WAR 06-06-2020-to-06-12-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(420) 05-16-2020-to-05-22-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
WAR - 05-16-2020-to-05-22-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
(417) WAR - 04-25-2020-to-05-01-24-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** (418) 05-02-2020-to-05-08-24-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** WAR - 05-02-2020-to-05-08-24-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** (419)...

www.timebomb2000.com

(421) 05-23-2020-to-05-29-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
WAR - 05-23-2020-to-05-29-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
(418) 05-02-2020-to-05-08-24-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** WAR - 05-02-2020-to-05-08-24-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** (419) 05-09-2020-to-05-08-15-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** WAR - 05-09-2020-to-05-08-15-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** (420)...

www.timebomb2000.com

(422) 05-30-2020-to-06-05-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

WAR - 05-30-2020-to-06-05-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Sorry for the delay folks...... (419) 05-09-2020-to-05-08-15-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** WAR - 05-09-2020-to-05-08-15-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** (420) 05-16-2020-to-05-22-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****...

www.timebomb2000.com

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

Posted for fair use.....

UN Agency: Iran Violating All Restrictions of Nuclear Deal

VIENNA (AP) — Iran has continued to increase its stockpiles of enriched uranium and remains in violation of its deal with world powers, the United Nations’ atomic watchdog said Friday. T

www.realcleardefense.com

UN Agency: Iran Violating All Restrictions of Nuclear Deal
.

By Kiyoko Metzler & David Rising
June 06, 2020

VIENNA (AP) — Iran has continued to increase its stockpiles of enriched uranium and remains in violation of its deal with world powers, the United Nations’ atomic watchdog said Friday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported the finding in a confidential document distributed to member countries and seen by The Associated Press.

The agency said that as of May 20, Iran’s total stockpile of low-enriched uranium amounted to 1,571.6 kilograms (1.73 tons), up from 1,020.9 kilograms (1.1 tons) on Feb. 19.

Iran signed the nuclear deal in 2015 with the United States, Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia. Known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, it allows Iran only to keep a stockpile of 202.8 kilograms (447 pounds).

The IAEA reported that Iran has also been continuing to enrich uranium to a purity of up to 4.5%, higher than the 3.67% allowed under the JCPOA. It is also above the pact’s limitations on heavy water.

The nuclear deal promised Iran economic incentives in return for the curbs on its nuclear program. President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal unilaterally in 2018, saying it needed to be renegotiated. Iran has since slowly violated the restrictions to try and pressure the remaining nations to increase the incentives to offset new, economy-crippling U.S. sanctions.

The ultimate goal of the JCPOA is to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. Since the U.S. withdrawal, Iran has stockpiled enough uranium to produce a weapon, although the government in Tehran insists it has no such goal and that its atomic program is only for producing energy.

According to the Washington-based Arms Control Association, Iran would need roughly 1050 kilograms (1.16 tons) of low-enriched uranium — under 5% purity — and would then need to enrich it further to weapons-grade, or more than 90% purity, to make a nuclear weapon.

With the nuclear deal in place, Iran’s so-called breakout time — the period Tehran would need to build a bomb if it chose to — stood at around a year. As Iran has stepped away from the limits of the 2015 deal, it slowly has narrowed that window.

However, that doesn’t mean Iran would immediately rush toward building a bomb if all the materials were in place.

Before agreeing to the nuclear deal, Iran enriched its uranium up to 20% purity, which is just a short technical step away from the weapons-grade level of 90%. In 2013, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was already more than 7,000 kilograms (7.72 tons) with higher enrichment, but it didn’t pursue a bomb.

As the country has expanded its nuclear program, Iran has been open about the violations and continues to allow inspectors for the U.N. atomic agency access to iacilities to monitor their operations.

It remains in violation of all the main restrictions outlined by the JCPOA, which Tehran says it hopes will pressure the other nations involved to increase economic incentives to make up for hard-hitting sanctions imposed by Washington after the U.S. withdrawal.

Though Iran has been hard hit by the new coronavirus pandemic, the IAEA said it has maintained its verification and monitoring activities in the country, primarily by chartering aircraft to fly inspectors to and from Iran.

It cited “exceptional cooperation” from authorities in Austria, where it is based, and Iran in facilitating the operation.

The agency raised concerns, however, about access to two of three locations it identified in March as places where Iran possibly stored and/or used undeclared nuclear material or undertook nuclear-related activities without declaring them to international observers.

Activities at all three sites are thought to have been from the early 2000s. The IAEA said in its current report that it had determined that one site had undergone “extensive sanitization and leveling” in 2003 and 2004 and there would be no verification value in inspecting it.

It said Iran has, for more than four months, blocked access to the other two locations, one of which was partially demolished in 2004 and the other at which the agency observed activities “consistent with efforts to sanitize” the facility from July 2019 onward.

The watchdog agency added that Iran has also “not engaged in any substantive discussions” with the IAEA to answer its question about possible undeclared nuclear material and activities for almost a year.

Rising reported from Berlin

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Nuclear-armed submarines and strategic stability in the Indo-Pacific | The Strategist

No other weapon system embodies the menacing, but also out-of-sight, presence of nuclear weapons better than the stealthy nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) that have, for six decades, ceaselessly prowled the world’s cold ocean depths, ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Nuclear-armed submarines and strategic stability in the Indo-Pacific

4 Jun 2020 | Stephan Fruehling

No other weapon system embodies the menacing, but also out-of-sight, presence of nuclear weapons better than the stealthy nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) that have, for six decades, ceaselessly prowled the world’s cold ocean depths, waiting for an order that has never come. SSBNs on continuous at-sea deterrence missions remain the mainstay of the nuclear forces in the United States and France, and the sole platform carrying British nuclear weapons. Despite Russia’s significant investment in road-mobile missiles, SSBNs also remain an important element of its nuclear forces.

In Asia, however, nuclear-armed submarines are a newer phenomenon. China has had a longstanding interest in developing SSBN technology, but has only in recent years put them into service, in numbers comparable to Britain’s and France’s. Israel has reportedly fielded nuclear-armed (cruise) missiles on its conventionally powered submarines, and India, Pakistan and North Korea have also all shown an interest in moving nuclear weapons under the sea. As these countries’ programs mature, undersea nuclear deterrence will cease to be a preserve of the major powers. The relevance of nuclear-armed submarines for strategic stability in the Indo-Pacific area will thus increase—but what will their impact be?

A common idea in the international commentariat on nuclear weapons and international affairs is that strategic stability could be ‘assured’ by ‘mutually assured destruction’, based on a relatively small number of large-yield, survivable warheads, such as those carried on an SSBN. But while using submarines to strike the land promises survivable nuclear forces, it also provides long reach and the ability to conduct surprise attacks with short warning, and from unexpected angles—factors much less prone to promote stability. Indeed, the latter two considerations were particularly important for the development and geographic deployment of SSBNs during the Cold War, especially by the Soviet Union. They may be so again as countries in Asia look to overcome the missile defence capabilities fielded by the United States and its allies.

The survivability of SSBNs has also recently been called into question by many commentators, especially in the debates on the replacement of the Trident nuclear submarines in the United Kingdom. A confluence of new technologies, such as unmanned vehicles and big-data analytics, with improved sonar, signals and imagery sensors, and the potential for completely new sensing technologies based on, for example, quantum effects, may render the oceans ‘transparent’ to anti-submarine forces.

The historical record on the vulnerability of SSBNs is already more ambiguous than often acknowledged in these debates. Technology is but one factor influencing the survivability of SSBNs, which has historically differed widely for different countries based on their geographic situation and adversary capabilities.

During the Cold War, the US developed long-range passive sonar systems that could track specific tonal frequencies of Soviet submarines in the North Atlantic and Pacific oceans. These systems made Soviet undersea capabilities far more vulnerable than realised by the public at the time and, until the 1970s, even by the Soviet Union. Insofar as there was an undersea ‘arms race’, it occurred not between adversaries’ nuclear forces, but between Soviet SSBNs and US anti-submarine warfare (ASW) forces.

In this and future contests, geography remains a central factor, because it conditions the ability of countries to make use of (or counter) new ASW technologies that might increase the risk to SSBNs. Moreover, only the US and Russia openly seek the ability to hold other countries’ nuclear forces at risk as part of their deterrence posture, and hence have an operational need to counter adversary SSBNs.

There are also other ways of protecting SSBNs than relying on stealth alone. Once the Soviet Union realised that its SSBNs were vulnerable and that the range of its submarine-launched missiles allowed it to target the continental US from the Arctic Ocean, it began to confine its SSBN deployments to ‘bastions’ in the Barents Sea and Sea of Okhotsk that were actively defended against allied submarines by the Soviet navy and by land-based aircraft.

But if the survival of SSBNs depends not on stealth but on one’s own defensive ASW capabilities to protect them from adversary hunter–killer submarines, the implications of radical improvements in ASW for SSBN survivability and crisis stability also become less clear-cut. Indeed, this dynamic may in fact make SSBNs more survivable, not less—if at the cost of significant investment in defensive ASW forces—such as that which we might now see underway by China in the South China Sea.

Whether the increased deployment of SSBNs in the Indo-Pacific will thus be stabilising or destabilising—in arms competition as well as in crises and war—remains an open and important question for regional security. Given the multiple centres of power in the Indo-Pacific, its connected conflict dyads, and its regional order that lacks both the informal rules and clear dividing lines of the Cold War, conceiving of a regional concept for ‘stability’ is fraught in general.

When assessing the current and future impacts of SSBN technology and deployments on strategic stability in the Indo-Pacific, we thus need to look beyond superficial readings of Cold War history that equate SSBN forces with a supposedly stabilising way of deploying nuclear forces as a secure second-strike capability—for they may be neither intended for second strike, nor particularly secure.

Rather than being a technologically deterministic relationship, the consequences of changes in ASW technology and of the deployment of SSBNs in the region will reflect the particular geographic and strategic circumstances of each adversarial dyad, and defy easy generalisation.

This piece was produced as part of the Indo-Pacific Strategy: Undersea Deterrence Project, undertaken by the ANU National Security College. This article is a shortened version of chapter 3, ‘SSBN, nuclear strategy and strategic stability’, as published in the 2020 edited volume The future of the undersea deterrent: a global survey. Support for this project was provided by a grant from Carnegie Corporation of New York.

