

The drop zones are areas of the sea into which the first stage, second stage and satellite fairings will fall during the launch and are influenced by the size and power of the rocket.

“It looks like they may have tinkered with the Unha-3, but the splashdown zones are similar enough that I don’t think it’s the new larger rocket that analysts have been wondering about,” said Melissa Hanham, a senior research associate at James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute for International Studies in Monterey, California.

Hanham is referring to recent sightings of rocket models in the North Korean media bearing the name “Unha 9.”

The first-stage and fairing drop zones for the planned launch are in blue on this map, the drop zones for the December 2012 launch of Kwangmyongsong 3-2 are in yellow.

160203-kms-drop-1-570x380.png

http://www.northkoreatech.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/160203-kms-drop-1-570x380.png

“Just a touch north of the last lot,” said Jonathan McDowell, an astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. “Maybe they measured the previous flight as being a little lower thrust than designed and are adjusting predictions, or maybe this payload is slightly heavier. But seems likely to be the same general type of vehicle.”

The second stage drop zone, off the coast of Luzon, is also a little to the north.

160203-kms-drop-2-570x380.png

http://www.northkoreatech.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/160203-kms-drop-2-570x380.png

While they differ in their latitude, they line up in longitude indicating North Korea is hoping to launch a satellite into the same orbit as its previous launch. That successfully delivered a satellite into orbit, but scientists do not appear to have ever been able to take control of the craft. When last observed, it was spinning through space.

North Korean state media has yet to comment on the launch plans and satellite images of the launch site haven’t revealed the rocket.

The country said it plans to conduct a satellite launch sometime between February 8 and 25th. The timing is thought to have been chosen to coincide with the February 16th anniversary of the birth of late leader Kim Jong Il.


Related posts:
1.North Korea to launch satellite in April
2.First reports from Sohae launch pad
3.Sohae visit adds to launch, payload knowledge
4.What North Korea’s launch might look like
5.Exclusive: Launch unlikely until December 21; weather challenges ahead
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Russia Downsizes And Updates Its Playbook
Started by Shacknasty Shagratý, Today 05:38 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?483730-Russia-Downsizes-And-Updates-Its-Playbook


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/pay-attention-america-russia-upgrading-its-military-15094

Pay Attention, America: Russia Is Upgrading Its Military

The Kremlin's forces are in the midst of a historic overhaul.

Steven Pifer
February 3, 2016
Comments 190

Russia is in the midst of a major modernization of its armed forces. This has been driven by Vladimir Putin’s ambition to restore Russia’s hard power and supported by the revenues that flowed into the Kremlin’s coffers between 2004 and 2014, when the price of oil was high. The modernization programs encompass all parts of the Russian military, including strategic nuclear, nonstrategic nuclear and conventional forces.

The United States has to pay attention. Russia may be a power in long-term decline, but it retains the capacity to make significant trouble. Moreover, in recent years the Kremlin has shown a new readiness to use military force. But not all aspects of the modernization program are equally worrisome.

Strategic Nuclear

Russia is modernizing the three legs of its strategic triad. It is procuring eight Borei-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), and is halfway through a ten-year program to build four hundred intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). It is also updating its Tu-160 Blackjack bombers, and officials have reportedly considered reopening the Blackjack production line.

Placed in context, however, the strategic modernization program appears less worrisome. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian economy went into free fall for most of the ensuing decade. The defense budget received little in comparison to Soviet times, and most programs, including strategic nuclear forces, were starved for funds. That only began to change in the mid-2000s.

The strategic modernization program is replacing a lot of old systems, systems that the Russian military would have preferred to retire earlier had it been able to pay to do so. For example, a large number of Russia’s strategic warheads sit atop SS-18, SS-19 and SS-25 ICBMs, all of which are scheduled to be retired by 2020. If the military had had the resources, it would have retired and replaced the SS-18s and SS-19s years ago. Four hundred ICBMs and SLBMs constitute a major program, but the number seems appropriate for a Russian strategic force that, under the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), looks like it will deploy 400–450 strategic missiles.

The Borei-class submarines will replace Delta-class submarines, all of which were built prior to 1991. A combination of reliability and resource concerns has meant that most of the older boats performed deterrence patrols at dockside rather than at sea. That may change as more Boreis become operational. In comparison, the U.S. Navy normally maintains about half of its fourteen Ohio-class SSBNS at sea.

The fact that Moscow is considering reopening the production line for its aging Blackjack bomber is interesting. Russia currently flies only a dozen of these aircraft (in addition to some sixty older Bear bombers). A decision to resume production of Blackjacks would indicate problems and delays with the next generation PAK-DA bomber, which was originally scheduled to have its first flight by the end of this decade.

Nonstrategic Nuclear

Moscow’s nonstrategic nuclear weapons are more worrisome. To begin with, there is Russia’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by testing a ground-launched cruise missile to intermediate range. While such a missile likely will not pose a direct threat to the United States, it constitutes a treaty violation and would threaten U.S. allies, as well as other countries, in Europe and Asia.

