WAR 04-28-2018-to-05-04-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

Sorry for the delay folks....HC

(318) 04-07-2018-to-04-13-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...4-13-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(319) 04-14-2018-to-04-20-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...4-20-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(320) 04-21-2018-to-04-27-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...4-27-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

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

Reports that US launched missiles from southern Syria striking Iran ammo depots
Started by mzkitty, Today 02:34 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...outhern-Syria-striking-Iran-ammo-depots/page2

More coalition air strikes in Syria?
Started by homepark, Today 12:32 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?535493-More-coalition-air-strikes-in-Syria

SYRIA ATTACK UNDERWAY! - It’s on! Post 1198
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...IA-ATTACK-UNDERWAY!-It’s-on!-Post-1198/page56

Their Country Is Being Invaded’: Exodus of Venezuelans Overwhelms Northern Brazil
Started by Cardinal, Today 12:12 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...dus-of-Venezuelans-Overwhelms-Northern-Brazil

The real Palistinian threat to Israel
Started by Troke, Today 08:49 AM
www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?535475-The-real-Palistinian-threat-to-Israel

TURKEY'S ERDOGAN INVADES NORTHERN SYRIA PART TWO 4-8-2018
Started by Doomer Doug, 04-08-2018 09:09 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...NVADES-NORTHERN-SYRIA-PART-TWO-4-8-2018/page2

How Do You Control 1.4 Billion People? (The nightmare begins for China)
Started by mzkitty, 04-27-2018 08:21 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...illion-People-(The-nightmare-begins-for-China)

Maricon Sells New World Order, Bernie’s Marxism, Economic Update, By Greg Hunter
Started by Dozdoats, Yesterday 08:56 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...rnie’s-Marxism-Economic-Update-By-Greg-Hunter

Today's photos: Fat Boy arrives in South Korea
Started by mzkitty, 04-26-2018 05:53 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?535373-Today-s-photos-Fat-Boy-arrives-in-South-Korea

The Winds of War Blow in Korea and The Far East
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...of-War-Blow-in-Korea-and-The-Far-East/page104

South/North Korea leaders meet at border LIVE coverage
Started by Normallguy, 04-26-2018 05:28 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...th-Korea-leaders-meet-at-border-LIVE-coverage

Syria: Another Strategic Blunder (William S. Lind)
Started by Dozdoats, 04-25-2018 09:46 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ia-Another-Strategic-Blunder-(William-S.-Lind)

Plotting and Recording the Actions of Erdogan and Turkey
Started by LightEcho, 04-21-2018 01:21 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...d-Recording-the-Actions-of-Erdogan-and-Turkey

Macron: Europe Entering Age of ‘Unprecedented’ Mass Migration, ‘Shares Destiny’ with Africa
Started by imaginative, 04-22-2018 08:01 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...’-Mass-Migration-‘Shares-Destiny’-with-Africa

The Four Horsemen - 04/23 to 04/30
Started by Ragnarok‎, 04-23-2018 02:02 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...’-Mass-Migration-‘Shares-Destiny’-with-Africa

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/29/world/middleeast/mike-pompeo-israel-palestinians.html

Middle East

Pompeo and Palestinians Have ‘Nothing to Discuss’ Amid Gaza Crisis

By GARDINER HARRIS and ISABEL KERSHNER
APRIL 29, 2018

TEL AVIV, Israel — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo came to Israel Sunday in the midst of the worst crisis in relations between Israelis and Palestinians in years, but he did not meet a single Palestinian representative and mentioned them publicly once.

For decades, American diplomats saw themselves as brokers between the two sides, and secretaries of state typically met Palestinian representatives on regional tours like this one. When relations between the two sides deteriorated, the United States sought to bridge the divide.

No more.

No one at the State Department called Palestinian leaders to ask for a get-together with Mr. Pompeo, according to Palestinian officials. And that may be because the Americans knew the answer they would have gotten: No.

Infuriated by President Trump’s decision in December to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, paving the way for the United States to move its embassy from Tel Aviv to the contested holy city, Palestinian leaders have cut off political contacts with the Trump administration. They say the White House can no longer be considered an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

“There’s nothing to discuss,” said Xavier Abu Eid, a senior official of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Negotiations Affairs Department.

In a remarks Sunday in Tel Aviv while standing next to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Mr. Pompeo mentioned that the boundaries of Jerusalem should still be the subject of negotiations between the parties. “We remain committed to achieving a lasting and comprehensive peace that offers a brighter future for both Israel and the Palestinians,” he said.

But the escalating protests along the border between Gaza and Israel — which have led to hundreds of injuries and 46 deaths and have generated global sympathy for the Palestinian cause — went unmentioned.

“No meeting in Ramallah on his first visit sets an ominous tone about prospects for any progress, or even dialogue, with the Palestinians,” said Daniel B. Shapiro, an American ambassador to Israel during the Obama administration.

Aaron David Miller, a former negotiator for the United States in the Middle East, said Mr. Pompeo’s seeming indifference toward the Palestinians “at the very least suggests a casual disregard of the Israeli-Palestinian explosion that may be building and the U.S.’s inability or unwillingness to influence the course of events.”

Instead of discussing the Palestinian issue, Mr. Pompeo’s focused message on his sweep through the region has been a denunciation of Iran. He met with Saudi leaders on Saturday and Sunday morning, and they all agreed that Iran is a destabilizing force. He met on Sunday afternoon with Mr. Netanyahu, who blistered Iran alongside Mr. Pompeo.

And on Monday, he is scheduled to meet King Abdullah of Jordan in Amman, when Iran is again likely to be the most important subject of conversation.

In two weeks, Mr. Trump is expected to walk away from the Iran nuclear accord, which he has denounced as “the worst ever.” Countering Iran has become one of the few unambiguous policy themes of the administration.

Mr. Trump and his advisers disagree on how to confront Moscow. A potential trade war with China has caused deep unease across the Midwest. The administration’s policy on Syria is in flux. And North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, is suddenly looking like a statesman.

But there is consensus that Iran needs to be opposed, and Mr. Pompeo hammered away at them Sunday.

“We remain deeply concerned about Iran’s dangerous escalation of threats to Israel and the region, and Iran’s ambition to dominate the Middle East remains,” Mr. Pompeo said beside a delighted Mr. Netanyahu. “The United States is with Israel in this fight. And we strongly support Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself.”

As for the nuclear accord, “President Trump made it pretty clear: This deal is very flawed,” Mr. Pompeo said.

“He’s directed the administration to try to fix it,” he said. “And if we can’t fix it, he’s going to withdraw from the deal. It’s pretty straightforward.”

Mr. Netanyahu agreed. “Mr. Secretary,” he said, “I think the greatest threat to the world and to our two countries — and to all countries — is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons, and specifically the attempt of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.”

United States officials and international inspectors agree that Iran is abiding by the nuclear deal, which has substantially degraded the country’s ability to pursue nuclear weapons. Iranian officials have said the country may restart its nuclear program if the United States withdraws from the nuclear accord.

On May 14, the 70th anniversary of the establishment of Israel, the United States will formally open its embassy in Jerusalem, and a host of American dignitaries are expected. Mr. Trump has suggested he may come.

But that opening also coincides with the time that Palestinian protests are expected to crest, coming on the eve of the Palestinian commemoration of the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled or fled their homes and became refugees during the hostilities surrounding Israel’s creation in 1948.

The first senior American official to feel the Palestinians’ furor over the Jerusalem decision was Vice President Mike Pence, who postponed what was expected to be an emotional visit over the Christmas holidays after several Christian leaders in the region refused to meet him. When he finally made it in January, the Palestinian Authority, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, boycotted him.

Since nothing has been done to assuage the Palestinians in the meantime, Mr. Pompeo could have expected the same treatment.

“We refused to see Mr. Pence twice,” said Nabil Shaath, an Abbas adviser on international relations. He added: “We have declared our position and we don’t accept an American role in unilaterally controlling the peace process. To us, Trump is irrelevant, whether he announces the deal of the century or not.”

On Monday, the Palestine National Council, the P.L.O.’s legislative body, is scheduled to hold its first formal meeting in nine years. If Mr. Pompeo had a strategy to bridge the divide, he could hardly have picked a better moment to address the movement’s leadership.

Instead, he will fly home Monday after seeing King Abdullah.

A version of this article appears in print on April 30, 2018, on Page A9 of the New York edition with the headline: Pompeo, in Israel, Bypasses Palestinians.