AUTHOR
Stephan Frühling is a professor in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre of the Australian National University. Image: US Navy.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

For the U.S., South Korea and Japan, It’s the North Korean Regime, Not Kim Jong Un per Se, That Is the Threat

Would Kim Jong Un’s death improve U.S., South Korean, and Japanese security? Maybe not. Across two prior leadership changes, the Korean Workers’ Party has remained steadfastly committed to

www.realcleardefense.com

For the U.S., South Korea and Japan, It’s the North Korean Regime, Not Kim Jong Un per Se, That Is the Threat
.

By Scott W. Harold & Soo Kim
June 06, 2020

Would Kim Jong Un’s death improve U.S., South Korean, and Japanese security? Maybe not. Across two prior leadership changes, the Korean Workers’ Party has remained steadfastly committed to strengthening the North’s nuclear, conventional, and asymmetric military capabilities; has consistently refused to abandon the illicit activities it relies on to fund itself; and has never stopped threatening its neighbors and the United States. North Korea’s advancing nuclear and other military capabilities are driving an expanded set of problems, and while Kim’s sudden death might constitute a destabilizing factor for the regime—possibly even a prerequisite to positive change—the available evidence suggests the regime itself is the problem. Indeed, the heavily personalistic approach to negotiating with the North that the U.S. and South Korea have adopted in recent years may make diplomacy with the North even more difficult if Kim does die.

To be sure, Kim’s reappearance at the ribbon-cutting ceremony of a new fertilizer production facility in Sunchon on May 1st, after having disappeared for nearly three weeks, quelled much of the speculation surrounding his health, the regime’s stability, and possible succession scenarios. But since that appearance, he has not been seen again. Moreover, just two days after his May 1 appearance, the North Korean military fired multiple shots at South Korea’s guard post across the demilitarized zone. And even while Kim was absent, North proceeded with construction of a facility large enough to accommodate an elevated Hwasong-15 ICBM located next to an underground facility large enough to fit all known DPRK missiles and support vehicles. Over the course of seven decades, the North has cultivated a group of elites who appear primed to carry on the general line of developing the regime’s WMD capabilities and other coercive tools, as well as its practice of using these to threaten its neighbors, whether Kim is there or not.

The solution for the U.S., South Korea, and Japan may be continued vigilance and diplomatic coordination in preparation for a long-term period of deterrence and confrontation with Pyongyang. This could require broad-gauge trilateral cooperation, continued commitment to direct intelligence-sharing agreements, and a return to regular military exercises so as to maintain a high degree of readiness and deterrence. It could also include a coordinated “maximum pressure 2.0” campaign targeting the regime’s funding and legitimacy in tandem with other allies and partners. It may also be important to reach out to regime-linked elites and prepare them for unification, signaling to them that their safety and security will be guaranteed and may even have meaningful roles to play in a reunified Korea should they abandon the Kim family regime. Messages by Washington and Tokyo reassuring Seoul that both capitals remain committed to and support Southern-led unification as the "solving long division" approach may also be important.

While the security interests and threat perceptions of the U.S., Japan and South Korea are not identical, they are nonetheless similar in key respects, most notably their shared values as liberal, democratic, rule of law capitalist countries, and their exposure to the North Korea threat. For decades, North Korea’s strategy has been to intimidate Seoul and Tokyo while striving to reduce Washington’s regional influence. Sometimes Pyongyang has employed threats, and at other times peace offensives designed to lull Washington, Seoul and Tokyo into dropping their guard, but its ultimate goal has always been to fuel the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea and Japan, break the alliances, and achieve unification on Pyongyang’s terms.

Disturbingly, despite its shaky economic base, the North’s ability to exercise coercion has been growing more sophisticated in recent years. America and its allies in Northeast Asia are exposed not only to North Korea’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; its ballistic and cruise missiles; and its sizable, if largely, technologically outdated conventional capabilities, but also to the regime’s diversifying portfolio of gray zone tools for intelligence-gathering, coercion, and cybercrime. In addition, the DPRK’s illicit trafficking in narcotics, arms, slavery, prostitution, counterfeiting, online bank heists, and other cyber-enabled economic warfare, oil bunkering, and sanctions evasion greatly erode the safety and security of the region and the world.

Resolution of the issues posed by North Korea, not only its pursuit of WMD, ballistic missiles, and cyberattacks but also its domestic human rights abuses amounting to crimes against humanity, could require coordination between the U.S. and its regional allies, backstopped by steady, purposeful diplomacy. Now more than ever, it could be critical for Washington, Seoul and Tokyo to send a clear message to Pyongyang that they stand side-by-side.

Scott W. Harold is a senior political scientist and Soo Kim is a policy analyst at the nonprofit, nonpartisan RAND Corporation.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Navy destroyer USS Russell passes through Taiwan Strait - UPI.com

The Navy destroyer USS Russell completed a transit of the Taiwan Strait, the waterway between China and Taiwan, on Thursday and Friday, officials said.

www.upi.com

DEFENSE NEWS

JUNE 5, 2020 / 3:51 PM

Navy destroyer USS Russell passes through Taiwan Strait

By Ed Adamczyk

June 5 (UPI) -- The Navy destroyer USS Russell completed a transit of the Taiwan Strait, the waterway between China and Taiwan, on Thursday and Friday, officials said.

The Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer made the voyage days after China's newest aircraft carrier, Shangdong, left the area and sailed northward for sea trials in the Yellow Sea.

"Russell conducted a Taiwan Strait transit June 4 to 5 [local time] in accordance with international law," said Cmdr. Reann Mommsen,U.S. 7th Fleet spokesperson, told USNI.

"The ship's transit through the Taiwan Strait demonstrates the U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific. The U.S. Navy will continue to fly, sail and operate anywhere international law allows," Mommsen said.

The Navy has increased its vigilance of the strait,as China announced plans to conduct summer war exercises in the area.

The USS McCampbell, also a guided missile destroyer, made a similar trip through the strait on May 13. The Navy's increased presence in the region is meant as a signal that the United States is committed to free and open waterways.

China has pressed sovereignty claims in the nearby South China Sea, and has long regarded Taiwan as a breakaway province to eventually be turned to governance by Beijing.

Although the United States never officially supported the concept of Taiwan as a nation, the U.S. State Department has cited a strong bond and "unofficial relations" with Taiwan.

Read More
Taiwan vows 'necessary assistance' to Hong Kong residentsChina warns of countermeasures after Pompeo congratulates TsaiTaiwan rejects request from China to support WHO entry

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Thinking Like a Pirate: Contesting Southeast Asia’s Chokepoints | Center for International Maritime Security

cimsec.org

CHOKEPOINTS AND LITTORALS WEEK
THINKING LIKE A PIRATE: CONTESTING SOUTHEAST ASIA’S CHOKEPOINTS
JUNE 5, 2020 GUEST AUTHOR LEAVE A COMMENT
Chokepoints and Littorals Topic Week
By Drake Long

In one part of the Southeast Asian epic Sejarah Melayu, the 15th century Malacca Sultanate receives a lavish gift from the distant emperor of China, then ruled by the Ming Dynasty. The Ming Emperor sent to Malacca a ship filled with precious golden needles, one from each of his subjects, that represented not only China’s vast wealth but also the immense manpower the Emperor held at his disposal. The note accompanying the needles made it clear China had heard about the upstart Malacca Sultanate and wanted to see whether it was a potential rival by requesting tribute in kind for the Ming court that could display Malacca’s power. Much to the Ming Emperor’s surprise, Malacca sent back a ship overflowing with grains from the sago tree, with its emissary declaring that one grain represented one subject. The Ming Emperor concluded that the Sultan of Malacca clearly presided over a populous and powerful country, equal to his own. The addendum to all this is that one sago tree actually produces over a thousand grains at once. These grains, unlike golden needles, are therefore worthless.

This story, while almost certainly fictionalized, illustrates an important lesson for observers watching how certain Southeast Asian states interact with China – flattery is not the same as acquiescence. But it could just as well symbolize the confidence a middling power can have when dealing with a maritime power like the Ming Dynasty, so long as it controls vital, geostrategic waterways – like the Malacca Strait. No one knew this better than the Ming, who gave defense guarantees to Malacca when the Sultanate was threatened by Siam, and whose famed admiral Zheng He frequently stopped in Malacca on his way west.

The might of a treasure fleet, or any fleet for that matter, is mitigated tremendously when the primary route for trade and transportation could be easily shut down. Stability and a cordial relationship with the controller of that chokepoint is paramount. This has not changed in the modern day. The Malacca Strait is absolutely vital to global trade – roughly 25 percent of all goods pass through it – and most any country, including China and the United States, have a vested interest in its security and openness.

The current fear of China is a U.S.-instigated blockade of the Malacca Strait that would starve China of resources and trade – described by Hu Jintao in 2003 as the “Malacca Dilemma.” China has revised its maritime strategy to reflect this. Yet an effective blockade of the Malacca Straits seems unlikely. For one, any blockade would not just affect China, but every country that trades through Southeast Asia. Those neighboring the strait would especially not want to see trade rerouted through the south of Indonesia.

Furthermore, China is hardening itself in the event of a blockade, by seeking out other passages and methods to receive resources. The current pipeline project in Myanmar is one such way China will mitigate its dependence on the Malacca Strait. Overland routes running through Central Asian and Russian parts of the Belt and Road Initiative represent another method.

The Malacca Strait may not actually be the most likely flashpoint in a regional wartime scenario. It is increasingly likely that far from being the target of a blockade, China will be able to impose a blockade instead to isolate an American ally or the U.S. itself and weather the consequences.

However, the unique situation of Southeast Asia is that it holds numerous chokepoints, with Malacca merely being the most expedient of those connecting Southeast Asia to the Indian Ocean. What are these other chokepoints, and what value do they hold for the Chinese and U.S. Navies?

Consideration should be paid to the tail-end of the Malacca Sultanate’s reign. There was one naval power the Malacca Sultanate couldn’t stave off, even with its advantageous position. Malacca was ultimately toppled by the Portuguese Empire in the early 16th century. However, while Malacca was a prime trading post for the Portuguese, they learned the hard way about the consequences of disturbing the peace of this strategic chokepoint. Malacca’s resistance against the Portuguese continued on – but in the form of piracy, denying Portugal the ability to fully benefit from its new conquest.
Going to the present, if a modern wartime scenario pushes the U.S. Navy outside the First (and maybe Second) Island Chain, knowledge and an approach to the straits and chokepoints of Southeast Asia will be vital. No navy in Southeast Asia can operate comfortably without access to these littorals, and no presence guarding them is safe if there is anarchy or hostile actors on the coastlines. These are the areas where land-based, mobile forces can hurt enemy navies in disproportionate ways.