The outside world has less visibility regarding Russia’s nonstrategic arsenal than Russia’s strategic forces. It appears, however, that the military has developed a range of nonstrategic nuclear capabilities, including cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles and aircraft. By contrast, the United States has steadily reduced the number and types of weapons in its nonstrategic nuclear arsenal, which now consists solely of the B61 nuclear bomb.

Of particular concern is Russia’s apparent focus on low-yield nuclear weapons—which one official has referred to as a “nuclear scalpel”—coupled with its nuclear “de-escalation” doctrine. That doctrine envisages escalating to de-escalate, that is, using low-yield nuclear weapons as a means to terminate a conventional conflict on terms favorable to the Kremlin.

Russia’s unclassified national security strategy says that nuclear weapons would be used only in the event of an attack with weapons of mass destruction on Russia or one of its allies, or in the event of an attack on Russia with conventional forces in which the fate of the state is at stake. The “de-escalation” doctrine, Putin’s references to nuclear weapons in his public statements and the broad modernization of Russia’s nonstrategic nuclear forces suggest that the classified strategy could envisage use of those weapons in wider circumstances.

That risks lowering the nuclear threshold. And once a nuclear weapon—any nuclear weapon—is used, the possibility of catastrophic escalation would increase dramatically.

Conventional

Russia is also modernizing its general-purpose forces, having set itself a goal of making 70 percent of the army’s equipment modern by 2020. This is coupled with changes in operational tactics, some of which were developed after the Russian army’s poor performance in the 2008 conflict with Georgia. The use of special operations forces in Crimea—referred to by Ukrainians as “little green men” for their lack of identifying insignia—proved effective. The Russians showed the ability to quickly mass fire on targets when regular army units entered Ukraine in August 2014 and again in early 2015.

Russia’s conventional forces, however, face limitations. First, it is not clear how much progress Moscow is making in closing the technology gap with Western militaries. Some capabilities are indeed modern, such as the sea-launched cruise missiles that the Russian Navy launched late last year against targets in Syria. Of course, that was a capability that the U.S. Navy demonstrated in force against Iraq in 1991. While the Russian Air Force drops some smart weapons against targets in Syria, the majority appear to be “dumb bombs.” In contrast, most U.S. weapons used against ISIS targets are smart. (This may also reflect Russian rules of engagement, which are less focused on limiting collateral damage.)

Moscow faces a new problem of late: the sanctions imposed by the West following Russia’s aggression against Ukraine block certain exports to Russia’s defense industry. Closing the technology gap will likely remain a challenge. A related problem is the dependence of Russian naval shipbuilders on a Ukrainian manufacturer for ship engines, the supply of which has now been cut off.

A second limitation, primarily for the army, is the fact that conscripts still make up a large portion of enlisted personnel. The military took in nearly 300,000 conscripts in 2015. (While Russian officials talk about a million-man military, estimates put total personnel at closer to 800,000.) Conscripts serve for only one year, which hardly suffices to give them the proficiency that their professional counterparts in Western armies achieve.

Budget Woes

A weak budget prevented the Russian military from conducting much modernization between 1991 and 2005. That could prove to be a crucial factor again. Faced with low oil prices and Western economic sanctions, the Russian economy contracted by nearly 4 percent in 2015. Most analysts expect it to contract further in 2016.

The government budget for 2016 assumed an oil price of $50 per barrel. In January, the price closed at about $34 per barrel, after dipping to almost $28 per barrel. Russian ministries were told to cut budget expenditures by 10 percent, though it is not clear if this applies to the military. If the oil price remains soft, the defense budget may not escape unscathed. Alexey Kudrin, finance minister during Putin’s first two terms as president, recently said that defense spending cuts “cannot be avoided,” though they might be postponed a short while. That could hinder the military’s modernization effort.

Responding to the Challenge

None of this is to suggest that the United States and NATO should not pay heed to what the Russian military is doing. They must. But they should be clear-eyed about the Russian program and about what they must do in response.

Russia’s strategic modernization program should not cause undue alarm, provided that two conditions hold. First, that the United States and Russia continue to observe the limits of New START, which constrain each to no more than 1,550 deployed strategic warheads on no more than seven hundred deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and bombers. Second, that the United States proceed with modernizing its own strategic forces. The Pentagon’s proposed modernization program, which will hit its stride in the 2020s, appears more than adequate to fill the bill. Some elements could be pared back, such as the Long-Range Strike Option, and may well have to be cut, given U.S. budget constraints.

The United States and NATO should pay attention to the combination of Russia’s nonnuclear strategic weapons modernization program and its “de-escalation” doctrine. But NATO does not need to match the breadth or numbers of Russia’s nonstrategic arsenal. The F-35 and modernization of the B61 bomb are sufficient. The alliance must, however, think through how to adapt its strategy and doctrine to take account of Russia’s “de-escalation” doctrine.