Related Coverage
Mike Pompeo, Wasting No Time, Warns Europe About Iran Deal APRIL 27, 2018

Plan to Storm Fence Gets Bloody Preview in Gaza APRIL 27, 2018

Pompeo’s Message to Saudis? Enough Is Enough: Stop Qatar Blockade APRIL 28, 2018

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.longwarjournal.org/arch...r-suicide-bombers-used-in-timbuktu-attack.php

JNIM claims four suicide bombers used in Timbuktu attack

By Caleb Weiss | April 27th, 2018 | weiss.caleb2@gmail.com | @Weissenberg7

The Group for Support of Islam and Muslims (JNIM), al Qaeda’s branch in West Africa, claimed earlier today that four suicide bombers were used in the April 14 suicide assault on the Timbuktu airport.

Previous accounts of the attack mentioned only two or three suicide car bombs were used, with one of the vehicles not being able to detonate. The vehicles were disguised as either UN or Malian army vehicles, a tactic used to allow better access to the various military bases (dubbed the “super camp”) at the airport. It is still unclear why one vehicle failed to detonate.

JNIM’s statement claims, however, that the jihadist group used four suicide bombers during the strike. The statement also provided the nom de guerre, as well as a photo, of each of the bombers. According to the nisba name (an Arabic term referring to an adjective that indicates one’s origin or tribe) of the bombers, three were foreign fighters while one was a local Malian.

As one vehicle is confirmed to have not detonated, it is unclear if one of the claimed suicide bombers detonated himself in another manner — which has not been reported — or if JNIM is simply exaggerating what happened on the ground.

In addition to showing the bombers, JNIM also denied claims by France’s Operation Barkhane that women suicide bombers were used during the attack. The use of women in the assault, if it were true, would be the first use of female suicide bombers by the group and the first overall use in the Malian conflict.

The suicide attack in Timbuktu, which was large and ambitious in scale, resulted in a complete tactical failure for the jihadists. One actual UN peacekeeper was killed, a Burkinabe, while at least 10 others were wounded during the assault. France confirmed seven of its soldiers were also wounded. On the other side, the French military reported at least 15 jihadists were killed. JNIM has tried to down play this number.

Caleb Weiss is an intern at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a contributor to The Long War Journal.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/pentago...-for-foreign-nations-to-buy-american-weapons/

Pentagon

US makes it cheaper for foreign nations to buy American weapons

By: Aaron Mehta  
2 days ago

WASHINGTON ¯ The Defense Security Cooperation Agency announced this week that it is reducing a surcharge on American defense goods sold abroad from 3.5 percent to 3.2 percent, effectively dropping the price foreign nations have to pay when buying weapons through the Foreign Military Sales system.

The change will go into effect June 1. The funding from the surcharge is used to support the FMS process, by which the U.S. government acts as the go-between for industry and a foreign customer, using the American acquisition system.

The announcement comes days after the Trump administration rolled out a new set of guidelines for conventional arms transfers and unmanned systems as part of a broader push to increase American weapon sales abroad.

The U.S. sold $41.9 billion in arms through the FMS process in fiscal 2017, per a DSCA statement. Based on that figure, the U.S. took in roughly $1.46 billion through the 3.5 percent surcharge. Reducing it to 3.2 percent would drop that number to around $1.34 billion.

DSCA head Lt. Gen. Charles Hooper tied the surcharge cut directly to that broader goal, saying in the announcement that the change “will immediately reduce the cost of doing business for our international partners.”

“It demonstrates the Department of Defense’s commitment to charge only what is needed in order to support the administration of the FMS program which includes the sale of defense articles, defense services, and military training,” Hooper added.

Updated 4/27/2018 at 4:15 PM EST with new figures and clarification provided by DSCA.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/congres...defense-strategy-wont-work-under-budget-caps/

Congress

Mattis: New defense strategy won’t work under budget caps

By: Joe Gould  
3 days ago

WASHINGTON — Who’s the top enemy of America’s new National Defense Strategy? The answer may be Congress, if lawmakers fail to act.

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told lawmakers Thursday the strategy is “not sustainable” under budget caps due to return in 2020 and 2021, unless Congress arrives at a way to ease or eliminate them.

“If [budget caps] were to go into effect, the first cut would be $85 billion for FY20. That means the strategy is not sustainable,” Mattis told AirLand Subcommittee Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark.

“The strategy is designed to protect America and our interests. I could not provide you with the same strategy. I would have to rewrite it. It would be reductions in what we are able to do,” the secretary added.

Mattis, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford and Pentagon Comproller David Norquist appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where lawmakers’ questions suggested the contours of the budget battles that will follow the Pentagon-friendly two-year deal.

The Pentagon’s $686 billion budget for fiscal 2019 is the first under the new strategy, which is framed around America’s “great power conflict” with Russia and China.

Dunford’s written remarks reiterated his call for 3 percent real budget growth to preserve the nation’s military edge. He told lawmakers the strategic impact of budget caps and their enforcement mechanism ¯ sequestration ¯ hindered America’s ability to project power until recent budgets.

“If we had returned to the Budget Control Act and sequestration levels, we would not have completed the recovery we have been on,” Dunford said. “The challenges we have now took us 10 years to develop, it’s going to take us more than two to three years to recover.”

The Senate Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed, of Rhode Island, suggested that beyond current “moment of stability,” Congress will be debating the FY20 budget next spring — and then, he suggested, debt will add pressure on negotiations.

Reed argued the GOP’s $1.5 trillion debt-financed tax cuts Congress passed last year will lead to ballooning deficits, which will in turn distract from thoughtful debate and responsible action on national security.

“If our nation’s fiscal strategy does not take into consideration the need for revenue, deficit-driven measures like these will likely make it exceedingly difficult to follow through with a long-term strategy with regard to any serious challenge facing us from the international arena,” Reed said.

Reed’s remarks were in the vein of the House Armed Services Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith, who warned Mattis earlier this month of likely deficit pressures on defense spending.

Cotton, in his questions, expressed hope that with a budget deal for 2019 in hand, Congress would have the cooperation to avoid Democratic delay tactics and pass a bill in the summer.

The goal is politically charged, as Republicans may seek to tout the bill’s passage in midterm political campaigns. Plus, Democrats have resisted passage of defense appropriations without a nondefense match, part of what’s stretched the process beyond the end of the fiscal year in recent budget cycles.

“How important is it to the Department of Defense that Congress pass a DoD appropriations bill in a timely fashion this summer as opposed to having a continuing resolution as we approach the end of this fiscal year, Sept. 30?” Cotton asked.

Mattis, in response, called it “critical, and I think that budget certainty reverberates into American industry as we try to rearm the country with the modern capability. They cannot do that … unless we give them that predictability.”

Mattis’ remarks come amid word from the Pentagon that an in-depth review of the American defense-industrial base will be publicly released in mid-May. A complementary report from the Aerospace Industries Association released this week called for robust and stable budgeting.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2018/04/26/china-deploys-advanced-df-26-missile/

Asia Pacific

China deploys advanced DF-26 missile

By: The Associated Press  
3 days ago

BEIJING — China’s advanced DF-26 intermediate-range ballistic missile has been incorporated into its rocket force, boosting its ability to counter opponents on land and at sea, a defense ministry spokesman said Thursday.

The missile is capable of lofting both conventional and nuclear warheads, the latter to carry out a rapid retaliatory strike, ministry spokesman Wu Qian told reporters at a monthly news briefing.

The missile is believed to have a range of up to 4,000 kilometers (2,500 miles), leaving vulnerable the crucial U.S. military installations on the island of Guam, along with other bases in the region.

Despite that, Wu said China remained firm in its defensive military posture, including a policy of never launching a nuclear first strike against an opponent.

China’s missile force is largely designed to degrade Taiwan’s defenses in a move to conquer the self-governing island, while holding off U.S. military support.

Included in the arsenal is the DF-21D, which is built to take out an aircraft carrier, and a new air-to-air missile with a range of some 400 kilometers (249 miles) that could attack assets such as early warning aircraft and refueling tankers crucial to U.S. Air Force operations.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-support-for-iran-nuclear-deal-idUSKBN1I00GE

World News April 29, 2018 / 6:15 AM / Updated 14 hours ago

Britain, France and Germany agree on support for Iran nuclear deal

Reuters Staff
2 Min Read

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain, France and Germany have agreed that the nuclear deal that U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to scrap remains the best way of stopping Tehran getting nuclear weapons, British Prime Minister Theresa May’s office said on Sunday.