The Marine Corps’ Commandant’s Planning Guidance calls for the creation of “tactical dilemmas” for any enemy navy, and envisions a highly mobile, amphibious force that does not rely on safe escort into a contested area. In practice, that has meant the Marine Corps adopting long-range missile systems that can be moved quickly from shore to shore after firing. In the future, the Marine Corps will likely adapt to a wide-range of vessels, hopping from whatever is available in contested areas to become the “Stand-In Force” envisioned by the Commandant’s Planning Guidance. The chokepoints and littorals surrounding Indonesian and Philippine waters would make for excellent forward positioning for a Marine Corps stand-in force. It would provide a critical bulwark for U.S. force posture in the Pacific by facilitating access for follow-on forces from allied Australia, and access into the South China and Philippine Seas.

Thinking Like a Pirate
In the modern day, pirates exist in the strategic chokepoints of Southeast Asia. A cursory look at where piracy is most active shows how the Malacca Straits and the Sulu Sea stand out as centers for an unusual (but manageable) uptick in maritime crime over the past year. But to be clear, very few incidents meet the legal definition of piracy. Most are more accurately called armed robberies at sea, where they involve coastal attacks or petty burglary of ships in port.

The motivation for these crimes is the same no matter the definition. These chokepoints have heavy traffic in goods and oil, and economic opportunities for coastal communities are relatively scarce. The pattern of piracy throughout the region provides a blueprint for which parts of Southeast Asia are the most strategically vital and provide the best cover for groups on land to attack targets out at sea without repercussion. In the case of the Sulu Sea, the southern Philippines that adjoins it has presented major challenges for law enforcement’s surveillance and human intelligence abilities, not least because of its long-running insurgency. These characteristics kept insurgent groups such as Abu Sayyaf alive and operating transnationally up to the modern day.

In short, the nature of these chokepoints allow non-state actors like pirates to pose a plausible threat to more capable forces, and this provides a blueprint for how the U.S. Marine Corps in particular could approach the PLAN and contested areas. Consider the example of the Sulu Sea.

Shipping routes through Southeast Asian littorals (MarineTraffic.com)
Around $40 billion worth of trade passes through the Sulu Sea annually, predominantly from Indonesia and Australia. There are few good alternatives to this sea when delivering goods or supplies out of certain centers of commerce and ports, which is why trade continues even when a spate of kidnappings and robberies breaks out in its waters. For Australia, the Sulu Sea is a thread connecting it to Southeast Asia, and as such it has participated in numerous joint patrols and regional anti-piracy efforts.

More pressingly, in the event of the U.S. being pushed out of the First Island Chain by force, the U.S. alliance and facilities on the territory of Australia make that country a likely staging ground for a push back into Southeast Asia’s maritime commons, or wherever the fighting may be. The route for that thrust would likely go through the Celebes and Sulu Seas in the northwest. The U.S. Marines at Darwin will find themselves at the vanguard of this push. This was previously seen during the U.S. offensive on Imperial Japan’s territories during the Second World War, preluded by the Solomon Islands campaign and the Battle of the Coral Sea.

The particular issue is China knows this as well. It is extremely likely that isolating Australia would be a paramount objective for the PLAN in any major wartime scenario, if only to coerce Australia into not hosting additional U.S. forces. This is, among other reasons, why China is pursuing the low-risk high-reward strategy of getting a base or some kind of facility to operate out of in the South Pacific. Threatening Australia’s sea lines of communication going toward Northeast Asia would be a deathblow to Australia’s economy, and narrowing its access to a regional conflict would put pressure on any U.S. and allied forces staged there.

A PLAN blockade or presence near the Sulu Sea is thus likely, as it gives China the ability to economically coerce a trade-dependent and allied maritime state like Australia. It would also keep the pressure on another U.S. treaty ally, the Philippines, whose facilities the U.S. may not even be able to use during wartime or in the beginning stages of a conflict.

However, the areas most trafficked by pirates generally have the safest littoral bases for them to operate out of, and while relevant countries have greatly stepped up their maritime domain awareness in recent years, the PLA may suffer a deficit in intelligence of what is happening beyond the coastline and within densely forested islands. “Hit-and-run” attacks would be difficult to retaliate against effectively, especially if Marine Corps vessels and vertical lift are sufficiently quick enough to lift units and their long-range precision fires out of harm’s way. In addition, borders are infamously porous in these areas where pirates operate, complicating efforts to neatly find their bases, catch them in the act, and apply pressure to their hosts.

Navy ships cannot enter the waters of these chokepoints easily – the Sibutu Passage at the southern end of the Sulu Sea is only about 18 miles wide. If the Navy keeps its distance, merchant marine and smaller vessels are easily threatened without consequence, creating something of a dilemma on when and where to intervene. Terrain knowledge of coastal areas requires knowledge of their communities, which a hostile or occupying force will not get easily or quickly, and the areas around these specific chokepoints like the Sulu Sea are veritable vacuums of information even for law enforcement agencies.

Even in a less ideal scenario, an enemy navy would need to go ashore or be bogged down in the dilemma of dealing with land-based threats to those assets necessary for surveilling the area or an effective blockade. That detracts from other objectives, and would involve a disproportionate amount of resources. Arriving to one end of the Basilan Strait, only to discover the Marines have hopped to the other end, would be immensely frustrating.

One assumption being made is that the future Marine Corps will have some unmanned surface vessels or unmanned underwater vessels as part of its toolkit for operating in a contested domain. The core capabilities of those USVs and UUVs should be ISR and communications. The disadvantage of areas like the Sulu and Celebes Seas is that Marines will face information problems as well. A superior land-based, low-risk ISR capability would lend Marines the ability to target ships at sea, but a strong HUMINT relationship with coastal communities would similarly go a long way toward eluding the enemy and operating effectively in a contested area where the U.S. Navy may be nowhere nearby. It is worth noting these same coastal communities were key to Allied ISR efforts in the Second World War.

Conclusion
The Marine Corps’ future method toward strategic chokepoints and littorals could be taking the pirate’s approach and ramping it up with new weaponry, ships, superior ISR, and tactical creativity. This is not anything regional navies are suited to deal with, and definitely not something an organization like the PLAN would be comfortable responding to given it would require flexibility and initiative at the tactical level that the command-and-control obsessed PLA does not actively nurture.

Taking piracy a bit more literally, Marines could board enemy merchant marine ships operating in the area and inflict material damage to the enemy. However, the ultimate goal for the Marines in a regional conflict where the U.S. lacks sea control will be to use land-based assets to punch a hole through an enemy navy’s sea control, and then facilitate access for a friendly navy to move onto the battlefield. In this vein, the Marine Corps will find a viable operating ground in Southeast Asia’s littorals and chokepoints.

Drake Long (@DRM_Long) is an analyst and reporter covering the South China Sea and Southeast Asian maritime issues for RadioFreeAsia. He is also a 2020 Asia Pacific Fellow for Young Professionals in Foreign Policy.

Featured Image: HAT YAO BEACH, Thailand (Feb. 28, 2020) – A U.S. Marine with Alpha Company, Battalion Landing Team, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, sets security alongside Royal Thai Marines during an amphibious landing for exercise Cobra Gold 2020 at Hat Yao Beach, Kingdom of Thailand, Feb. 28, 2020. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Audrey M. C. Rampton) 200228-M-IP473-1063

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Warsaw hopes some U.S. troops based in Germany will be moved to Poland

Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Saturday he hoped that some of the U.S. troops that are set to be removed from Germany will be reassigned to Poland.

www.reuters.com

WORLD NEWS
JUNE 6, 2020 / 12:03 AM / UPDATED 4 HOURS AGO

Warsaw hopes some U.S. troops based in Germany will be moved to Poland

WARSAW (Reuters) - Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said on Saturday he hoped that some of the U.S. troops that are set to be removed from Germany will be reassigned to Poland.

U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon to cut the number of U.S. troops stationed in Germany, a senior U.S. official said on Friday. The move would reduce the U.S. troop presence in Germany by 9,500 troops from the 34,500 troops that are currently permanently assigned there.

“I deeply hope that as a result of the many talks that we had ... part of the troops based today in Germany which are being removed by the United States ... will indeed come to Poland,” Morawiecki told private radio RMF24. “The decision is now on the U.S. side.”

Reporting by Agnieszka Barteczko and Anna Wlodarczak-Semczuk; Editing by Pravin Char

 

[brudog]

Thanks!

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Soccer superstar stuns China with call for ouster of Communist Party

Chinese sports stars usually express thanks and offer platitudes about their government -...

www.thehour.com

Soccer superstar stuns China with call for ouster of Communist Party
Gerry Shih, The Washington Post

Published 7:35 am EDT, Friday, June 5, 2020

Chinese sports stars usually express thanks and offer platitudes about their government - if they address politics and power at all.

Not Hao Haidong.

The retired soccer forward, the Chinese national team's all-time top goal scorer and an idol in the 1990s and early 2000s, stunned his country this week after he called for the downfall of the ruling Communist Party and the formation of a new government.

In a highly unusual YouTube appearance as part of an apparent publicity campaign by the fugitive billionaire Guo Wengui, one of the Chinese government's most reviled opponents, Hao read an 18-point manifesto for a vision of a "New Federal State of China." Sitting for an accompanying hour-long interview alongside his wife, the badminton champion Ye Zhaoying, Hao launched into lengthy criticisms of the government's handling of almost every domestically sensitive subject: Hong Kong, Tibet, the covid-19 pandemic.

"This Communist Party should be kicked out of humanity," Hao declared in the videos released Thursday, on the politically sensitive anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.

Coming from an international athlete, Hao's comments would be fiercely criticized by the Chinese government. Coming from a Chinese soccer legend, they were unthinkable, almost disorienting.


By Thursday afternoon, Hao's videos had caused a sensation in China even though they appeared on YouTube, a blocked platform. They seemed to confound Internet users and authorities alike. Was the entire episode fake? Should it be condemned or ignored?


Titan, a leading state-run sports website, quickly issued a statement that said "Hao Haidong has made speech that subverts the government and harms national sovereignty and uses the coronavirus epidemic to smear the Chinese government and spread falsehoods about Hong Kong . . . we strongly condemn this behavior."

Shortly after, the statement was edited to replace Hao's name, which had become sensitive, with the Roman letter "H." Hours after that, the statement was removed outright as the government opted erase all mention of the incident on the domestic Internet as if it never happened.