NATO should devote more resources to conventional territorial defense. The alliance has overall qualitative and quantitative advantages, but it must resource its conventional capabilities to maintain its edge. It needs a concept and force structure to deal with a crisis in the Baltics, where the Russian military has regional superiority. It also needs to ensure that NATO aircraft could operate successfully in a more contested air defense environment, given Russia’s deployments of advanced surface-to-air missile systems. This is not just about NATO forces, but about doctrine, and having the operational concepts to contend with new Russian capabilities. To the extent that the alliance maintains a strong conventional deterrent and defense posture, it will reduce the likelihood of a conventional clash—and of a situation in which Russia might consider using its nonstrategic nuclear weapons.

Steven Pifer is a senior fellow and director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative at the Brookings Institution.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Turkey Planning Military Invasion in Syria - Russian Defense Ministry
Started by Possible Impact‎, Today 06:30 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ry-Invasion-in-Syria-Russian-Defense-Ministry
__

http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Military-Adherence-to-Laws-of-Armed-Conflict

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/terrorists-advantage-military-adherence-laws-armed-conflict/

Report: Terrorists Take Advantage of Military Adherence to Laws of Armed Conflict

Experts say the war on terrorism is hampered by an effort to ‘criminalize war’

BY: Brent Scher
February 3, 2016 11:30 am

Terrorist groups do not follow the laws of armed conflict but have been using them to their advantage in war with countries such as the United States, according to a report from the High Level Military Group.

Members of the group, which was formed last year and is composed of retired military officials and civilian experts, released the report on Tuesday during an event at the Washington, D.C., office of the Council on Foreign Relations.

“This report illustrates a new threat our forces are faced with—a political warfare strategy of our adversaries, terrorists, and insurgents, who fight with utter disregard for the laws of war or human rights,” explained, retired British Col. Richard Kemp, one of the report’s authors.

“They not only ignore the laws of war, but they exploit our armed forces’ adherence to the law,” said Kemp, who commanded Britain’s troops in Afghanistan. “They not only exploit events when our forces kill innocent civilians, but they do all that they can to compel our forces to kill innocent civilians. Then they use the media and human rights organizations to create political pressure against our governments.”

The fear that is instilled in our troops of breaking laws that are not being followed by their opponents on the battlefield will cause more casualties, he argued.

“The lives of our troops are in danger beyond what should normally be expected on the battlefield,” said Kemp. “The constraints that they are placed under both limits military effectiveness and cause more casualties.”

The group researched eight cases of government militaries in armed conflict with non-state insurgent groups since January 2000. Case studies were conducted on operations led by the United States, Britain, France, Colombia, and Israel.

In every case of conflict examined, it was determined that the government forces adhered to the Law of Armed Conflict—in most cases, the military force went above and beyond the level of care that is expected of them.

The IDF, for example, went to great lengths during 2014 operations in the Gaza Strip to minimize the sort of civilian damage that Hamas terrorists routinely had used in the past to turn public opinion against Israel.

Lt. Gen. David Deptula, who directed Air Force operations for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, expressed concerns that the level of restraint and precision exhibited by the IDF becomes the standard for all militaries.

“I do not believe the level of restraint exhibited in the Gaza conflict in 2014 should become a standard,” Deptula said. “Raising standards in one instance, even if done as a matter of national policy and not as a result of legal obligation, risks creating a precedent to which military forces will be expected to adhere to in the future.”

Deptula complained that incidental loss of civilian life makes front-page news and is wrongly treated as a violation of the law.

This attitude has pushed the United States-led coalition against ISIS to operate with a “zero civilian casualty tolerance policy” that is hampering the operations ability to be effective.

“What is the morality of a policy that restricts the use of air power to avoid the possibility of collateral damage, while allowing the certainty of the Islamic State’s crimes of humanity?” Deptula asked.

Kemp said that forcing our troops to be hesitant on the battlefield is putting their lives at increased risk.

“The war against the Islamic State is being severely hampered by the hesitancy caused by the overwhelming desire not to inflict civilian casualties,” said Kemp. “That hesitancy endangers our forces on the battlefield and endangers all of us here at home.”

Pierre-Richard Prosper, the former United States Ambassador for War Crimes Issues, said that the current military environment was created by a group of people in human rights groups that wanted to “criminalize war.”

“We saw—particularly in 2001 when we were in Afghanistan—a reaction from people who wanted to effectively criminalize war,” said Prosper. “These people will assume that any attack by any force where there is a civilian killed is an illegal act.”

Kemp said that the fact that this perspective being pushed by people with “totally unrealistic views on how to deal with violence, terrorism, and insurgency” needs to be countered by our leaders.