FILE PHOTO: Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May is flanked by French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel before their trilateral meeting at the European Union leaders summit in Brussels, Belgium, March 22, 2018. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir

May had phone calls with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel where they agreed the deal may need to be broadened to cover areas such as ballistic missiles, what happens when the deal expires, and what they consider Iran’s destabilizing regional activity, a statement said.

Related Coverage

Macron, Rouhani agree to work on saving Iran nuclear deal - Elysee

“They committed to continue working closely together and with the U.S. on how to tackle the range of challenges that Iran poses – including those issues that a new deal might cover,” the statement said.

This comes as a deadline looms next month for Trump to decide on whether to restore U.S. economic sanctions on Tehran - something which could destroy the 2015 agreement which lifted some sanctions in exchange for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program.

Speaking on a whistle-stop Middle East tour on Sunday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Washington would abandon the nuclear deal unless talks with European partners yield improvements.

“We’ve certainly made some (progress with the Europeans),” he said. “There is still work to do. They said: ‘Great, we will support you if you get the fixes’.”

Macron later spoke with President Hassan Rouhani and agreed to work with him in coming weeks to preserve the nuclear deal, his office said in a statement.

The French president also called for discussions on Iran’s ballistic missile programs, its nuclear activities beyond 2025 and the country’s role in Middle East crises, according to his office, in a conversation that lasted more than an hour.

Reporting by Andrew MacAskill; editing by Jason Neely and Robin Pomeroy

 

[Housecarl]

CSIS
Chinese Influence through Arms Exports: A Conversation with Michael Raska
Run time (34:22)
https://soundcloud.com/csis-5716978...rms-exports-a-conversation-with-michael-raska


For links and graphics see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://chinapower.csis.org/china-global-arms-trade/

How dominant is China in the global arms trade?

Decades of economic growth coupled with its ongoing military modernization have enabled China to emerge as a major player in the global arms trade. For years, Beijing imported several times more conventional weapons than it sold overseas, but since 2013 the value of Chinese arms exports has surpassed that of its foreign acquisitions. Between 2008 and 2017, China exported some $14.4 billion worth of conventional weapons across the globe, making it the 5th largest arms supplier in the world – behind the United States, Russia, France, and Germany.

Global Sales in Conventional Arms
The below interactive tracks global arms exports from 2008 to 2017. The total value of each country’s exports in a selected year is represented as a red bubble. Hover over a bubble to see specific export destinations. Click on a bubble to bring up a detailed breakdown. Arm sales involving non-state actors not included in interactive. See list of exceptions here.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China’s conventional arms sales surged from $650 million in 2008 to $1.13 billion in 2017.1 The lion’s share of these exports, around 74 percent, went to Asia. An additional 21 percent flowed into Africa. Although China has established itself as an arms export leader, the overall value of its trade still pales in comparison to the United States, whose exports averaged $9 billion annually over the last ten years.

Selling Arms to its Neighbors
Most of Beijing’s arms exports are sold to countries close to home. Despite low levels of arms exports throughout the mid-1990s and into the mid-2000s, most of what China did export (82.8 percent) were shipped to countries across Asia. This trend has continued as China has emerged as a leader in the global arms trade. A combined 62.4 percent of China’s conventional weapons sales since 2008 have found their way to Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Other Asian countries have purchased an additional 11.8 percent of Chinese arms.

Over the past decade, Chinese arms sales across South and Southeast Asia grew from $386 million in 2008 to $1.5 billion in 2016 before falling to $948 million in 2017. Notwithstanding this growth, China lags other traditional arms exporters to the region. Since 2008, the US has exported $27.2 billion worth of conventional weapons across Asia (not including the Middle East).2

Close military ties have paved the way for China to supply Pakistan with more arms than any other country. These exchanges are often tied to political objectives. Due in large part to growing cooperation between Beijing and Islamabad on counter-terrorism initiatives, sales surged from $250 million in 2008 to over $750 million in 2009. In March 2018, Beijing announced the sale of sophisticated optical tracking systems that could be used for nuclear missiles with multiple warheads. This announcement came just weeks after India successfully tested the Agni-V long-range ballistic missile in mid-January. Other purchases highlight close levels of collaboration between China and Pakistan, such as the co-developed JF-17 aircraft.

Bangladesh is also a strong buyer of Chinese weapons. Between 2008 and 2017, China provided $1.86 billion of weapons to Bangladesh. This constitutes 71.9 percent of Bangladesh’s military acquisitions over this period, making China far and away the biggest supplier of arms to Dhaka. China supports these procurements by offering generous loans and providing its wares at competitive prices. Discounted acquisitions include the 2013 transfer of two used Type-035G Ming-class submarines for Bangladesh for just over $100 million each. Since 2006, China has also supplied Bangladesh with the majority of its small arms, totaling over 16,000 rifles and 4,100 pistols.

Myanmar is the third largest market for Chinese arms exports in Asia. Since the easing of sanctions against Myanmar in the early 2010s, it has ramped up its acquisition of foreign arms. This buying spree has enabled China to make considerable inroads. Over the last six years, Myanmar has imported $954 million in conventional weapons from China. Higher ticket items include 17 JF-17 aircraft, 12 Chinese Rainbow UAVs, 2 Type-43 Frigates, and 76 Type-92 armored vehicles.

The Market for Chinese Arms in Africa
For most of the 1980s and 1990s, weapons sales to Africa represented less than 15 percent of its total arms exports. As China has worked to expand its foothold in the region, this number has grown. Since 2008, countries in Africa collectively purchased around 21 percent ($3 billion since 2008) of China’s overall arms exports. Northern African countries are the primary destination of Chinese weapons, constituting 42 percent of Chinese exports to the continent. An additional 29 percent flows into to Eastern Africa, and the remaining 29 percent are divided between other African states.

This relatively wide market distribution is somewhat unusual for major arms traders. Of the $4.9 billion of US arms exported to Africa over the last decade, roughly 87 percent were purchased by Egypt and Morocco. Similarly, Algeria and Egypt accounted for 84 percent of Russian arms transfers in Africa over the same period. In terms of trade value, Russia leads the pack at $12.4 billion in sales since 2008. The US tallied less than half of that at $4.9 billion, while China sold around $3 billion.

That said, Chinese weaponry is becoming increasingly attractive due in part to its cost-effectiveness. Although Chinese arms are often less advanced than those sold by other countries, the DOD notes that “Chinese arms are less expensive than those offered by the top international arms suppliers… [but still] have advanced capabilities.” For example, the low-cost K-8 jet trainer is estimated to make up 80 percent of all jet trainer aircraft in Africa.

China is actively working to strengthen its foothold in certain markets, such as Algeria. China’s exports to the North African country totaled $483 million between 2008 and 2014, but jumped to $247 million in 2015 alone and peaked at $499 million in 2016 as several weapon orders were fulfilled. These procurements included three C-28A frigates, which were ordered by Algeria in 2012.

Although not a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime, a non-proliferation agreement targeted at missiles and systems capable of delivery weapons of mass destruction, Beijing is generally compliant with international protocols. The 2002 Regulations on the Export Control of Missiles and Missile-related Items and Technologies, for instance, outlines measures to safeguard against proliferation. In June 2017, China published a draft of the Export Control Law, which if enacted will update existing legislation and establish a comprehensive export control regime.

Beijing has been quick to adapt its domestic regulations to account for emerging technology. This has enabled it to fill the void left by other suppliers. The US, which has long been at the forefront of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) development, has purposely restricted the export of its UAVs. Regulations that until recently characterized long-range unmanned aerial systems as cruise missiles, have also limited overseas access of American UAVs. These factors have created a ripe market opportunity for China, which has made its UAVs available to countries such as Nigeria and Egypt.

It is worth noting that Chinese weapons have found their way into various conflict zones. Reports indicate that Chinese arms have been used during conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Sudan, and Somalia. In July 2014, China North Industries Corporation delivered 100 guided missile systems, over 9,000 automatic rifles, and 24 million rounds of ammunition to the South Sudanese government, whose actions have been widely criticized by the international community.

China’s Modest Arms Trade with the Americas
Over the past decade, Chinese arm sales to the Americas have grown modestly. In 2008, China exported a meager $41 million to countries in the Western Hemisphere. This number plateaued at $178 million in 2015 before dropping to $36 million in 2016. Beijing did not sell any weapons to the region in 2017. Chinese conventional weapons make up just 3 percent of the combined North and South American arms import market, which is dominated by the United States (19 percent), Russia (14 percent), and Germany (12 percent).