Hao's Weibo social media account, which had close to 8 million followers, vanished. Hupu, a leading online hangout for Chinese sports fans, warned users against all discussion of Hao's "harmful remarks."

The warning, too, disappeared.

Within 24 hours, according to the Internet monitor freeweibo.com, Hao's name had become the most heavily censored term on Weibo - topping even "6-4," the perennially censored reference to the Tiananmen crackdown on June 4, 1989.

On Friday, the government addressed the videos for the first time, dismissing Hao's video as farce. "I don't have any interest in commenting," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang.

Hao, who is believed to live in Spain after retiring as China's greatest striker, has been known for sharply criticizing the Chinese soccer authorities but not the ruling party itself. At one point in his videos, he says his disillusionment with the corrupt sports system morphed into a deeper discontent. He also lambasted the prevalence of fraud and a lack of social welfare.

His salvo couldn't be seen as a gauge of popular sentiment toward the party, but Hao is probably the highest-profile Chinese national to speak out so forcefully against the country's political leadership under the rule of President Xi Jinping.

Hao's videos amounted to a minor publicity coup for Guo, the New York-based businessman who has been sought by Chinese authorities on a litany of charges, including fraud, blackmail and bribery.

After fleeing China, Guo, who once worked closely with top Chinese intelligence officials, refashioned himself in 2017 as an anti-government crusader who promised to topple the Communist Party by revealing its secrets on his YouTube channel. Despite dominating Chinese political chatter in 2017, many of Guo's disclosures emerged to be unsubstantiated or fake and his profile waned.

The former real estate developer hired Stephen K. Bannon, the former White House chief strategist and China critic, in 2018 on a multimillion dollar deal to promote him in the United States, according to Axios.

As Guo's YouTube channel aired Hao's videos this week, it also showed Guo and Bannon in a boat in the New York Bay floating in front of the Statue of Liberty, from where Bannon read an English version of a manifesto calling for the creation of the new China.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Counterterror Mission Blends Into Competition With China, Russia: How SOCOM Copes - Breaking Defense

''As we look at the lethality, precision and mobility requirements as examples, we absolutely have to develop them so that they can compete and win with Russia and China,” SOCOM commander Gen. Richard Clarke says.

breakingdefense.com

• NETWORKS / CYBER, PENTAGON

Counterterror Mission Blends Into Competition With China, Russia: How SOCOM Copes
''As we look at the lethality, precision and mobility requirements as examples, we absolutely have to develop them so that they can compete and win with Russia and China,” SOCOM commander Gen. Richard Clarke says.

By PAUL MCLEARY
on June 04, 2020 at 3:43 PM

WASHINGTON: US Special Forces engaged Russian troops in an hours-long roadside standoff in northeast Syria on Wednesday, an area long patrolled by US troops and their Kurdish allies.

The Russians have been probing the region near the Turkish and Iraqi borders for several years, most recently as they look to build an outpost to challenge the small American teams who continue to work in the area after President Trump pulled most US forces out of Syria.

This highlights an emerging fact of life for US special operations troops — an increasing amount of bleed between counterterrorism and the emerging mission to counter Russian and Chinese forces across the globe.

Chinese expansionism in the Pacific and continued Russian probing in Europe, the Middle East and Africa have commanders at the Special Operations Command grappling with how they should reset their force after two decades of kicking in doors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Going after [extremists] is not mutually exclusive to competing with great powers,” SOCOM commander Gen. Richard Clarke said last month at the SOFIC special operations conference. Countering Russia and China, he said, “is about influence, and SOF has a unique and valuable role in this…no longer can we just build counter-[extremist] capabilities that serve a single purpose.”

Any new technologies that would be effective against Chinese and Russian forces must also work in a counter-extremism fight, he said, “because the environments we’re going to be facing in the future are going to challenge our communication. They’re going to challenge our precision navigation. The unmanned aerial systems that our adversaries are using now globally, we have to look at methods that will defeat those and protect our forces.”

Clarke and his team of acquisition and program managers are keenly aware of the difficulties of finding weapons systems that can work in both the counterterrorism fight and against more high-end threats. ”As we look at the lethality, precision and mobility requirements as examples, we absolutely have to develop them so that they can compete and win with Russia and China,” he said.

Clark offered a telling example of how the situation has changed even in places like Afghanistan. When he first deployed there, he spent 90 percent of his time thinking about chasing and fighting Taliban forces.

But during a recent trip to the country, he discovered that commanders spend as much as 60 percent of their time working on information operations to influence the Taliban’s thinking, along with messaging and influencing the Afghan population. ”So, as we think about the information, how we do this locally, but also think about it regionally, it’s going to be critical to the US ability to be able to be successful in future fights.”

Preparing for that future means SOCOM must prepare for three wars simultaneously: a war on extremism, a war of influence, and a war for talent.

The fight against extremist elements will remain “a generational effort that SOCOM is going to be involved in for the long haul,” but, as the fight with ISIS in Syria shows, that fight can bleed into the growing contest with China and Russia in places like Syria, or several parts of Africa where both countries are increasingly operating.

The command’s top priority in developing new systems to meet the wider range of missions that SOF teams will be asked to undertake in the coming years is building a next generation intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability, that “can provide the capability in both great power competition and working for our SOF teams in remote, austere, short take-off-and land battlefields,” Clarke said.

Part of that involves building out an overarching Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) effort.

The idea is to replace paper maps and acetate layovers with what SOCOM acquisition chief Jim Smith said would be a “single pane of glass” that would connect commandos with headquarters while providing both real-time information.

“That’s where we’re trying to get to with Mission Command, is to give a single pane of glass that gives what we normally would have called the enemy situation, the friendly situation, partner information, engineer, aviation, fires, all of that,” Smith said. “But then to put those SOF-peculiar layers on top of it that I would consider influence operations and things of that nature.”

That Mission Command effort will kick off as a formal program of record in the 2022 budget request.

• Topics: China, Gen. Richard Clarke, great power competition, ISIS, Mission Bulletin Special Operations Forces, Russia, socom, SOF, special ops series ldrs, syria

 

[Housecarl]

China to Demolish Muslim Cemetery in Heart of Uyghur Capital

• thompson
• Today at 5:41 AM

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

Posted for fair use.....
Russia and China should be viewed as 'one alliance' in the Arctic, U.K. defense official warns

Defense
Russia and China should be viewed as 'one alliance' in the Arctic, U.K. defense official warns

"I really worry that there is this split, this schism, between the way that China and Russia will do international business, versus the West."

By SARAH CAMMARATA
06/06/2020 11:36 AM EDT

Russia and China's warming relations in the Arctic are the largest threat to security in the region, a British defense official said Thursday, in a break from those who view Moscow and Beijing as separate actors.

“We cannot distinguish much, as you have arguably two power competitors there, in the American perspective, they should be treated as one alliance,” Tobias Ellwood, the U.K.’s chair of the Defence Select Committee in the House of Commons, said in a Center for Strategic and International Studies virtual panel on High North security issues.

“You can see this alliance developing, getting strong and stronger, and like I say, I really worry that there is this split, this schism, between the way that China and Russia will do international business, versus the West,” he added.

Ellwood took a specific swipe at China, arguing the pandemic has allowed many in Britain to “recalibrate” their view of the country. Beijing has not accepted any of the “unwritten responsibilities” that come with being a superpower in upholding international rules and laws, and “they enjoy exploiting them for their own benefit.”

Norway’s defense representative who also spoke at the panel took a different tone, similar to how other international players speak about Russia and China’s influence in the High North. Russia’s oft-cited military buildup and China’s economic investment in Arctic nations is typically seen as two competing Arctic strategies, rather than the pair uniting on one front.

While Tone Skogen, the Norwegian Ministry of Defense’s state secretary, did say that “the fact that China is now showing increased ambition also for the Arctic introduces some new challenges,” the focus for Norway is on Russia.

“We would still argue that we consider Russia, sort of the biggest challenge at least for the time being,” Skogen said. The Arctic is “not a top priority for China.”

Some reports though have found that Russia-China relations are warming in terms of resource development, cooperation on shipping and governance. Russia has looked to Asia for potential investors and technology partnerships as a key consumer market.

“Sino-Russian bilateral trade has steadily grown. … Today, China is Russia’s largest trading partner and Russia is China’s largest oil supplier. … Notably, increased Sino-Russian economic engagement is also evident in the Arctic region,” a May report from the Arctic Institute found.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Iran stockpiled enriched uranium at nearly 8 times the limit

The UN nuclear watchdog has said the finding violates the terms of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal. Iran has also reportedly continued to enrich uranium to a purity of up to 4.5%, higher than the 3.67% allowed.

indianexpress.com

Iran stockpiled enriched uranium at nearly 8 times the limit
The UN nuclear watchdog has said the finding violates the terms of Iran's 2015 nuclear deal. Iran has also reportedly continued to enrich uranium to a purity of up to 4.5%, higher than the 3.67% allowed.
By: | Published: June 6, 2020 2:42:02 pm

Iran has accumulated enriched uranium at nearly eight times the limit set out in the 2015 nuclear deal, the United Nations nuclear watchdog announced on Friday.

The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that as of May 20, Iran’s total stockpile of low-enriched uranium amounted to 1,571.6 kilograms (1.73 tons), up from 1,020.9 kilograms (1.1 tons) on February 19.

The IAEA noted “with serious concern that, for over four months, Iran has denied access to the Agency… to two locations.”


According to the report, the IAEA has questions as to the possible “use or storage of nuclear material” at the two sites and that one of them “may have been used for the processing and conversion of uranium ore including fluorination in 2003.”

Denuclearization agreement

The IAEA noted that Iran has also been continuing to enrich uranium to a purity of up to 4.5%, higher than the 3.67% allowed under the nuclear deal. In addition, Iran is also only allowed to keep a stockpile of 202.8 kilograms (447 pounds).

Iran signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in July 2015 with the US, Germany, France, Russia, China and the European Union in return for economic incentives.

Iran agreed that “under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.” Tehran also authorized a monitoring regime, allowing international inspectors to gain access to sites suspected of nuclear weapons-related activities.

Under the deal, however, Iran may have a commercial nuclear program “for exclusively peaceful purposes.”

Trump slams agreement

Having called it “the worst deal ever,” President Donald Trump pulled the US out of the deal unilaterally in 2018 and imposed fresh sanctions on Iran, further crippling Iran’s economy.