“The agenda on warfare in the 21st century has been seized by those that believe that human problems cannot and should not be confronted with military force,” said Kemp. “That these perspectives are not being effectively countered points to a crisis of leadership in the West, which if it continues will further undermine our democracies and the ability we have to protect them.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm......

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/03/a-plan-colombia-for-afghanistan/

The South Asia Channel

A Plan Colombia for Afghanistan

In the fight to rid Afghanistan of violent extremism, the central government needs greater resources to gain a decisive advantage.

By Shawn Snow
February 3, 2016

On Feb. 4, President Barack Obama will host Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos at the White House to discuss a peace deal that will end the decades-long insurgency between the central government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). The meeting will commemorate Plan Colombia, a U.S. diplomatic and military initiative conceived under the Clinton administration. Since 2000, Plan Columbia has brought nearly $10 billion in assistance to Colombia’s government and security forces.

The recent spate of violence tearing across Afghanistan, record civilian casualties, and a fledgling security force struggling to maintain the status quo with the Taliban would seem like an unlikely candidate for comparison with Colombia. Aside from the two countries’ geographic and cultural differences, Colombia is experiencing renewed economic growth and its largest reduction in violence in the last three decades. However, just a decade ago, Colombia had the highest murder rate in the world. It also suffered from a series of targeted bombings and killings, and witnessed nearly 3000 kidnappings in 2000.

Afghanistan’s insurgency is evolving from an ideological battle seeking to unite Afghans under a religious banner to that of competing criminal organizations fighting over valuable resources and opium smuggling routes — turf wars that Colombia’s drug gangs are familiar with.

Since the revelation of the death of Mullah Omar this past July, the Taliban has experienced steep divisions. Fights to succeed him have spread across Afghanistan, resulting in fierce clashes between the forces of Mullah Mansour, Mullah Omar’s former deputy commander, and his chief competitor, Mullah Mohammad Rassoul Noorzai.

Among one of the most valuable prizes these competing factions are fighting over is Helmand Valley, a strategic location in southern Afghanistan and a key hub for Taliban financing. Helmand is the largest producer of opium in Afghanistan, and provides smuggling routes into Pakistan. Afghan security forces have struggled to contain the reinvigorated Taliban in Helmand this year, with many of its districts almost collapsing to Taliban control. U.S. and British special forces have been dispatched to assist and advise their foreign counterparts, operations resulting in the death of a U.S. service member on January 5, 2016.

The Kabul government deserves much of the blame for the poor performance of Afghanistan’s security forces. Afghan forces have been spread too thin throughout the country, a result of the central government’s unwillingness to let go of terrain and prioritize its placement of forces. On top of that, roughly 53,000 Afghan Army soldiers — 30 percent of the force — and 147,000 Afghan National Policemen — half of the entire force — are manning static checkpoints, which limit the capability of offensive operations and maneuverability.

The United States should also be held accountable for security failures, as it has struggled to help Afghanistan build up its air force, which provides necessary support for Afghan ground forces and casualty evacuations. At the height of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, 852 military outposts were strewn across the conflict-riddled region. Now, roughly 20 remain, resulting in the reduction of intelligence collection capabilities, and hampering Afghan efforts to combat the growth of the insurgency and the spread of extremism. Hanif Atmar, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s national security adviser, stated in the Wall Street Journal that the “significant reduction of counterterrorism capabilities” resulting from poor military capability had facilitated the growth of extremist groups and emboldened the rise of both the Islamic State in Afghanistan and the Taliban insurgency. Plans are in place to strengthen Afghanistan’s intelligence collection capability to include surveillance balloons and drones for collection; this will require extensive training and technological support by coalition forces.

Much of Afghanistan’s current air fleet consists of aging Mi-17 transport helicopter and Mi-35 gunships, most of which are currently out of service or due to retire within the year. Last month, India delivered three of four promised Mi-25 gunships during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Kabul. Russia promises to deliver more Mi-35 attack helicopters.

As a stop gap measure for the 2014-2015 fighting season, the United States provided Afghan forces with the MD-530F Cayuse Warrior light attack helicopter, a similar airframe to the U.S. Kiowa Warrior utilized for decades. Col. Qalandar Shah Qalandari, commander of Afghanistan’s squadron of MD-530s, described the plane as a “total mess,” unsuitable for Afghanistan’s formidable and mountainous geography. Despite complaints from Afghan forces regarding the ineffectiveness of the light attack aircraft, Afghanistan has ordered 12 more for the coming fighting season.

Within its limited fleet of aircraft, Afghanistan lacks a dedicated fixed-wing close air support platform capable of providing precision GPS-guided munition strikes. Such a platform, the A-29 Super Tucano, was delayed in coming to Afghanistan for two years as a result of contract disputes within the United States. It is now scheduled to be delivered later this month, and will be field ready this April. The Tucano is a propeller-based fixed-wing ground attack aircraft capable of carrying GPS-guided munitions. U.S. General John F. Campbell, commander of the Resolute Support Mission (NATO’s “train, advise, and assist” mission for Afghan security forces), called this platform a “game-changer” during a House panel last October. This capability in particular was essential to Colombian forces in eliminating FARC leadership.