Chinese arms exports in the Americas are concentrated in Venezuela, which attracted 87.4 percent of Beijing’s regional weapons sales over the last decade. Chinese weapon transfers to Venezuela did not begin in earnest until after 2006 when the United States placed an arms embargo against Venezuela for failing to cooperate in US-led anti-terrorism efforts. Since then Caracas has found a ready partner as it has sought to upgrade its military in a cost-effective manner.

Notable transactions include the sale of 18 K-8 trainer jets in 2010, 121 VN-4 armored vehicles in 2012, and an undisclosed number of C-802 anti-ship missiles in 2017. China is now Venezuela’s number two supplier of conventional weapons at 12 percent of the market share; a position well behind Russia’s dominant role as the supplier for 74 percent of Caracas’ arms imports.

While China’s major conventional weapons sales in the region are limited, China is a provider of small arms to North America. Prior to 2009, most of these procurements flowed into Canada, but in recent years Mexico has become a more significant market. All told, however, China only supplies a fraction of both country’s foreign small arms acquisitions. According to some reports, Chinese weapons are increasingly finding their way into the hands of Mexican cartels.

Arms Imports from Russia and Europe
Unlike most other regions where China is a net exporter of arms, Europe presents a different story. More than 99 percent of China’s total arms imports ($12.8 billion) come from Europe, while it exports a paltry $16 million of its own weapons to the continent. This trend is driven by and large by Russia, which supplies China with 67 percent of foreign arms. France and Ukraine collectively supply an additional 23 percent of these imports.

Historically Russian arms have poured over the border to China, but this trend is shifting. Russian arms sales to China averaged $2.5 billion through the 2000s until 2006, but this figure dropped to around 900 million in recent years. This downturn has reduced the market share of Russian arms exports obtained by China from 47.7 percent of total sales in 2006 to 8.7 percent in 2012.

This trend reflects China’s growing capability to domestically produce weapons, which in many cases has been supported by the successful reverse engineering of existing technology. For instance, the Shenyang J-11 fighter was adopted from the Russia Su-27k that Beijing first purchased in 1992. It has been suggested that China’s HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles were inspired by Russia’s S-300 platform. China’s economic growth has also contributed to this shift. China spends more on research and development than any other country except the United States.

The nature of Chinese arms imports is also changing. Whereas in the past China procured entire weapons systems, it is increasingly purchasing specific components that can be outfitted on platforms designed and built at home. Of particular note is China’s longstanding need to acquire foreign engines to counterbalance its struggles to indigenously produce them. Between 2012 and 2016, China purchased over 420 aircraft engines from Russia, along with four Sukhoi Su-35s. This represents a reversal from 1997 to 2001 when China bought only four engines but 79 finished aircraft from Russia.

Ukraine, which shares technological ties with Russia stemming from the Soviet era, also provides China with propulsion systems. In 2011, Beijing acquired 250 Ukrainian turbofans for trainer and combat aircraft, along with 50 diesel-powered tank engines. A sizable portion of China’s orders from France are also for engines. China has sourced French-built diesel engines, such as the 16PC2.5 and 12PA6, for outfitting its naval vessels. There are also indications that China has acquired French civilian helicopter engines for military use.

Data Sources
SIPRI Arms Transfers Database, 2018. View
SIPRI Arms Trade Statistics for Non State Actors, 2018. View
United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, 2018. View

China Power Team. "How dominant is China in the global arms trade?" China Power. April 26, 2018. Updated April 30, 2018. Accessed May 1, 2018. https://chinapower.csis.org/china-global-arms-trade/
Copy
Further Reading
Siemon T. Wezeman, “China, Russia and the Shifting Landscape of Arms Sales,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, July 2017.
Catherine A. Theohary, “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2008-2015,” Congressional Research Service, December 2016.
Michael Raska, “Strategic Contours of China’s Arms Exports,” S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, September 2017.
Michael Kofman, “Ukraine’s China Problem,” The Wilson Center, December, 2014.
Related Content

Military
What does China really spend on its military?

International Image / Military
How is China bolstering its military diplomatic relations?

podcasts
Chinese Influence through Arms Exports

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar..._first_domestically_built_carrier_113385.html

Questions About China’s First Domestically Built Carrier

By Bonnie Glaser & Matthew P. Funaiole
April 30, 2018

Q1: In what ways does the Type 001A differ from China’s first aircraft carrier, theLiaoning? How significant are these differences?

A1: The Liaoning began its life as a “heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser” for the Soviet Navy. It was later purchased by a Chinese entity and underwent years of refits to modernize its hull, radar, and electronics.

Five years after the Liaoning was commissioned, China launched the Type 001A on April 26, 2017. Unlike its Soviet-built predecessor, the Type 001A is China’s first domestically built carrier. Both carriers are similar in size and use a STOBAR (short take-off but arrested recovery) system for the launch and recovery of aircraft. Although similar to the Liaoning, the Type 001A features some notable enhancements, such as a larger airwing and improved radar systems.

The Type 001A is a major milestone for the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). It is one thing to refit an old Soviet carrier, as was done with the Liaoning. It is something else entirely to build one from scratch. With the Type 001A, Chinese ship designers and naval personnel are not just figuring out how to build one ship, but several carriers—each of which will boast new and improved technology. China is working toward incrementally matching some of the best carrier technology in the world, and the Type 001A is a big step in that direction.

Q2: What are some of the key areas where Chinese and U.S. aircraft carriers differ?
A2: U.S. aircraft carriers field cutting-edge technology, which gives them several key advantages over their Chinese counterparts. The Liaoning and Type 001A rely on ski jump-style launch systems instead of the steam catapults used by the United States, forcing Chinese aircraft to expend considerable internal fuel during takeoff. Aircraft launched from U.S. carriers have a significantly higher maximum takeoff weight, which enables them to carry a larger payload and more fuel. U.S. carriers also enjoy larger airwings with more advanced aircraft.

The newest U.S. carriers, those of the USS Gerald Ford-class, utilize the much-vaunted electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS). EMALS can launch heavier aircraft compared to steam catapults, and it puts significantly less stress on airframes thereby reducing maintenance needs. The need to improve its carriers’ launch systems is not lost on the Chinese. It is rumored in both the Chinese and U.S. media that China’s third or fourth carrier may be outfitted with EMALS.

U.S. carriers are also powered by nuclear reactors, which require only one midlife refueling during their approximately 50-year service life. Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers also have higher cruising speeds than those driven by the steam turbine powerplants used by the Liaoning and Type 001A. In late February, the China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, which refitted the Liaoning and constructed the Type 001A, revealed plans to speed up the development of the PLAN’s first nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

Importantly, successful carrier operations depend on more than just technology. The United States has decades of experience operating and maintaining carrier fleets, which gives it a massive advantage in terms of personnel. The Chinese are still in the process of training its pilots and personnel to carry out carrier operations and updating its naval doctrine to reflect the introduction of carriers into its navy. While over time the Chinese will close some of the aforementioned technology gaps, it will still continue to lag the United States in terms of the experience of its carrier operators and naval aviators.

Q3: Why is China building aircraft carriers, and how many will it build?
A3: As part of China’s ongoing military modernization, the People’s Liberation Army Navy has made great strides over the past decade and a half. China now fields one of the largest navies in the world and one of the most technologically advanced forces as well. Tied in with this modernization effort has been a concerted push to develop an aircraft carrier program that can be used to secure Chinese interests both close to home and, in time, to project power further afield.

Estimates of how many carriers China will ultimately build range from 6 to 10. Work on China’s third carrier, the Type 002 or CV-18, is already underway. As is often the case with China, the details here are a little murky due to Beijing’s lack of transparency regarding military procurement and technology development. Given the pace at which China is scaling up it carrier capabilities, however, it would not be a surprise if China fields up to four carrier battle groups by 2030.

It is important, however, to keep in mind that these vessels will likely have vastly different capabilities. A carrier with EMALS would be much more capable than the Liaoning, which may ultimately be slated to serve as a training vessel. Equally important is that operating a carrier fleet is a multistage process. While China is rapidly developing the centerpieces of these fleets, it must still train the necessary personnel to operate and maintain its carriers. Sea trials and flight tests (discussed below) can take several years to complete.