Since the US withdrawal, Iran has reportedly stockpiled enough uranium to produce a weapon. Tehran maintains it has no such intentions and that its atomic program is only for producing energy.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

French troops kill Al-Qaeda's North Africa chief

France has hailed the killing of the head of Al-Qaeda's North Africa wing in an operation against the group behind a string of deadly attacks across the troubled Sahel region. Abdelmalek Droukdel was killed by French troops on Thursday in northern Mali near the Algerian border, where the group...

news.yahoo.com

French troops kill Al-Qaeda's North Africa chief

Daphné BENOIT and Didier LAURAS, AFP • June 6, 2020

Paris (AFP) - France has hailed the killing of the head of Al-Qaeda's North Africa wing in an operation against the group behind a string of deadly attacks across the troubled Sahel region.

Abdelmalek Droukdel was killed by French troops on Thursday in northern Mali near the Algerian border, where the group has bases it uses to carry out bombings and abductions of Westerners, Defence Minister Florence Parly said.

Many close associates of the Algerian -- who commanded several groups under the banner of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) -- were also "neutralised", she said on Friday, describing the operation as a "major success".

Parly also announced the capture last month of a senior figure from a regional offshoot of the so-called Islamic State group, in a double strike against the rival jihadist groups.

AQIM emerged from a group started in the late 1990s by radical Algerian Islamists, who in 2007 pledged allegiance to Osama Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network.

The group has said it has carried out numerous attacks on troops and civilians across the Sahel, including a 2016 attack on an upmarket hotel and restaurant in Burkina Faso that killed 30 people, mainly Westerners.

The SITE intelligence group reported that while AQIM had yet to acknowledge its leader's death, other al-Qaeda jihadists had posted messages mourning his death and paying tribute to him.

The death of Droukdel -- once regarded as Algeria's enemy number one -- could leave AQIM in disarray, French military sources said.

- Haven for jihadists -
France has deployed more than 5,000 troops to combat jihadist groups in the region -- a largely lawless expanse stretching over Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger, where drugs and arms flow through porous borders.

Thursday's operation came after French President Emmanuel Macron hosted a meeting in January of regional leaders to intensify the military campaign, in the face of a surge in attacks that killed 4,000 people in 2019 alone.

Northern Mali is the site of frequent clashes between rival armed groups, as well as a haven for jihadist activity.

In 2012, key cities fell under the control of jihadist groups linked to Al-Qaeda, who exploited an ethnic Tuareg-led rebel uprising. That led a French-led military intervention.
According to the UN, Droukdel was an explosives expert who made devices that killed hundreds of civilians in attacks on public places.

He was sentenced to death in Algeria in 2013 for his involvement in the bombings of a government building and offices of the UN's refugee committee in Algiers that killed 26 people and wounded 177.

The US said it provided intelligence to help track down Droukdel, who was killed in Talhandak, northwest of the town of Tessalit.

"US Africa Command was able to assist with intelligence and... support to fix the target," spokesman Colonel Chris Karns told CNN.

- 'Charismatic, ruthless' -
France also claimed on Friday to have captured a leader of the Islamic State in the Greater Sahara (ISGS) group, which carries out frequent attacks over Niger's western borders.

Parly tweeted that its forces had captured Mohamed el Mrabat, who she said was a senior figure in the ISGS. She described ISGS as "the other great terrorist threat in the region" and said operations against them were continuing.

Mali is struggling to contain an Islamist insurgency that erupted in 2012 and has claimed thousands of military and civilian lives since.

Despite the presence of thousands of French and UN troops, the conflict has engulfed the centre of the country and spread to neighbouring Burkina Faso and Niger.

A source told AFP that some 500 jihadist fighters had been killed or captured by French troops in the region in recent months, among them several leading figures including commanders and recruiters.

Droukdel's death is a symbolic coup for the French, a military source said.

He had remained a threat in the region, capable of financing jihadist movements, even though his leadership had been contested, the source added.

Droukdel has been described as charismatic but ruthless, ready to eliminate members of AQIM who rejected his instructions or ideological positions, according to the analysis group Counter Extremism Project.

Born in 1971 in a poor neighbourhood of Algiers, Droukdel -- also known as Abou Moussaab Abdelouadoud -- took part in founding the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) in Algeria.

Abdelaziz Bouteflika, elected Algerian president in 1999, managed to persuade most of the armed groups in the country to lay down their weapons.

The GSPC, however, refused and Droukdel decided to approach Al-Qaeda.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Shocking Video Shows Mexican Police Officer Set Ablaze by Rioter During Protest

A Mexican police officer was set on fire by a rioter during a demonstration in connection with the alleged beating death of a man in police custody, according to multiple sources. In the disturbing incident caught on video, an officer is seen sitting on his motorbike as a rioter sneaks behind...

www.ntd.com

Shocking Video Shows Mexican Police Officer Set Ablaze by Rioter During Protest

By Lorenz Duchamps June 6, 2020

A Mexican police officer was set on fire by a rioter during a demonstration in connection with the alleged beating death of a man in police custody, according to multiple sources.

In the disturbing incident caught on video, an officer is seen sitting on his motorbike as a rioter sneaks behind him and pours a flammable liquid onto the officer before setting him on fire, according to a video that spread on social media and was later published by The Telegraph on Youtube.

The officer can be seen quickly engulfed by flames as he sits on his motorbike. In an attempt to douse the flames, he drops to the ground and rolls over as a group of rioters rush toward him in an attempt to attack the burning officer.

The rioters were quickly blocked and kicked away by other officers in riot gear who shielded the officer set ablaze and took him to safety.


Enrique Alfaro, the Governor of Jalisco, told news outlets the officer set ablaze was injured in the protest, along with five others in the police force.

As protests rage in the United States over the killing of George Floyd who died on May 25 after a Minneapolis police officer pressed his knee on his neck for nearly 9 minutes during an arrest. Similar protests in Mexico have erupted over the death of 30-year-old Giovanni López in the Ixtlahuacan de Los Membrillos area of Jalisco and spurred demonstrations on the evening of June 4.

People protest following the death of 30-year-old Giovanni López, who died while in police custody after resisting arrest on the evening in Guadalajara, Jalisco state, Mexico of May 4, 2020. (Ulises Ruiz/AFP/Getty Images)

View of the damage caused by demonstrators during a protest outside the US Embassy following the death of 30-year-old Giovanni López, who died while in police custody after resisting arrest in Guadalajara, Jalisco state, Mexico on May 4, 2020. (Alfredo Estrella/AFP via Getty Images)


López was detained on May 4 in the town south of Guadalajara for a misdemeanor equivalent of disturbing the peace or resisting arrest. Hours later he was taken from his cell for medical attention and died.

Authorities in western Mexico arrested three police officers, including the commissioner, and took over their local police department Friday in connection with the alleged beating death of López.

Gov. Alfaro called the killing an “atrocity” and promised to clear up the case, but also asserted that the sudden backlash was politically motivated.

In another video circulating on social media this week, a man is seen being wrestled into a police vehicle while onlookers shout at police that he had done nothing wrong. One of the witnesses asked police if it was because he wasn’t wearing a mask—a requirement under the state’s pandemic measures. Similar claims are being made that López was taken into custody for not wearing a mask.


“This invention, this story that they wanted to construct with political ends to create more indignation that [López] was murdered for not wearing a mask is a lie,” Alfaro said. López was detained for a misdemeanor equivalent to disturbing the peace or resisting arrest, officials said.

Jalisco state prosecutor Gerardo Solís said Friday that López had a criminal history with state and federal charges, which he did not explain. He said that would not make any difference in how the state investigated his death.

Protesters walk on Reforma Avenue during a protest against police brutality in Mexico City, Mexico, on June 5, 2020. (Hector Vivas/Getty Images)
Hundreds of protesters marched in Guadalajara Thursday, demanding justice for López. Six police officers were injured and several police vehicles were set on fire. Authorities were able to arrest 28 rioters.

Ixtlahuacan de Los Membrillos lies within territory controlled by the Jalisco New Generation cartel, one of the country’s most powerful and violent.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

U.S. Forces-Afghanistan conducts airstrikes against Taliban attacking ANDSF checkpoint, first since Eid ceasefire

Violence continues in Afghanistan as US Forces-Afghanistan hit Taliban attacking Afghan troops.

www.militarytimes.com

Flashpoints
U.S. Forces-Afghanistan conducts airstrikes against Taliban attacking ANDSF checkpoint, first since Eid ceasefire

Howard Altman and Meghann Myers

1 day ago

U.S. Forces-Afghanistan conducted two airstrikes in 24 hours against the Taliban to disrupt coordinated attacks on ANDSF checkpoint, a spokesman said in a tweet.

They were the first airstrikes since the start of the Eid ceasefire, tweeted Army Col. Sonny Leggett, a USFOR-A spokesman.

“Overnight, USFOR-A conducted an airstrike against 25 armed TB fighters executing a coordinated attack on an #ANDSF checkpoint in Farah Prov,” Leggett tweeted. “This afternoon, USFOR-A conducted a strike on TB fighters attacking an ANDSF checkpoint in Kandahar Prov.”

In accordance with the U.S.-Taliban agreement “We reiterate: All sides must reduce violence to allow the peace process to take hold. These were the 1st US airstrikes against TB since the start of the Eid ceasefire,” Leggett tweeted.

USFOR-A conducted 2 airstrikes on June 4 to disrupt coord. TB attacks on ANDSF checkpoints, IAW the US-TB agrmt. We reiterate: All sides must reduce violence to allow the peace process to take hold. These were the 1st US airstrikes against TB since the start of the Eid ceasefire
— USFOR-A Spokesman Col Sonny Leggett (@USFOR_A) June 5, 2020

Officials from U.S. Forces-Afghanistan, U.S. Central Command, Air Forces Central Command and the Pentagon did not immediately comment.

The attacks come as the U.S. is working to pull troops out of Afghanistan.

Though the Pentagon is reportedly preparing an Afghanistan withdrawal scenario that would see more than 8,000 troops brought back stateside by early November, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said May 27 that it’s only one option ― and not a particularly strong one.

The plan is still to bring troop levels down to 8,600 by July, Esper said, but any plan to pull out the remainder by the presidential election ― as cited in a Tuesday report by the New York Times ― does not seem likely at this point.

“It’s proven not to move as quickly as we’d prefer,” he said on a trip back from Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, when asked if it could be done in six months. “I don’t put a timeline on it. We have a timeline of May of next year but that timeline was premised on everything moving at a set pace.”

Following a surge of troops on the ground following his inauguration, President Donald Trump has made the Afghan withdrawal a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

At the same time, peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban have proceeded in fits and starts.