Afghanistan lacks the precision-strike capability that the United States provided through Plan Colombia. Afghan forces currently rely on a crumbling and limited capability air force with minimal support from coalition forces. At present, U.S. drone strikes represent the only precision strike capability for eliminating Taliban and ISIS leadership in Afghanistan.

If Afghanistan gains precision-strike capabilities, the military will then need to enhance its intelligence capabilities to provide forces with the skills and equipment to track, target, and neutralize insurgent leaders on the battlefield. As an outgrowth of Plan Colombia, the United States established the U.S. Embassy Intelligence Fusion Cell, an intelligence training and tracking network that allowed Colombia to push tactical intelligence to local commanders in real time, utilizing signals-intelligence intercepts. A similar network would help Afghanistan provide on-the-spot intelligence to battlefield commanders to target Taliban and Islamic State leaders.

With Afghanistan’s conflict entering a chapter of renewed violence, reminiscent of Colombia’s drug wars, it needs its own Plan Colombia. Afghanistan’s fixed-wing aircraft need to be retrofitted with GPS-guided munitions kits to provide them with the same capability to disrupt and eliminate insurgent leaders from the battlefield and an enhanced intelligence cell capable of providing real-time targeting data to local commanders. In Colombia, these capabilities forced FARC leadership to negotiate with the central government after much of its leadership had been decimated. In Afghanistan, these capabilities could be a game changer, putting the fear into Taliban and insurgent leaders that the Afghan government no longer needs to rely on dwindling coalition support to eliminate its leaders from the battlefield, thus showcasing its ability to provide its own security, and bolstering the legitimacy of the Kabul government.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-02-03/ending-civil-war-in-colombia-won-t-be-cheap

Latin America

Ending Latin America's Longest War Won't Be Cheap

Comments 17
Feb 3, 2016 10:00 AM EST
By Editorial Board

As if ending Latin America's longest civil war weren’t enough of an achievement, the peace agreement between the government and Marxist rebels in Colombia would also accelerate the region's shift away from destructive populism. That's why Congress and President Barack Obama should lend support to Colombian President Manuel Santos this week as he seeks more U.S. aid.

Colombia, which has received nearly $10 billion from the U.S. over the last 15 years, is already the region's biggest recipient of U.S. aid. But assistance to Colombia has fallen steadily to about $300 million a year, down from a peak of $808 million during the George W. Bush administration.

And maintaining the peace -- disarming the rebels, redistributing land they seized, ridding the country of land mines, and so on -- could cost up to 3.5 percent of Colombia's gross domestic product a year over the next decade. That burden will fall on a country hurt by the plunge in the price of oil (which accounts for more than half its exports and about one-quarter of its fiscal revenue) and the agricultural impact of El Nino.

Moreover, even as Colombia's military has beaten the FARC rebels on the battlefield, it has not been able to squash their cocaine trafficking, which supplies most of U.S. demand. The rebels have pledged to give up the business and encourage crop substitution -- another expensive proposition -- but making that stick will be hard. Worse yet, drug cartels not bound by any political agreement may fill the vacuum, stoking not just the drug trade but also attendant ills such as money laundering.

Stepped-up aid from the U.S. will be essential to meeting such challenges. With only a year left in office, Obama can't meet Santos's reported request of $500 million a year over the next decade even if he wanted to. But he can reverse recent declines and, with bipartisan support, create a framework for future assistance that strengthens Colombia's governing institutions and creates incentives for curbing coca cultivation. And certainly at least until the FARC follows through and signs the deal -- that's scheduled for March 23 -- the U.S. should defer Santos's request to remove the FARC from its list of foreign terrorist organizations. In any case, FARC leaders will still be targeted for sanctions under the Kingpin Act.

A timely mix of such hard and soft measures can help Santos sell the deal to Colombians worried by the economy and skeptical of the FARC's intentions. More broadly, it can also bolster a U.S. ally whose outward-looking economic policies and support for democracy have made it one of the hemisphere's brightest beacons of change for the better.

To contact the senior editor responsible for Bloomberg View’s editorials: David Shipley at davidshipley@bloomberg.net.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/europe/nato-europe-russia-deployment/

Europe

Keeping the Russian Bear at Bay

Max Boot / Feb. 3, 2016

In January 2012, the Obama administration decided to bring home two of the four U.S. Army Brigade Combat Teams stationed in Europe. This was a withdrawal plan initially hatched by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and smartly stopped by his savvy successor, Bob Gates, in 2007. But with the “reset” of relations with Russia seemingly going so swimmingly, the Obama administration decided to proceed with the pullout. The U.S. was left with only two Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) in Europe — the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy and the 2nd (Stryker) Cavalry Regiment in Germany.