Q4: Now that the Type 001A is set to begin sea trials, how long will it be before it is fully operational?
A4: If there are no significant setbacks during the sea trials, we are probably still a couple of years away from the Type 001A being ready for regular carrier operations. Sea trials for the Liaoning lasted about a year. Following sea trials, the Liaoning underwent almost two years of flight tests. We might see a similar timeline for the Type 001A. Using lessons learned from the Liaoning’s sea trials and flight tests might streamline these exercises, but it is still a lengthy process.

Importantly, Type 001A’s operational status will depend on more than just the ship itself. China is new to the carrier game, and it will likely face some personnel challenges along the way. Fielding a corps of trained pilots, operators, and technicians takes time. Given the importance that Beijing has placed on building a successful fleet and avoiding accidents (especially fatal accidents), it may also want to progress cautiously to minimize risk as it integrates the Type 001A into the PLAN.

See technical details at China Power Project.

Bonnie S. Glaser is a senior adviser for Asia and director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Matthew P. Funaiole is a fellow with the CSIS China Power Project.

Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
© 2018 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

This article appeared originally at Center for Strategic and International Studies China Power Project.


Related Topics: China, People's Republic Of China (PRC), People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), Aircraft Carrier, Type 001A, Carrier Battle Group, Liaoning, Navy

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-fighter-jet-comes-within-feet-of-u-s-spy-plane-over-baltic-sea/

CBS NEWS May 1, 2018, 1:42 PM

Russian fighter jet comes within feet of U.S. spy plane over Baltic sea

A Russian fighter jet intercepted a U.S. Navy spy plane over international airspace above the Baltic Sea Tuesday morning in what the European Command is describing as a safe intercept — even though the aircraft came within 20 feet of each other, CBS News' David Martin reports.

Aircraft intercepts are only characterized as "safe" or "unsafe," without other descriptors. The incident was initially called "safe" but "unprofessional," but that was later changed to "safe" and "professional," Martin reports. The Russian fighter jet was an SU-27, while the U.S. Navy spy plane was a Navy P-8 maritime surveillance plane.

The intercept was the first since January, when another Russian fighter jet came within five feet of a U.S. spy plane over the Black Sea. After that incident, the U.S. State Department said Russia "was flagrantly violating existing agreements and international law."

Before that, in November 2017, the U.S. military said a Russian fighter jet flew within 50 feet of a Navy reconnaissance plane, causing the aircraft to tilt 15 degrees from the resulting turbulence. In May 2017, a Russian jet came within 20 feet of a U.S. spy plane over the body of water. In December 2017, two U.S. F-22A Raptors came in contact with two Russian jets as they crossed a deconfliction line over Syria.

This is a developing story and will be updated.

— CBS News' Kathryn Watson contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ali-kill-more-than-40-in-two-days-of-violence

Mali

Suspected jihadists in Mali kill more than 40 in two days of violence

Attacks on Tuareg ethnic group stoke fears of inter-communal violence in a country racked by six years of chaos

Agencies
Sat 28 Apr 2018 22.50 EDT

Suspected jihadists killed more than 40 people from the Tuareg ethnic group on Mali’s north-eastern border with Niger in two days of violence.

The former Tuareg rebel group MSA and tribal leaders said more than 30 people were killed on Friday, a day after another attack by gunmen on motorbikes had left 12 people dead in the Menaka region.

“There have been 43 deaths in two days, all civilians, from the same community,” tribal leader Sidigui Ag Hamadi said.

“Our fighters are destroying their bases and wiping them out ... [The jihadists] are targeting innocent civilians,” he added, saying he viewed the bloodletting as a reprisal for attacks on jihadists by armed Tuareg groups.

The MSA also put the death toll from the two attacks in the villages of Aklaz and Awakassa at 43.

“There are various versions, but I know there are women and children among the victims, as well as elderly,” the Menaka governor, Daouda Maigasaid, said.

Local people had been fearful of reprisals by the jihadists, who suffered major losses in recent attacks in the region, Menaka official Attaye Ag Ossadki said, “but nobody imagined that they would kill civilians in this way”.

Jihadist groups have proved adept at exploiting local tensions between ethnic groups – such as between the Tuareg and the Fulani – to sow discord. Islamic State’s Saharan affiliate is active in the Menaka region.

Maiga said: “The MSA is fighting the Islamist groups, which are composed mostly of Fulani. So these two attacks were reprisals against them. They want to transform the conflict into something inter-communal.”

Mali has been in chaos since Tuareg rebels and Islamists swept across its deserts in 2012, despite a French intervention to push them back the following year, and a large French military and UN peacekeeping presence.

Two weeks ago, the UN’s Minusma peacekeeping operation said it had received “very serious” information that “summary executions of at least 95 people” had occurred during anti-jihadist operations in Menaka carried out by “a coalition of armed groups” including MSA and Gatia. Both groups flatly denied any involvement.

Agence France-Presse and Reuters contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/riskma...-as-colombias-woes-spread-south/#a5aa80872f25

Business #ForeignAffairs

MAY 1, 2018 @ 07:00 AM 2,563

Violence Shocks Ecuador As Colombia's Woes Spread South

By Laura Sharkey

Ecuador has historically steered clear of the organized and violent crime dynamics that have plagued other countries in Latin America, boasting a homicide rate of under 6 per 100,000 citizens in 2017, far below that of neighboring Colombia and Peru. Superficially, it appears as though the Andean nation has been a successful security case study.

However, Ecuador’s comparatively low homicide rate fails to take into account the fact that the security environment varies drastically throughout the country; the areas bordering Colombia have long suffered challenging security dynamics. Ecuador’s three border provinces–Esmeraldas, Carchi and Sucumbios–have higher homicide rates, stemming from the level of criminal activity associated with the cross-border illegal trafficking of cocaine, gasoline, and other contraband, as well as human trafficking.

Even for a historically complex area, violence has occurred over the past few months in Ecuador’s northern border region that is unprecedented, with bombings, gratuitous attacks and threats occurring at a unique scale. Perhaps the most shocking example was the kidnap and murder of two journalists and their driver in the Esmeraldas province town of San Lorenzo on April 13, which has outraged the country and drawn attention from the international community.


The growing violence shows no sign of easing up. On April 17 the government revealed that two other people were being held captive by the same group who killed the journalists, and who are thought to be responsible for at least 10 attacks on the border in the past few months.

Who is responsible for the rise in violence?

Few people have gained international notoriety in such a short span of time as Walter Patricio Arizala Vernaza—known commonly as 'Guacho'—an Ecuadorian citizen who was part of the 29th Front of the former Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) guerrilla group. Guacho rejected the 2016 peace agreement between the FARC and the Colombian government, and decided to dedicate himself to the trafficking of drugs on the border via the Oliver Sinisterra Front. Although both the Colombian and Ecuadorian authorities have prioritized his capture, Guacho remains at large.

The recent attacks are likely a show of strength by criminal groups, and are also retaliation for government seizures of narcotics—Guacho’s way of demonstrating who is in charge and that he fully intends to take advantage of lucrative illicit activity along the border area. Now that a formal peace process is underway in Colombia, FARC dissidents no longer have the same ideological motives for their struggle, and are instead motivated by financial gains. The conflict is no longer confined to the same geographical boundaries. In the same light, the vacuums of power left by former FARC Fronts are attracting offshoots of national and international criminal groups who aim to gain control of profitable activities.

Moreover, the Colombian border regions of Nariño and Putumayo grow huge amounts of coca, and criminal groups are able to take advantage of the erratic and inconsistent reaction of the Ecuadorian authorities to traffic cocaine and other contraband items. The Ecuadorian security forces, following years of systematic weakening and lack of investment under the previous government, are simply unable to combat the issue.

Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno has consistently avoided hard-line rhetoric, calling initially for Guacho to give proof of life of the kidnap victims to authorities, and then on April 16th giving Guacho 10 days to turn himself in. The approach highlights the government’s reluctance to engage in significant action against criminals on the border, and the overall lack of understanding of the issues at play. Moreno is likely attempting to buy time and prepare necessary resources in case he does have to mount a major operation to find Guacho and other dissidents.

The repercussions for business

Whether or not the authorities find Guacho (he is unlikely to hand himself in), and even if the Ecuadorian and Colombian governments bolster joint military operations in the border area, the overall security environment is not likely to improve. If it is not Guacho asserting his power, it will be someone else—something that neither government has fully understood in wholly focusing their attention on Guacho alone, instead of developing a comprehensive strategy to combat the broader problem.