After a series of meetings in Qatar last year, Trump in September called off a secret meeting with Taliban leaders at Camp David, after they took responsibility for a Kabul suicide bombing that killed an 82nd Airborne Division soldier.

A cease-fire agreement reached between the Taliban and the Afghan government last week, which includes exchange of prisoners, has renewed some hope that the withdrawal of U.S. troops could ramp up.

"Right now we’re encouraged by the steps we see happening in Afghanistan,' Esper said. “We’re seeing a greater exchange of prisoners. It looks like the Afghan government is organizing itself in a way to sometime soon begin inter-Afghan negotiations. That’ll be a good step forward.”

At the time, Esper said, American troops are trying to uphold their end of the deal, including taking a break from any offensive attacks on Taliban fighters, because “our ambition is not to be the cause for that agreement breaking down,” he said.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

The Aftermath Plan for Afghanistan

Afghan government officials are understandably wary of the Doha Agreement’s requirement for the removal of all U.S. and coalition forces from the country. Their skepticism should be viewed within the context of the tragic events following the withdrawal of Soviet Union forces in Afghanistan in...

nationalinterest.org

June 6, 2020 Topic: Security Region: Middle East Tags: MilitaryTroopsAfghanistanTalibanWar
The Aftermath Plan for Afghanistan

Afghan government officials are understandably wary of the Doha Agreement’s requirement for the removal of all U.S. and coalition forces from the country. Their skepticism should be viewed within the context of the tragic events following the withdrawal of Soviet Union forces in Afghanistan in 1989, including the brutal civil war that eventually brought the Taliban to power in 1996.

by Jim Cook

It is no secret that President Donald Trump never fully embraced the ongoing war in Afghanistan. He often complains that the military is acting more “as a police force” than warfighters and except at the beginning, “we never really fought to win.” While such statements are emotive and controversial, they also reflect a shared frustration with “forever wars” by the public and veterans. After nineteen years of conflict, Trump argues that he is not acting impulsively in expressing his desire to “bring our soldiers back home” from Afghanistan as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, the security situation in Afghanistan is grim. The Taliban controls many of the country’s 398 districts; twenty U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organizations are active in the country; the government is hindered by internal disputes, and the coronavirus pandemic is a serious public health crisis. Nevertheless, the Department of Defense is currently in the process of reducing U.S. forces from twelve thousand to eighty-six hundred in mid-July with a planned departure of all troops by May 2021. There are also reports that the Pentagon is preparing options to complete the withdrawal before the presidential election in November. Regardless of the pace of the drawdown, the Taliban may soon realize what deputy leader Sirajuddin Haqqani calls its “first and foremost demand” for the extraction of foreign forces from Afghanistan. This is a remarkable change from the one hundred thousand U.S. troops serving in the country a decade ago and while the administration’s focus has been on the withdrawal, the Department of Defense would be prudent to plan for a potential redeployment of forces to Afghanistan. Given the volatility within the country and the South Asia region, there is a real possibility that vital U.S. national security interests could be threatened in the future.

On February 29, 2020, the United States and the Taliban signed the Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan in Doha, Qatar. The document specified the U.S. commitment to withdraw “all military forces of the United States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel.” In return, the Taliban agreed to “not allow any of its members, other individuals or groups, including al-Qa’ida, to use the soil of Afghanistan to threaten the security of the United States and its allies.”
Unfortunately, the Afghan government was not a party to the so-called “Doha Agreement” and neither its citizens nor its security forces were afforded these protections. Following a weeklong “reduction in violence,” which was intended to inspire confidence in the peace deal, the Taliban launched attacks in twenty-seven of the country’s thirty-four provinces. Presumably, the intent behind the attacks is to allow the Taliban to negotiate from a position of strength by straining the government’s ability to provide security for its people. In response to the increased violence across the country, President Ashraf Ghani ordered an offensive against the Taliban that does not bode well for political reconciliation.

Meanwhile, systemic corruption and political infighting between Ghani and his rival Dr. Abdullah Abdullah has complicated negotiations with the Taliban. Despite some progress on prisoner exchanges and a three-day ceasefire in observance of the Eid al-Fitr holiday, the intra-Afghan dialogue described in the Doha Agreement is off to a rocky start. There is also concern in Kabul that rather than integrate into the political process, the Taliban will instead do everything it can to undermine the Afghan government. Outlasting the United States and its “puppet regime” in Kabul has been a longstanding goal for the Taliban and one of its commanders recently said that “Until an Islamic system is established, our jihad will continue until doomsday.” Moreover, the Taliban has reportedly drafted a charter containing a list of 149 articles including an “Islamic Emirate” that is incongruent with the current system of government.

Afghan government officials are understandably wary of the Doha Agreement’s requirement for the removal of all U.S. and coalition forces from the country. Their skepticism should be viewed within the context of the tragic events following the withdrawal of Soviet Union forces in Afghanistan in 1989, including the brutal civil war that eventually brought the Taliban to power in 1996. Will history repeat itself in 2021? Moreover, the recent drawdown of U.S. forces from Syria elicited accusations that Washington “betrayed” the Kurds. Could Kabul be next?

To attenuate the risk of fomenting another Afghan civil war and creating a refuge for terror groups, Trump has claimed that “we can always go back if we want to” and the U.S. military can “strike with a thunder-like never before, if necessary.” While this statement will strike some as cavalier, military planners are more clear-eyed about the challenges associated with a return to the battlefield if directed by the commander-in-chief. The technical details surrounding the elimination of the U.S. military footprint in Afghanistan are important because they will affect the difficulty of a potential redeployment of combat forces. Examples include arrangements regarding future access to military airbases, forward operating bases and other critical infrastructure in the country. Depending on force size, military planners will have to address staging and logistical requirements within the Central Command region to facilitate the deployment and establishment of a credible and effective military posture in Afghanistan. These operational considerations (and potential limitations) highlight the requirement for a robust and enduring intelligence capability to provide early indications and warnings of potential threats that would necessitate the redeployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

Compounding these challenges, military planners will likely assume any redeployment to Afghanistan will be a unilateral operation. The Doha Agreement requires coalition partners to draw down military forces along the same timeline as the United States. That means NATO is likely to face stiff resistance from member states to return to Afghanistan absent a crisis that directly threatens the Alliance. The current tensions surrounding U.S.-NATO relations only exacerbate the situation.

Finally, the withdrawal of all U.S. and coalition trainers and advisors is another concern for military force planners. Already under siege from the Taliban and other terror groups, they will be interested in monitoring the performance and effectiveness of Afghan security forces absent mentorship, air support, logistics and other key enablers. The possibility of operating in Afghanistan without a viable host nation security partner will affect the size and composition of U.S. forces while making it more difficult to accomplish whatever the assigned mission.

The debate about whether the Doha Agreement is a good or bad deal is moot as the Trump administration is determined to withdraw U.S. combat troops as soon as possible. Unfortunately, the prospects for a political settlement between the Taliban and the Afghan government appear remote and the risk of inciting another civil war that produces terrorist sanctuaries hangs in the balance. Afghanistan is known as the “Graveyard of Empires,” but its people will bear the heaviest burden if the accord fails and chaos ensues. Planning now to address the myriad operational challenges and resources required to successfully redeploy military forces in an expeditious manner will minimize the risks to core U.S. national interests.

Jim Cook is a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed here are entirely his own and do not reflect those of the U.S. Naval War College, the Department of Defense, or the United States Government.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

Turkish military visit raises fears of Syrian operation

ANKARA: A further visit by Turkey’s Defense Minister, Hulusi Akar, and senior military officials to troops along the Syrian border, along with plans to hold meetings with commanders, have raised fears of a new Turkish military operation. The Chief of General Staff, Gen. Yasar Guler, accompanied...

www.arabnews.com

Turkish military visit raises fears of Syrian operation

• The Chief of General Staff accompanied the high-profile visit
• Turkey has conducted three cross-border operations in Syria against Daesh and the Kurdish YPG militia since 2016

Updated 06 June 2020
Arab News
June 06, 2020 22:55

ANKARA: A further visit by Turkey’s Defense Minister, Hulusi Akar, and senior military officials to troops along the Syrian border, along with plans to hold meetings with commanders, have raised fears of a new Turkish military operation.

The Chief of General Staff, Gen. Yasar Guler, accompanied the high-profile visit, while President Recep Tayyip Erdogan also attended some meetings via telephone.

Turkey has conducted three cross-border operations in Syria against Daesh and the Kurdish YPG militia since 2016.

Navar Saban, a military analyst at the Omran Center for Strategic Studies in Istanbul, said an imminent operation is unlikely, due to the increasing cost of a military move.

“Logistically speaking, it doesn’t make sense to launch another operation in an area that has this many complexities, including a Russian presence, Daesh cells and Syrian regime operations. Even if they win, it will bear significant costs for troops on the ground because of security problems in northwestern Afrin and northwestern Idlib provinces,” he told Arab News.

However, Saban also said the visit is unlikely to be random.

“It is for coordination on the ground to manage clashes with different actors. But it wouldn’t trigger a new operation in the short term,” he said.

On Friday, US-backed Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces announced a new campaign to fight remnants of Daesh across the border with Iraq following a recent increase in attacks.

Last month, the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR) blamed Daesh for exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to “regroup and inflict violence on the population.”
“Intermittent clashes and ground-based strikes between pro-government forces and armed groups continue to be reported in western Aleppo and southern Idlib,” the OHCHR said.

The resumption of violence in Idlib has sparked concern in Ankara about a possible wave of immigration toward the Turkish border, where Turkey has deployed troops.
On Friday, one Turkish soldier was killed and two were wounded following an attack on an armored ambulance in Idlib. The region has seen an increase in attacks since December.

On May 27, a Turkish soldier was killed in an explosion on a highway in Idlib.
Kyle Orton, a UK-based Syria researcher, said that another Turkish operation into Syria remains unlikely for now, as previous cross-border operations already gave the country a military foothold.

“The American presence in Syria has always been the major roadblock to Turkey dismantling the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) statelet, and the Americans want a withdrawal from Syria, quite possibly before the election in November,” he told Arab News.

Orton said that Turkey can get what it wants by maintaining its position, as there are potential political advantages in fighting Daesh in the vacuum left by the US.
“If the Americans are still in Syria in, say, a year, then Ankara might reconsider its view,” he added.

 

[Housecarl]

So much for OPSEC....if that's really a concern....

Posted for fair use.....