A few months later Vladimir Putin returned to office as president of Russia and the “reset” became as dead as Lenin’s corpse. In February 2014, Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine, which resulted in the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea. Faced with the gravest crisis Europe had seen since World War II, the Obama administration discovered that it lacked adequate forces to deter further Russian aggression. ..........

___


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/syria/obama-owns-syrian-basket-case/

Syria

Obama Owns the Syrian Basket Case

Max Boot / Feb. 4, 2016

George W. Bush had his debacle in Iraq, but by the time he left office in 2009, the situation was vastly improved thanks to the success of the “surge,” which he had bravely implemented in the face of nearly universal opposition. Barack Obama has his ongoing debacle in Syria — 250,000 dead and counting; millions of refugees; ISIS, Hezbollah, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda), and other terrorist groups expanding their power — and there is no chance of the situation stabilizing before he leaves office a year from now. .........
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/will-iran-license-build-russias-t-90s-main-battle-tank/

Will Iran License-build Russia’s T-90S Main Battle Tank?

Moscow recently proposed to Tehran the licensed production of T-90S tanks.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
February 04, 2016

448 Shares
0 Comments

The Russian company Uralvagonzavod, the world’s largest main battle tank manufacturer, has proposed to organize the licensed production of the third-generation T-90s main battle tank in Iran, once restrictions on military cooperation between the two countries are lifted, TASS reports.

Uralvagonzavod’s deputy director general, Alexey Zharich noted that his company suspended cooperation with Iran to abide by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1020 of June 9, 2010, which imposed an arms embargo on Iran.

“But if restrictions on military-technical cooperation with Iran are lifted, the corporation together with Rosoboronexport (arms exporting company) is ready to continue cooperation, in particular, on the licensed production of the T-90S tanks, modernization of the T-72S tanks and their production capacities,” Zharich said.

Under the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCOP), an international agreement on the nuclear program of Iran signed in July 2015, the UN arms embargo will be lifted 5 years after the JCOP adoption day. Conventional weapons sales will then be decided on a case-by-case basis.

The commander of Iran’s ground forces, Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan, expressed his interest in the T-90s already in December 2015 when he noted that he transferred a Russian proposal to the Iranian General Staff, according to TASS.

“The talks with representatives of the Russian side have been held and the corresponding proposal on the purchase of T-90 tanks has been transferred to the General Staff of the Islamic Republic’s Armed Forces,” he said.

“Currently, T-72 tanks are the backbone of our armor. These armored vehicles have proved to be fairly good in combat operations. They are produced by enterprises of our defense industry. At the same time, we see that the T-90 tank possesses better combat characteristics and meets all the requirements we set to the modern armor,” the Iranian general added.

However, earlier this week, Pourdastan said that he would prefer establishing T-90s tank production facilities in Iran, rather than buying the T-90s straight from Russia.

The T-90s, the export version of the T-90A, is currently one of the most advanced main battle tanks in service with the Russian military and the latest development in the T-series of Russian tanks. (The T-90s is based off the Soviet-era T-72 tank design.) The Russian-made tank is equipped with an automatic fire system and armed with a 125mm 2A46M smoothbore gun, which can also fire the 9M119 Refleks anti-tank guided missiles. The T-90s has a low profile and is equipped with both conventional armor plating and explosive reactive armor. Weighing 46.5 tons, the T-90s is fairly light for a main battle tank.

As I explained in January 2015: ”Back in the year 2000, Iran was the fourth largest importer of Russian military equipment placing right after China, India, and the United Arab Emirates, buying 6.1 percent of Russia’s total arms exports.” The Center for Analysis of World Arms Trade in Moscow has estimated that the Russian defense industry has lost around $13 billion in arms sales due to UN sanctions against Iran.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5::dot5::dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/pakistan-will-provide-special-force-to-defend-chinese-investments/

Pakistan Will Provide 'Special Force' to Defend Chinese Investments

Islamabad will provide 10,000 troops just to ensure the safety of Chinese citizens and companies along the CPEC.

By Shannon Tiezzi
February 05, 2016

3 Shares
6 Comments

Pakistan plans to create a “special force” of 10,000 troops to protect Chinese workers and industries along the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a Pakistani minister said on Wednesday. Pakistan’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs Syed Tariq Fatemi made the announcement in Beijing, where he held talks with Chinese officials (including State Councilor Yang Jiechi).

According to People’s Daily, Fatemi said that Pakistan has decided to create a special force of “highly trained military people” whose “task will be to provide the necessary safety and security of Chinese working in Pakistan and the Chinese companies and industries set up there.” He added that the new force “will be specially equipped and will have special organizations in concerned ministries backing them.”

Fatemi said the decision reflects Islamabad’s strong commitment to the CPEC project. He also said that the Pakistani government would take additional security steps as needed, based on regular discussions with China.