Companies operating in the border areas are familiar with the crime that has long-plagued the territory, and they will continue to face an overall difficult security environment, particularly as criminal groups fight to fill post-conflict power vacuums. Because criminal groups will continue to focus on attacking official security forces, businesses are unlikely to be direct targets of violence. However, personnel should be aware of the incidental threats that could stem from confrontations between criminals and the security forces. To the same degree, the unpredictability of these groups and their willingness to resort to violence should not be underestimated.


Port locations in less remote areas will present difficulties, as criminal groups seek to establish new routes or gain control of existing transit hubs. These groups may look to transport their illegal products in legitimate cargo loads as a means of avoiding attention of security forces. As a result, businesses that rely on port transport should be aware of the potential for extortion of their employees and contractors, or of dealing with corrupt local officials who may be involved with criminal groups.

Companies operating in cities that are located relatively far from the border (such as the capital of Quito) are unlikely to experience any immediate, major knock-on effects of the violence in the north of the country. However, the growing presence of criminal groups vying for control will undermine the overall security situation, and contribute to increased levels of common crime throughout the country.

Although Ecuador is unlikely to see the levels of violence present in countries like Colombia or Mexico—where clashes between criminal groups leave scores dead on a weekly basis—the situation in the north of the country cannot be ignored. The government’s response will continue to be inadequate, and criminal groups will continue taking advantage of this. Guacho will be replaced by any number of former dissidents seeking to control the illegal trafficking routes at the border, and these groups will employ violent tactics to gain control and prove their power, with the border areas simply a pawn in their illicit games.

Laura Sharkey is an analyst covering the Andean region at Control Risks, the global specialist risk consultancy. She is based in the Bogotá office.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.militarytimes.com/flash..._term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief

Military Times

Afghan insurgency and US casualties remain at highest level since 2015

By: Kyle Rempfer  
1 day ago

In Afghanistan, the insurgency’s control over districts remains at its highest level since the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, or SIGAR, began receiving district control data in November 2015.

That insurgency encompasses all illegitimate forces, including the Islamic State’s Afghan offshoot and the Taliban, a SIGAR official said.

Meanwhile, the UN-backed Afghan government’s control over districts is at its second-lowest level, according to SIGAR’s new quarterly report.

The stalemate over the country may not bode well for U.S. and Afghan officials hoping to broker a political settlement with the Taliban.

In 2017, 11 U.S. troops were killed and another 102 were wounded in the country. This is a slight increase from the 10 U.S. troops killed in 2015 and nine killed in 2016, but a significant increase in the number of wounded from both 2015 and 2016, which was 75 and 71, respectively, according to the SIGAR report.

According to the Defense Casualty Analysis System, two U.S. military members were killed and 22 were wounded in Afghanistan so far in 2018.

At the close of January, insurgents control or influence over 14 percent of the country’s 407 districts, while the Afghan government controls or influences roughly 56 percent. The rest of the districts remain contested, according to SIGAR.

A spokesperson for Resolute Support told Military Times that SIGAR’s report reflects only “a negligible increase in security incidents from 2016,” while still showing “modest improvements to Afghan government control.”

“Challenges exist, but Resolute Support is committed to overcoming them and seizing the opportunities associated with the lowering of the Taliban's ambitions,” the spokesperson added.

The provinces with the largest percentages of insurgent controlled or influenced districts are Uruzgan, Kunduz and Helmand, U.S. forces in Afghanistan reported.

How the US dropped more munitions in Afghanistan this year than it has since the height of the war
U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A) has dropped more munitions in the first three months of this year than during the same time period in 2011 — a time widely considered the height of the war in Afghanistan.

By: Kyle Rempfer​

SIGAR also measures government influence by looking at control over the Afghan people, not just their land. The watchdog agency wrote that the “overall trend for the insurgency is rising control over the population.”

SIGAR began receiving population data in August 2016, when insurgency control was around 9 percent. In January 2018, the insurgency’s population control was found to be 12 percent.

The government’s goal is to control or influence territory in which 80 percent of the 32.5 million Afghan people live within the next year and a half. Currently, the government controls about 65 percent of the population. That number is up 1 percent from last quarter, according to SIGAR.

In addition to the back-and-forth over control, SIGAR wrote that Afghan security forces, which include the Afghan National Army and Afghan National Police, have suffered “a sharp decline in strength.”

https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/J...aws.com/public/Y4F4QCDUZFCKHFSP4XEXNOFHKU.JPG
Note: GIRoA = Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. INS = Insurgent. The population data depicted here reflects how the Afghan population is dispersed throughout the country. However, the entire population of a given area is not necessarily under the district stability level indicated. A district is assigned its district-stability level based on the overall trend of land-area/population control of each district as a whole. (DoD)


The Afghan Army saw a 4,818-person decrease, and the National Police suffered a 23,210-person decrease in January 2018 compared to January 2017.

The sharp decrease was not attributed to any single cause in the report. But U.S. officials classified the levels of casualties Afghan security forces have sustained this quarter.

Still, the report’s findings didn’t seem to discourage Pentagon leadership.

“We’ll stand by the Afghan people. We’ll stand by the Afghan government. And the NATO mission will continue, as we drive them [Taliban] to a political settlement,” Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters when asked about SIGAR’s findings.

To measure district control, the assessment looks at the government’s ability “to assert its sovereignty within direct sight of the people, deliver public services like health and education, provide policing, and — hopefully — operate the instruments of governance,” according to SIGAR’s report.

Population control is also important to look at, because “controlling one district with a large population might be more important than controlling three with only a few, scattered villages.”

Is ISIS gaining ‘serious’ ground in Afghanistan? Russia says yes. The US says no.
U.S. airstrikes killed two leaders of ISIS-Khorasan — the Islamic State’s Afghan offshoot — this month, as U.S. commanders claim they are fighting a narrative pushed by Russia that IS is growing in the country.

By: Kyle Rempfer​

“On the other hand, a government might have statistically verified control of every district within its borders; but if, say, 33 [percent] of the population were disaffected or actively supportive of insurgents, that government could still face a critical threat to its viability,” the report reads.

As of March 2018, there were roughly 14,000 U.S. military personnel serving in Afghanistan as part of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, according to U.S. officials cited in SIGAR’s report. Approximately 7,800 of these troops are assigned to NATO’s Resolute Support mission to train, advise and assist Afghan security forces — an increase of 400 personnel since last quarter due to the deployment of the U.S. Army Security Force Assistance Brigade, or SFAB, to the country.

The other U.S. troops in Afghanistan participate in air operations, train the Afghan special operations forces, and conduct counter-terror and counter-narcotics operations.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...on-government-building-hospital-idUSKBN1I41PM

World News May 3, 2018 / 6:56 AM / Updated 8 minutes ago

Afghan forces say foil attacks on government building, hospital

Reuters Staff
2 Min Read

KABUL (Reuters) - Afghan security forces arrested seven suspected militants who were planning to attack a government-run hospital and an interior ministry office in the capital Kabul on Thursday, officials said.

The arrests come two days after twin blasts near government buildings in Kabul killed at least 26 people including nine journalists.

Hundreds of people have been killed and wounded in a series of high profile attacks in Kabul in recent months, exposing the inability of security officials and the government to pre-empt or prevent them.

Last month, the Taliban announced the start of its annual spring offensive or the fighting season, saying it will target U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

On Thursday, officials at the National Directorate of Security (NDS) said the seven alleged militants were interrogated and confessed plans to attack an old compound of the interior ministry and the Ghazi Amanullah Khan hospital that provides treatment to Afghan security forces.

The arrested men, according to the NDS statement, were brought to Kabul by a facilitator after they were equipped to mount attacks and become suicide bombers.

An NDS official said the seven youths were trained in different madrassas (religious schools) located in Chaman district, situated on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

Afghanistan’s Western-backed government has long accused Pakistan of harboring Afghan Taliban insurgents, a charge that Islamabad denies.

Islamabad, in turn, accuses Afghanistan of not doing enough to eradicate Pakistani Taliban militants, many of whom are based in Afghanistan and mostly carry out attacks inside Pakistan.

Reporting by Qadir Sediqi; Writing by Rupam Jain; Editing by Matthew Mpoke Bigg

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.insightcrime.org/news/a...mexico-students-reminder-ayotzinapa-mistakes/

Gruesome Killing of Mexico Students a Reminder of Ayotzinapa Mistakes

Analysis
Written by Josefina Salomón - May 2, 2018

The gruesome killing of three students in the state of Jalisco has raised fresh questions about Mexico’s capacity to effectively investigate violent crimes.