404. That’s an error.

AlKhaleej Today Online provides complete Gulf news and international news coverage and online utilities like Gulf Gold Rate, Gulf Exchange rate

alkhaleejtoday.co

Airlift for Syrian fighters from Turkey to Libya

International about 12 hours ago REPORT


Airlift for Syrian fighters from Turkey to Libya

Thank you for your reading and interest in the news Airlift for Syrian fighters from Turkey to Libya and now with details

Aden - Yasmin Abdel Azim - Airlift to transport Syrian fighters from Turkey to Libya Image Credit: Supplied
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s statement in February of the presence of pro-Turkish Syrian fighters in Libya, along with training elements from the Turkish military, was the first official recognition by Ankara of sending Syrian fighters as mercenaries, to join the fight alongside the national “reconciliation” government, Headed by Fayez Al Sarraj, backed by Turkey against the Libyan National Army, led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar.

“Turkey is there through a force conducting training operations,” Erdogan told reporters in Istanbul on February 21. There are also people from the Syrian National Army, which includes pro-Turkish factions in northern Syria.”

Turkey became militarily involved in Libya, after signing two memoranda of understanding with the Sarraj government in Istanbul on November 27th, on military and security cooperation, and defining areas of influence in the Mediterranean. Syrian fighters appeared for the first time in Tripoli, via clips on social media in December.

Subsequently, assurances were received from entities working to monitor the dispatch of fighters and weapons to Libya, which confirms that Turkey has sent many dibatches of Syrian mercenaries, and some foreign elements that have been involved in the fighting in Syria, to Libya to support the Sarraj government, under the cover of the Memorandum of Understanding in the field of military and security cooperation.

This is what was monitored more than once during the past months, by the Italian “Atalar Radar” website, which specialises in tracking the movement of ship and warships across the Mediterranean, which confirmed with pictures and coordinates that Turkey has established an airlift with Libya to transport weapons and fighters to both Tripoli and Misrata, and that during the past two weeks only 11 military cargo planes were detected flying from Istanbul and Konya (central) Turkey to Tripoli and Misrata, with the return in the other direction.

Also, in late February, the Turkish Ministry of Defense was forced to announce naval exercises in the Mediterranean, after weapons and fighters had been transported to Libya on Turkish warships and commercial ships.

For its part, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has repeatedly spoken of transferring batches of Syrian mercenaries in numbers that reached more than 10,000 militants, which was also confirmed by the Libyan National Army.

Ankara imposes strict blackout on the activity of its military in Turkey, and confirms that they are only working to offer advice to the “reconciliation” forces. And it confirmed that it will continue to do so in the coming period, through a statement issued by the meeting of the National Security Council chaired by Erdogan, on Tuesday evening, the bulk of his work was devoted to developments in Libya.

Turkey is also silent about reports of the transfer of weapons and Syrian and foreign mercenaries to Libya, and it did the same thing when the Libyan National Army announced, on May 30, the killing of the leader of the “Sultan Murad Brigade”, (the Syrian mercenary), Murad Abu Hamoud Al Azizi, said to have been “supported by Turkey.”

The “Sultan Murad Brigade” is one of the most militant Syrian factions loyal to Turkey. The Turkish opposition affirms that the government imposes a severe blackout on the losses of its military personnel working in Libya, as well as on its involvement in various ways in the Libyan conflict.

Erdogan used the presence of foreign fighters supporting the “Libyan National Army” as an excuse to send thousands of Syrian fighters as mercenaries to Libya, and he accused Russia last February before announcing the presence of Syrian fighters working with the Turkish military in Libya, of sending 2,500 mercenaries, through a private security company called “Wagner,” which Moscow denied.

Erdogan said that there were about 15,000 from Sudan, Chad and other countries, although a UN committee said there was “no credible evidence” of the presence of Sudanese paramilitary forces fighting with Haftar.

Erdogan’s rhetoric changed after his visit to Russia on March 5. A cease-fire agreement was signed in Idlib, which included joint Turkish-Russian patrols on the Aleppo-Latakia International Road (M4), and he expressed his belief that his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, would take positive steps regarding the elements of “Wagner” in Libya.
These were the details of the news Airlift for Syrian fighters from Turkey to Libya for this day. We hope that we have succeeded by giving you the full details and information. To follow all our news, you can subscribe to the alerts system or to one of our different systems to provide you with all that is new.

It is also worth noting that the original news has been published and is available at Gulf News and the editorial team at AlKhaleej Today has confirmed it and it has been modified, and it may have been completely transferred or quoted from it and you can read and follow this news from its main source.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm....

Posted for fair use.....

Turkey Faced With Revolt Among Its Syrian Proxies Over Libyan Incursion

Relations between Turkey and Syrian armed groups that used to be considered cordial due to massive support provided by the Turkish authorities to the Syrian

moderndiplomacy.eu

Turkey Faced With Revolt Among Its Syrian Proxies Over Libyan Incursion

Published
2 days ago
on June 5, 2020

By Ahmed al Khaled

Relations between Turkey and Syrian armed groups that used to be considered cordial due to massive support provided by the Turkish authorities to the Syrian opposition are rapidly deteriorating over Turkey’s incursion into the Libyan conflict, according to sources among the Syrian militants fighting in Libya.

Last month, over 2,000 fighters defected from Sultan Murad Division, one of the key armed factions serving the Turkish interests in Syria. The group’s members chose to quit after they were ordered to go to Libya to fight on the side of the Turkey-backed Government of National Accord (GNA). This marks a drastic shift in the attitude of the Syrian fighters towards participation in the Libyan conflict: just a few months ago there was no shortage of mercenaries willing to fly to Libya via Turkey for a lucrative compensation of $2,000 – 5,000 and a promise of Turkish citizenship offered by Ankara.

Both promises turned out to be an exaggeration, if not a complete lie. The militants who traveled to Libya got neither the money nor the citizenship and other perks that were promised to them, revealed a fighter of Ahrar al-Sharqiya faction Zein Ahmad. Moreover, he pointed out that after the fighters arrived in Libya they were immediately dispatched to Tripoli, an arena of regular clashes between GNA forces and units of the Libyan National Army despite Turkish promises of tasking them with maintaining security at oil facilities.

Data gathered by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights shows that around 9,000 members of Turkey-backed Syrian armed factions are currently fighting in Libya, while another 3,500 men are undergoing training in Syria and Turkey preparing for departure. Among them are former members of terror groups such as Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, as confirmed by reports of capture of a 23-years-old HTS fighter Ibrahim Muhammad Darwish by the LNA forces. Another example is an ISIS terrorist also captured by the LNA who confessed that he was flown in from Syria via Turkey.

By sending the Syrian fighters to Libya Ankara intended to recycle and repurpose these groups for establishing its influence without the risks and consequences of a large-scale military operation involving major expenses and casualties among Turkish military personnel. However, the recent developments on the ground show that this goal was not fully achieved.

The Syrian fighters sustain heavy casualties due to the lack of training and weaponry. Total count of losses among the Turkey-backed groups reached hundreds and continue to grow as GNA and LNA clash with intermittent success. Until Turkey’s President Recep Erdogan curbs his ambition, destructive nature of involvement of the Syrian armed groups in Libya may result in the downfall of Turkey’s influence over the Syrian opposition.


Related
Turkey’s Role in the Libyan ConflictJanuary 22, 2020In "Middle East"
UN urge warring Libyan factions to negotiateMarch 2, 2020In "Middle East"
Turkey Will Get a Chunk of Syria: An Advantage of Being in NATOJuly 16, 2019In "Middle East"

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

https://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/19a71daf-310b-4d7f-9b94-456b300cccf7

Middle East
Kurdish-led SDF launches large-scale operation against ISIS in Syria
Wladimir van Wilgenburg |

June 05-2020 12:33 PM

ERBIL (Kurdistan 24) – The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) launched a large-scale operation on Thursday against the Islamic State in Syria's Deir al-Zor province after a recent increase in attacks by the extremist group.

The campaign, named “Deterrence of Terrorism,” is expected to last at least approximately one week.

“ISIS attacks have increased in the recent period, which poses a real threat to people’s safety, security and stability,” the SDF’s General Command said in a public statement on Friday.

The operation was launched in coordination with the Iraqi army and the US-led Coalition against the Islamic State.

SDF Commander Adnan Efrin told the local news agency Northpress that at least 6,000 SDF fighters are participating in the campaign in response to a call from civilians and tribal leaders to assist them amid the recent increase in activity of Islamic State sleeper cells.

The news agency reported that, on Thursday, four cell members were arrested in the village of Albu Hamdah outside the town of al-Dashisha in the southeastern countryside of Hasakah.

The SDF General Command said that the goal of the campaign will be to “pursue and track the cells of ISIS terrorist organization in the eastern Badia (desert) along the Khabour River and the Syrian-Iraqi border.”

“This campaign will target ISIS’s hideouts and hotbeds which were a source of concern to the people and that work to disturb security and stability in the region and constitute a threat that threatens the return of ISIS,” the SDF General Command said, adding that the effort is so far proceeding well and will continue until its objective is achieved.

Despite the SDF and the US-led Coalition announcing the Islamic State’s defeat in Syria in March 2019 at Baghouz, the terror group’s activity persists in areas the Kurdish-led forces previously liberated.

Representatives of the Coalition held a virtual meeting on Thursday, in which they affirmed their “shared determination to continue the fight against Daesh/ISIS in Iraq and Syria and to create conditions for an enduring defeat of the terrorist group,” according to the joint communique of the conference.

Read More: Anti-ISIS Coalition reaffirms commitment to continued fight
Also on Thursday in neighboring Iraq, Islamic State gunmen killed four members of the same family during an assault in rural parts of a disputed district in Diyala province.
Read More: ISIS ups attacks as Coalition, Iraqi, and Peshmerga forces target hideouts

Back in Syria's Deir al-Zor province, Islamic State militants appear to be focusing on assassinating civilians working with the local Civil Council to drive the Arab population away from the SDF-affiliated Autonomous Administration of North and East of Syria (AANES).

On May 27, Hudhaifa Al-Ahmad, an administrator for the financial office in the Services Committee of the Deir al-Zor Civil Council, was severely injured during an assassination attempt by Islamic State fighters in the al-Shuhail area of Deir al-Zor province, report the Hawar News Agency.

On Monday, Hamid Mohammed al-Dha’if, a commune leader – the equivalent of a town mayor in the local governing system set up by the Administration – was killed by unknown assailants at the al-Breiha town market in the eastern Deir al-Zor countryside, reported the Deir Ezzor 24 network.