CPEC is a massive undertaking that will see China pump $46 billion in investments in Pakistan, in sectors from railways to energy to industry (here’s a list of the various projects from Pakistan’s Ministry of Planning, Development, and Reform). China has pegged the CPEC, which links Pakistan’s Gwadar Port with Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang province, as a “flagship project” of its larger “Belt and Road” initiative.

Yet from the beginning, the project has been plagued by security concerns. Gwadar Port, for example, is located in Balochistan, home to a long-standing insurgency (and things could get worse thanks to the CPEC, which has many Balochs worried that they will become marginalized in their own land). China has consistently (though quietly) raised its security concerns in discussions about the CPEC with Pakistani leaders, resulting in repeated commitments from Pakistan to ensure the safety of Chinese citizens and investments.

Pakistan is eager to give those assurances, because it is counting on CPEC to solve many of its most pressing economic issues, from jump-starting Pakistani industry to solving the country’s energy deficit. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif has even called the CPEC a “game changer” not only for Pakistan, but for the whole region. The downside to all this optimism is that there is no plan B should the project ultimately be derailed by security concerns. Thus Islamabad has taken the extreme step of creating a special force specifically to protect Chinese interests in Pakistan.

The move is paying off in Beijing. On Wednesday, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang was asked whether China was “satisfied” with the security measures Pakistan was taking. In response, he praised Pakistan’s government for its “tremendous efforts to protect Chinese institutions and personnel in Pakistan,” saying China was “deeply grateful.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/02/afghanistan-wont-be-able-to-pay-for-its-military-until-2024-at-least/

Afghanistan Won’t Be Able to Pay for its Military Until 2024 (At Least)

The top U.S. general in Afghanistan said that the Afghan economy will need financial support “at least” until 2020.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
February 04, 2016

298 Shares
5 Comments

While the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces (ANDSF) have kept insurgents from achieving their strategic goals in 2015, their performance was uneven and several shortfalls will persist beyond 2016, the commander of U.S.-Forces Afghanistan, General John F. Campbell, said on February 2 in a testimony in front of the U.S. House of Representatives Armed Services Committee.

General Campbell, who also commands NATO’s Resolute Support Mission, noted that capability gaps persist in air power, combined arms operations, intelligence collection and dissemination, and maintenance. “One of the greatest tactical challenges for the Afghan security forces has been overcoming the Afghan air forces extremely limited organic close air support capability,” Campbell noted, while admitting that NATO has started to focus on building up Afghan airpower quite late.

As I reported previously (See: “Confirmed: First Four A-29 Light Attack Aircraft Arrive in Afghanistan”), after repeated delays, the first four out of 20 Embraer/Sierra Nevada Corporation A-29 Super Tucano light attack aircraft for service in the Afghan Air Force (AAF) arrived in Kabul in January 2016 .“The AAF is expecting an additional delivery of four more A-29 Super Tucano by the 2016 fighting season, with an additional four delivered in 2017. The remaining eight will be handed over to the AAF by the end of 2018,” I explained.

Campbell attributes 70 percent of the problems within ANDSF forces to poor senior leadership, but explained that the Afghan government is aware of the problem. “The Afghan National Army has replaced 92 general officers, including the 215 Corps commander in Helmand,” the general said. While noting that logistics and maintenance issues continue to plague the ANDSF, the general expressed also cautious optimism: “While these systems are far from perfect, the foundation has been laid.”

Yet, all of these changes take time, Campbell underlined. “Too many times we try to compare the Afghan security forces with the U.S. Army,” he said. “The U.S. Army has been around for 240 years.” He noted that building an army out of a collection of militias amidst an ongoing war is similar to “to building an airplane while in flight.”

The general emphasized that maintaining current U.S. troop levels “through most of 2016 was welcome and important. The decision set the example for NATO and other coalition allies and partners to maintain or increase their support to the Resolute Support mission.”

“Now more than ever, the United States should not waver on Afghanistan,” the general said. “The crucial investment we are making provides dividends that achieve our strategic goals, secure our homeland and position us well in the region — a region that has been a source of terrorism and instability for decades.”

The NATO coalition in Afghanistan currently spends around $5.1 billion on the ANDSF, with around $4.1 billion coming from U.S. taxpayer money. Campbell urged the United States and its allies to continue their current funding stream until at least 2020. He also noted that the Afghan government will not be able to start paying for the ANDSF “at least” until 2024.

“Ultimately, Afghanistan has not achieved an enduring level of security and stability that justifies a reduction in our support in 2016,” Campbell summarized. “Afghanistan is at an inflection point,” he stated. “I believe if we do not make deliberate, measured adjustments, 2016 is at risk of being no better, and possibly worse, than 2015.” He also was adamant that “a strategic stalemate without end is not the goal of this campaign.”