Jesús Daniel Díaz García, Marco Francisco García Ávalos and Javier Salomón Aceves Gastélum, all students at the Audiovisual University (Universidad de Medios Audiovisuales) in Jalisco’s capital, Guadalajara, were last seen alive on March 19, as they drove back from the municipality of Tonalá after completing a homework assignment.

According to the official version of events, a group of armed men belonging to the powerful Jalisco Cartel New Generation (Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación – CJNG), who said they were officials from the attorney general’s office, stopped the young men, forced them into another car and took them to a nearby house.

There, the students were questioned and tortured, presumably to obtain information about the CJNG’s rival, the New Plaza Cartel (Cartel Nueva Plaza), which was known to operate in the house where the students originally stayed.

The CJNG members then killed the students and took their bodies to a third location, where they were dissolved in acid in an attempt to cover up all traces of evidence.

SEE ALSO: Jalisco Cartel – New Generation Profile

At a press conference on April 23, Jalisco State Attorney General Raúl Sánchez Jiménez said that at least eight people are believed to have taken part in the kidnapping and that two of them had been arrested so far. One of them is Omar “N,” a rapper who goes by the name “QBA” and has confessed to melting the student’s bodies in acid.

Lizette Torres, who is in charge of the investigation, said authorities did not believe the students “had any links with a criminal organization.”

She also said more people are likely to have been killed in the house where the remains of the students were found, and she indicated that the investigation is still ongoing.

Student and civil society organizations have questioned the investigation to date and the handling of forensic evidence, El País reported.

Jalisco Governor Aristóteles Sandoval said via Twitter that he will make all documentation regarding the investigation available to international organizations to “certify that all evidence in the case matches reality.”

InSight Crime Analysis

The macabre murder of the Jalisco students brought flashbacks of the 2014 forced disappearance of 43 students from a rural college in the town of Ayotzinapa in the southern state of Guerrero.

The Ayotzinapa students were last seen in the city of Iguala on September 26, 2014 as they travelled to a demonstration.

Nearly four months later, in January 2015, the Mexican government said municipal police in the city of Iguala had intercepted the students and handed them over to a local criminal group known as the Guerreros Unidos, who had allegedly mistaken the students for rival gang members, killed them, and burned them in a local dumpster.

Since then, a number of investigations by independent experts cast doubt over the official version of events, and questioned the way the investigation was handled.

The most recent questioning came from United Nations’ Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which accused Mexican authorities of a cover-up that involved arbitrarily detaining and torturing suspects to obtain confessions that were later accepted as evidence in the case.

The UN body also accused Mexico of unnecessarily delaying the process of bringing suspects before a public prosecutor and of concealing errors during the early stages of the investigation.

Although they took place in different states, where different criminal organizations operate, there are a number of parallels between the Ayotzinapa case and the more recent crime against the students in Jalisco.

For example, the victims in Jalisco and Ayotzinapa were students, forcibly disappeared allegedly at the hands of criminal organizations largely operating freely in their states — with authorities either unable or unwilling to stop them.

In both cases, and arguably as a response to public pressure, authorities were quick to construct a common narrative: They blamed criminal organizations, avoided mentioning the possible involvement of security forces in the crimes, built cases almost exclusively on information coming from witness testimony and confessions, and evaded questions around the veracity of forensic evidence.

Another common element of these cases is how unsurprising they are.

Mexico is facing an acute security crisis with 2017 marked as the most violent year in the country’s recent history.

Criminal dynamics in Guerrero and Jalisco are different: Guerrero is a criminal hub with a strong presence of criminal groups and an largely absent state, while Jalisco is seen as a safe heaven for criminals where violence erupts more sporadically. Nevertheless, Jalisco’s homicide rate has seen a rise, according to a ranking compiled by Mexico’s National Public Security System (Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Pública – SNSP).

Around 75 percent of murders in the state are believed to take place at the hands of organized crime, according to a recent study that compares government statistics with documented executions carried out by criminal groups, underscoring Mexico’s inability, or unwillingness, to tackle organized crime.

SEE ALSO: Mexico News and Profiles

“Neither Jalisco nor Ayotzinapa are isolated cases. They are extreme manifestations of a modus operandi that has been developing for some time and that, presumably, is also seen in other parts [of Mexico],” Mexico analyst Jaime López told InSight Crime.

“Both in the case of Ayotzinapa as in the case of Jalisco, victims were part of a social group with great organizational and mobilization capacity. That creates more social pressure for [authorities] to follow up on these cases, which does not seem to happen in other similar cases that receive less attention,” López explained.

Just as with the disappearance of the 43 students, national and international pressure is likely to have put the authorities under the spotlight and forced them to take action.

Officials have promised to solve the Ayotzinapa case by the end of President Enrique Peña Nieto’s term in office, which will expire in December of this year. However, even in the unlikely event they manage to resolve the emblematic case, as important and that will be, it will not fix the deep flaws in the system that make progress in criminal investigations cases so difficult.

What is needed, instead, is a well thought-out, long-term security strategy that allows the country to conduct effective investigations and tackle some of the reasons why criminal organizations across Mexico continue to operate largely with impunity.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://defence-blog.com/army/egyptian-troops-mobilizing-gaza-border.html

Egyptian troops mobilizing on the Gaza border

By Dylan Malyasov 3, May, 2018
928 1 Minutes Read   Country: Egypt

The Egypt Defense Portal and Abu Ali Blog have distributed photos showing the accumulation and movement of Egyptian manpower and military equipment on the Gaza border.

The vehicles, which include YPR-765 armored infantry fighting vehicles and M60 main battle tanks, were stationed near Gaza in preparation for an expanded military campaign in the framework of Comprehensive Operation Sinai 2018, which began last February. That was reported by the israeldefense.co.il.

Also, Haaretz has reported that the Egyptian military has informed Tel Aviv about its buildup, with troop concentrations reported on the Egyptian side of the border near Rafah in the Gaza Strip.

More: Egypt receives its last Rafale EM fighter jets

Last week, Hamas, a militant group which Israel considers to be a terrorist organization, deployed several hundred fighters along the Gaza-Sinai border to fight the Sinai-based Daesh* militants and prevent them from making incursions into the Palestinian territory.

More: Egypt plans to purchase batch of Russian special armored vehicles

Daesh’s Egyptian affiliate, known as Wilayat Sinai, has previously stolen Egyptian military equipment including armored vehicles and anti-tank missiles, plotted attacks against Egyptian forces, military outposts and planted roadside bombs in the area. The group is also believed to be responsible for the downing of a Russian passenger liner in 2015.

Recommended for you :
ISIS Terror Group Released Photos Claim IED Attack On Army Vehicle In Sinai
ISIS Released report of them attacking an M-60 Tank of Egypt Army
Egypt receives its last Rafale EM fighter jets
ISIS Captured 2 YPR-765 Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicles In Sinai

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....Just came across this one....HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.ausa.org/articles/new-e...y-must-learn-war-ukraine#.WuqsBaCgBRo.twitter

A NEW EASTERN FRONT: WHAT THE U.S. ARMY MUST LEARN FROM THE WAR IN UKRAINE

COL. LIAM COLLINS
Monday, April 16, 2018

The situation in eastern Ukraine might best be described as “World War I with technology.” Venturing to the front line today, you would quickly learn the two greatest threats facing Ukrainian soldiers are snipers and Russian artillery. Unlike in 1915, however, soldiers on 2018’s “Eastern Front” receive text messages on their phones telling them their cause is hopeless and they must regularly attempt to avoid being spotted from an unmanned aerial vehicle.

The fighting in Ukraine during the past 2½ years provides great insight into the types of threats facing the U.S. Army today and sheds light on what a war with a near-peer enemy—or an enemy sponsored by a near-peer—would look like.

Over the past few decades, the landscape of potential threats the U.S. must navigate has diversified greatly. During the Cold War, the major threat, the Russians, was simple to conceptualize and the battle plan was well-known. Junior leaders needed to know their part.

The modern threat has changed markedly; the Russian threat remains but in a different form, and combines with an array of other threats to create a challenging global operating environment.

An expanded role of the information dimension, explosive technological growth and a range of other trends have eroded the monopoly of violence by the state. What is “modern war”?

This new column from the Modern War Institute at West Point will examine that question and the many and diverse challenges it entails.

There is no better starting point than Ukraine, where Russia’s “new-generation warfare” is being implemented in ways that fundamentally challenge the post–Cold War security environment. So, what lessons should the U.S. Army learn from the situation in Ukraine?

What’s Old Is New

Electronic warfare. Russia has deployed a wide range of electronic warfare systems in Ukraine, using them to jam communications, locate headquarters and subsequently target them with long-range artillery. Few active U.S. Army members grew up in an age worrying about the signals their antennas and radios produced. After visiting a battalion tactical operations center at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels, Germany, a senior Ukrainian officer observed that the headquarters would not last long in eastern Ukraine. With its antenna farm located only meters from the tactical operations center, it would basically have been sending an “aim here” message to the Russians.

We have returned to an era where communications must be short and infrequent and tactical operations centers must run their antennas hundreds of meters away. Ultimately, this will make command, control and communications more difficult, and commanders will have to get comfortable in an environment where they don’t have information dominance and don’t know the exact status of each of their units at all times. Additionally, with a force largely reliant on GPS technology, it is time for soldiers to go back to being expert navigators using only a map and compass.

Information operations. The Cold War was as much an ideological war about which political-economic system was best as it was a military confrontation. After winning that war of ideas, the U.S. largely divested itself of its information operations capabilities. By contrast, after recovering from its economic slump in the 1990s, Russia has invested heavily in theirs. At the strategic level, Russia has been largely successful through its state-sponsored or state-supported media outlets. Its information and disinformation campaign caused sufficient paralysis within NATO to ensure its annexation of Crimea became a fait accompli. At the tactical level, Russians have targeted individual soldiers, commanders and their families using cellphones and social media to undermine the Ukrainian war effort.

AIR SUPERIORITY. The Russian air defense system is extensive and capable, and grounded the Ukrainian Air Force at the start of the war. Ukrainian helicopters still fly, but they fly extremely low to the ground and avoid the front, effectively eliminating their ability to serve in a medevac; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR); or fires role. While Russian air defenses could not replicate this dominance against the U.S. or NATO, the air superiority we have become accustomed to over the past 30 years is no longer certain. We can’t take for granted that we will have close-air support evacuation or fires anytime we wish, nor that we will have unfettered access to the sky to conduct ISR.

CAMOUFLAGE. Largely forgotten over the past 17 years, camouflage is back in vogue. With the proliferation of unmanned aerial vehicles that can serve as ISR platforms for artillery, an element spotted by a UAV may only have minutes to move before a rain of artillery fires falls. After witnessing Ukrainian and NATO units in training, it is clear the Ukrainians take this seriously while NATO units only go through the motions. Ukrainian vehicles look like giant, mobile vegetation clusters, with camouflage netting put up if a vehicle is stopped for any length of time. NATO vehicles, by contrast, are too often operated on the assumption that speed alone provides sufficient security during movement, and netting (often substandard) is more slowly put up after stopping.

What’s New Is New

CYBER. Russian hackers have seemingly penetrated just about every network in Ukraine. Russians have spoofed GPS signals and captured video downlinks of unencrypted transmissions from Ukrainian UAVs to view the feeds as the aircraft are overflying Ukrainian positions during takeoffs and landings. They have penetrated the cellular network for locational data and information operations, sending targeted messages to individual soldiers showing them nearly real-time pictures of their families and asking if they know whether their families are safe. On other occasions they have sent messages after an artillery strike telling soldiers to go home; their corrupt oligarch government officials aren’t worth dying for. In yet another case, the Russians tracked Ukrainian artillery units using a malware implant on Android devices. Placed in this context, the U.S. Army’s desire for perfect information brings with it real vulnerabilities that could be exploited by a sophisticated enemy.

UAVS. Russia has primarily employed UAVs in an ISR capacity to identify enemy positions for artillery strikes. In the technological development game of cat and mouse, UAVs currently dominate counter-UAV capability. The concept of air superiority increasingly looks like it might be a dated one.

DENSE URBAN TERRAIN. Urban warfare is not new. But given the historic and current lack of U.S. Army expertise in this area, the unique challenges of urban operations will largely be new to us. The Second Battle of Donetsk Airport demonstrated the challenges of fighting in urban terrain. At one point, Ukrainian military forces controlled the first and second floors of the international airport while Russian-led separatists occupied the basement tunnel system and the third floor. Two-dimensional maps don’t work to monitor unit locations in this environment.

Likewise, Russian forces aren’t afraid to fire artillery from populated areas, knowing Ukrainians are hesitant to mass fires into a densely populated area of their own citizens. Russia expertly uses our Western norms regarding civilian casualties against us. In future conflict, we may wish to bypass dense urban terrain, but this likely won’t be possible when our enemies attempt to use cities for protection. We may also have to look hard at how we balance operational objectives and collateral damage, a uniquely difficult task in cities dense with civilians, buildings and critical infrastructure.

Toward a Better Understanding

Today’s global operating environment presents the U.S. Army with a host of complex problems. To improve our ability to deter and, if required, defeat threats to the nation, the Army must take a holistic approach to these challenges. Some solutions are primarily technological, others will be organizational, doctrinal and, perhaps most challenging, cultural. But the first step toward developing these solutions is to watch, study and learn from cases like Ukraine.

Col. Liam Collins
Col. Liam Collins is director of the Modern War Institute at West Point. He has traveled more than a dozen times to Ukraine over the past 18 months. A career Special Forces officer, he has conducted multiple combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as operational deployments to Bosnia, Africa and South America. He holds a master’s degree and a doctorate from Princeton University, N.J.

 

[Housecarl]

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nicaragua-bishops-push-real-democracy-amid-protests-225857571.html

Nicaragua bishops push for 'real democracy' amid protests

Blanca MOREL, Julia RIOS, AFP • May 3, 2018

Managua (AFP) - Nicaragua's bishops on Thursday called for dialogue to usher in "real democracy" as weeks of protests against veteran President Daniel Ortega continued, spearheaded by university students.

The appeal by the National Episcopal Conference, read out by Cardinal Leopoldo Brenes in a news conference in the capital Managua, underlined a push to have talks that address deep-seated issues that have made Ortega's rule over the past 11 years unpalatable for many Nicaraguans.

Protests demanding his ouster erupted April 18, initially triggered by moves to cut back on social security spending.

They quickly spread to encompass a range of grievances against the 72-year-old president seen as increasingly autocratic and sullied by corruption allegations.

The demonstrations were met with robust police action in which at least 45 people died according to a leading rights group, the Nicaraguan Center for Human Rights. Officials stopped updating their toll three days into the protests, when they said 10 people had died.

- Probe into deaths demanded -

Although the protests have become less violent over the past week, they are continuing. Students have called for a nationwide demonstration for Wednesday next week.

Ortega has said he is willing to hold dialogue to calm the situation, but he has not said what topics they would cover nor who would participate.

Brenes, who is archbishop of Managua, has offered to mediate the talks, though there was frustration that no framework had yet been laid down.

The dialogue "should begin as soon as possible," the bishops' statement said.

In unusually pointed language it added that the talks "should review Nicaragua's political system from the roots up to arrive at a real democracy."

The statement backed students' demands that the "painful deaths" recorded during the protests be fully investigated.

University students have urged renewed street protests and a national strike, as well as demanding an independent commission be set up to probe the protest deaths. They have given a deadline of next Tuesday for the latter condition to be met.

- Police raid of campus -

A group of students at Managua's Polytechnic University, the nexus of the protest organization, said on Thursday that police had raided the campus overnight, hurting six students, one of them seriously.

Officers and groups of civilians suspected to be youth sympathizers of Ortega's ruling party "attacked" the campus at 1 am (0700 GMT), student spokeswoman Scarleth Espinoza said at a news conference.

"The police entered and attacked us along with groups of civilians, possible members of the Young Sandinistas," associated with Ortega's ruling party, said another student at the news conference who declined to be identified.

The students said Thursday that "after this attack" they did not see sufficient "security to take part in dialogue."

The protests are the worst Ortega has faced in the past 11 years, since the leftist former rebel returned to power after a lengthy stint in opposition.

He was previously the country's leader between 1985 and 1990, after his Sandinista rebels swept to power, and has ruled over Nicaragua for 22 of the past 39 years.

Ortega's wife and vice president, Rosario Murillo, reiterated to state media that the president was open to talks "at a time and in a way that the bishops decide."

"Our government is at the full and total disposal to meet the CEN's (National Episcopal Conference's) call," she said.

Government employees, meanwhile, were seen stationed at key road intersections in the capital in a show of support for Ortega.

1 reaction