U.S. lawmakers appeared unimpressed. “How many $4.1 billion times are we going to do this before we can figure out that we can get out?” asked Representative Loretta Sanchez. “This has just got to come to an end,” said Representative Walter Jones. Since 2001, the United States has spent $64 billion on the ANDSF.
 

mzkitty

I give up.
5m
Police: New Zealand's National Cabinet Minister Anne Tolley's office was firebombed overnight; office now under police guard - NZ Herald

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

Anne Tolley's office firebombed

7:40 AM Friday Feb 5, 2016


National Cabinet Minister Anne Tolley's Whakatane office was firebombed overnight.

Police confirmed the office of the Social Development Minister was under police guard after the attack.

An officer said more information would be released this morning.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11584909&ref=NZH_Tw
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:siren:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-saudi-idUSKCN0VD2J9

World | Thu Feb 4, 2016 3:32pm EST
Related: World, Saudi Arabia, Syria

Saudi says ready to take part in any U.S.-led ground operations in Syria

DUBAI


Saudi Arabia said on Thursday it was ready to participate in any ground operations in Syria if the U.S.-led alliance decides to start such operations, an adviser to the Saudi defence minister said.

"The kingdom is ready to participate in any ground operations that the coalition (against Islamic State) may agree to carry out in Syria," Brigadier General Ahmed Asseri, who is also the spokesman for the Saudi-led Arab coalition in Yemen, told the Saudi-owned al-Arabiya TV in an interview.

Asseri said Saudi Arabia had been an active member of the U.S.-led coalition that had been fighting Islamic State in Syria since 2014, and had carried out more than 190 aerial missions.

He said Saudi Arabia, which has been leading Arab military operations against the Iran-allied Houthis in Yemen, believed that to win against Islamic State, the coalition needed to combine aerial operations with ground operations.

"If there was a consensus from the leadership of the coalition, the kingdom is willing to participate in these efforts because we believe that aerial operations are not the ideal solution and there must be a twin mix of aerial and ground operations," Asseri said.

Asked about the comments at a briefing, U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the coalition was generally supportive of having partners contribute more in the fight against Islamic State but he had not seen the Saudi proposal. "I would not want to comment specifically on this until we've had a chance to review it," he said.


(Reporting by Ali Abdelaty; Writing by Sami Aboudi; Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu in Washington; Editing by Dominic Evans and Alison Williams)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-burundi-rwanda-congodemocratic-idUSKCN0VD2H2

World | Thu Feb 4, 2016 1:26pm EST
Related: World, United Nations, Congo

U.N. experts find bid to smuggle Congo arms via Rwanda to Burundi rebels

UNITED NATIONS | By Michelle Nichols


A confidential report to the United Nations Security Council found there have been attempts to smuggle weapons from Democratic Republic of Congo through Rwanda to rebels in Burundi where a political crisis threatens to spiral out of control.

The report by experts who monitor sanctions on Democratic Republic of Congo said Congolese authorities arrested Rwandan and Congolese civilians and two Congolese army officers in October and November on suspicion of arms smuggling.

They were caught at a border post between Congo and Rwanda with weapons, some of which "were hidden in bags of green beans or manioc, and others were hidden in the chassis of a car," the group of U.N. experts wrote in the report, seen by Reuters this week.

"The group conducted interviews with the perpetrators, some of whom confirmed that the weapons were to be used in support of an armed group in Burundi," the experts said. "The group was able to identify one of the (Congolese army) officers as have been involved in selling arms from (Congolese army) storage."

The U.N. experts did not say how many weapons were seized.

The Congolese army spokesman was not immediately available for comment on the U.N. report.

The U.N. report also accused Rwandan military of helping recruit and train Burundian refugees with the goal of ousting Burundian President Pierre Nkurunziza. Rwandan U.N. Ambassador Eugene Gasana dismissed the accusations against Kigali.

Nkurunziza's re-election for a third term last year sparked the country's crisis and raised concerns that there could be a bloody ethnic conflict in a region where memories of Rwanda's 1994 genocide are still fresh.

Burundi and Rwanda have the same ethnic mix, about 85 percent Hutus and 15 percent Tutsis. A 12-year civil war in Burundi, which ended in 2005, pitted a Tutsi-led army against Hutu rebel groups.

The U.N. Security Council traveled to Burundi in late January, its second visit to the country in less than 10 months. The United Nations has estimated the death toll at 439 people in political violence since last April but has said it could be higher. More than 240,000 people have fled abroad and the country's economy is in crisis.

African leaders, who met in Addis Ababa last weekend, agreed to send a team to try to persuade Nkurunziza to accept a 5,000-strong African Union peacekeeping force after he rejected the plan and said any such force would be treated as an invasion.


(Additional reporting by Aaron Ross in Kinshasa; Editing by Alistair Bell)
 

mzkitty

I give up.
5m
US Defense Secretary Carter says military will have missile defenses positioned and ready to track expected North Korean missile launch - Reuters
End of alert
 
Top