Robin Fleming, a Syria-based researcher at the Rojava Information Center, previously told Kurdistan 24 that most of the SDF and Coalition operations are in Deir al-Zor because “subsequent to the fall of Baghouz, Deir al-Zor has seen the majority of sleeper-cell attacks.”

“But the increased focus on Deir al-Zor could also be due to the fact ISIS was seen distributing flyers threatening individuals connected on any level to the SDF or AANES.”
Editing by John J. Catherine

Updated June 05-2020 01:40 PM

---------

Posted for fair use.........

https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/06062020

Around 30 Syrian, Iraqi ISIS suspects arrested two days into new operation: SDF

14 hours ago Karwan Faidhi Dri
ERBIL, Kurdistan Region — The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have announced the arrest of 30 suspected members of the Islamic State (ISIS) in the first two days of their fresh military operation on the Syria-Iraq border. It also “cleared” around 100 villages in the region from the group, according to an SDF statement.

The multi-ethnic SDF announced the launch of operation ‘Deterrence of Terrorism’ on Thursday, following what they describe as thorough information gathering, to “pursue and track the cells of ISIS terrorist organization on the Syrian-Iraqi border,” according to a Fridaystatement.

SDF commanders said on Friday that 20 ISIS suspects were arrested, but that initial number has since been revised.

“Around 30 Syrian and Iraqi mercenaries [of ISIS] were arrested in the operation,” read another statement from the SDF Friday midnight.

The latest statement also pinpointed the operation as taking place in and around the Syria-Iraq border areas of Hasaka, Baghouz and Deir ez-Zor.

The SDF also confiscated light weapons and IEDs prepared for assassination attacks, and found tunnels of the group.

The operation resulted in a “70 kilometre length and 60 kilometre wide" stretch of land being cleared, "including nearly 100 villages,” the statement said.

No SDF casualties have been reported so far, the statement added.

US-led anti-ISIS coalition spokeperson Colonel Myles B.Caggins III confirmed on Twitter that around 30 ISIS suspects were arrested in the first and second day of the operation, adding that 78 hideouts of ISIS were destroyed.

Around 6,000 SDF fighters are taking part in the military campaign and it is expected to last for about five days, military sources told the SDF-affiliated Ronahi TV — though in their statement, the forces say the operation will continue “until completion of the full mission.”

ISIS took control of swaths of Iraqi and Syrian in 2014, but was declared defeated in the two countries in 2017 and 2019 respectfully.

SDF commander Adnan Afrini told Rudaw TVfrom the frontlines that “a large number" of ISIS fighters are on the Syria-Iraq border, though he could not provide an estimate.

 

[jward]

India, China seek to 'peacefully resolve' border face-off

Thousands of troops from both countries are involved in the face-off concentrated in India's Ladakh region.PHOTO: AFP
Published
1 hour ago

NEW DELHI (AFP) - India and China have agreed to "peacefully resolve" a latest border flare-up that has heightened tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours, New Delhi said on Sunday (June 7), after a high-level meeting between army commanders.
Tensions have flared in recent weeks between the two regional powers over their 3,500km frontier, which has never been properly demarcated.
Thousands of troops from both countries are involved in the face-off concentrated in India's Ladakh region, just opposite Tibet.
"Both sides agreed to peacefully resolve the situation in the border areas in accordance with various bilateral agreements," the foreign ministry said in a statement.
The ministry added that the commanders agreed that an "early resolution" was "essential" for bilateral relations between the world's two most-populous nations.
"Accordingly, the two sides will continue the military and diplomatic engagements to resolve the situation and to ensure peace and tranquility in the border areas," the statement said.


There have been many face-offs and brawls between Chinese and Indian soldiers at the frontier, but they have become more frequent in recent years.

On May 9, several Indian and Chinese soldiers were injured in a high-altitude cross-border clash involving fists and stone-throwing in Sikkim state.
Indian officials said that within days, Chinese troops encroached over the demarcation line in the Ladakh region, further to the west.

Related Story
India wants new construction razed at disputed China border
Related Story
Boycott China trends in India amid border row between them
Related Story
East Asia Watch: Xi Jinping has 'three great mountains' to conquer

India moved extra troops to positions opposite.
The talks, which took place in the Chushul-Moldo region between the two commanders, is believed to be the highest-level meeting since the Sikkim exchange.
India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Chinese counterpart, Mr Xi Jinping, have sought to ease the tensions at summits over the past two years when they agreed to boost border communications between their militaries.

posted for fair use

India, China seek to peacefully resolve border face-off after talks

NEW DELHI (AFP) - India and China have agreed to "peacefully resolve" a latest border flare-up that has heightened tensions between the nuclear-armed neighbours, New Delhi said on Sunday (June 7), after a high-level meeting between army commanders. Read more at straitstimes.com.

www.straitstimes.com

 

[Housecarl]

EGYPT INVADES LIBYA

• danielboon
• Today at 10:30 AM

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

Posted for fair use.....

Russia Puts Defensive Face on Its Nuclear Doctrine Ahead of Arms-Control Negotiations

Moscow’s new strategic-arms decree appears to be an attempt to win advantage whether New START lives on or not.

www.defenseone.com

Russia Puts Defensive Face on Its Nuclear Doctrine Ahead of Arms-Control Negotiations

• By Patrick Tucker Technology Editor Read bio

June 6, 2020

Moscow’s new strategic-arms decree appears to be an attempt to win advantage whether New START lives on or not.

Russia’s new strategic-arms decree adds a bit of ambiguity and defensive flavor, but its main task is positioning Moscow for a critical round of arms-control talks, experts said.

On its face, the document reiterates key points in Russia’s doctrine on the use of strategic nuclear weapons, as opposed to its smaller nukes. Strategic nukes, it says, may be maintained to ensure “sovereignty, territorial integrity, deter direct aggression against Russia or allies, and in the event of aggression preclude escalation,” according to Michael Kofman, a senior research scientist at CNA, a nonprofit research and analysis organization in Arlington, Virginia.

However, Kofman notes some ambiguity in the language, particularly around the idea of using nuclear weapons during a war to bring about a resolution.

“Notably, the standard formulation of ‘cease hostilities on terms favorable to Russia’ (or Russian interests), was changed to ‘conditions acceptable’ to Russia & allies, which is a more fair reading of the escalation management strategy,” Kofman wrote Thursday on his blog.

“Paragraph 5 states that Russia sees nuclear weapons exclusively as a means of deterrence, that they are to be used in extreme circumstances and as a forced measure. I think that’s not a very honest portrayal of how nuclear weapons are viewed by the Russian military,” he wrote. “But the purpose of this document is to position Russian views as defensive only…and to counter the claims of those who say Russia has an escalate-to-de-escalate strategy.”

A country with such a strategy would consider using nuclear weapons — likely tactical ones — at the beginning of a conflict, aiming to press its adversary into quick negotiations.

The document also adds drones to its list of threats, mirroring recent changes to Russian military doctrine generally, says Kofman

Some Russian officials have expressed concerns about high-altitude, long-endurance drones like the U.S. Global Hawk, which are not limited by WMD or deterrence agreements. Their inclusion in the new document here “points to Russia’ recognition that it is vulnerable to such weapons, and to its desire to restrict its use,” said Sam Bendett, an adviser to the Russia Studies Program at CNA.

The document is significant mostly because of its timing. The United States has indicated indirectly that it will abandon the New START Treaty, which limits the number of nuclear warheads and strategic launch platforms each country can deploy, and pursue instead a new agreement that covers new drones, missiles, and other submarines in development or production by Russia and China. The man that President Trump has selected to lead that negotiation is Marshall Billingslea, the current nominee to be undersecretary of state for arms control. But Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-IA, has put the nomination on hold as he waits for an explanation from the White House for the firing of two inspectors general. That suggests that Billingslea, once confirmed, will have precious little time to negotiate an incredibly ambitious trilateral arms deal.

Russia may be using the delay to its advantage.

“This is a Russian effort to shape the conversation in a critical year for arms control, counter what they see as malicious narratives about their nuclear doctrine, and position the country in terms of declaratory policy in the event New START expires,” said Kofman.

• Patrick Tucker is technology editor for Defense One. He’s also the author of The Naked Future: What Happens in a World That Anticipates Your Every Move? (Current, 2014). Previously, Tucker was deputy editor for The Futurist for nine years. Tucker has written about emerging technology in Slate, ... Full bio

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

Posted for fair use.....

Russia can now use nukes if attacked with non-nuclear weapons

Russian President Vladimir Putin endorsed a policy on Tuesday that would allow the country to use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack on

americanmilitarynews.com

Russia can now use nukes if attacked with non-nuclear weapons

June 06, 2020 Kyle Perisic

Russian President Vladimir Putin endorsed a policy on Tuesday that would allow the country to use nuclear weapons in response to a non-nuclear attack on it or its allies.

The nuclear deterrent policy allows Russia to use nuclear weapons in response to aggression involving conventional weapons that “threatens the very existence of the state.” It also reaffirms the nation’s right to respond with nuclear weapons if it attacked with one, the Associated Press reported.

Additionally, Russia could use its nuclear arsenals if it gets “reliable information” that it or an ally is the target of a ballistic missile attack. The policy also allows Russia to use nuclear weapons in the case of “enemy impact on critically important government or military facilities of the Russian Federation, the incapacitation of which could result in the failure of retaliatory action of nuclear forces.”

The policy appears to act as a deterrent to the United States, if it ever decides to attack the country, a weapons manufacturer or a military site, according to the AP. Tensions between the United States and Russia have risen in recent years with Putin threatening in August to build more nuclear weapons if it has information that the United States has begun to do the same.

“If Russia obtains reliable information that the United States has finished developing these systems and started to produce them, Russia will have no option other than to engage in a full-scale effort to develop similar missiles,” Putin said, according to Reuters.

“In order to avoid chaos with no rules, restrictions or laws, we need to once more weigh up all the dangerous consequences and launch a serious and meaningful dialogue free from any ambiguity,” he added.

Russia has also been developing a nuclear-equipped submarine for the past few years, and was expected to be commissioned by September.

Additionally, Iran, Russia, and China participated in a joint war-game to send a “message to the world.”

“The purpose of the war game is to ensure collective security and help strengthen security in the northern region of the Indian Ocean, which is witnessing incidents such as piracy,” Iranian navy commander Rear Adm. Hossein Khanzadi said in a statement in December.

Russia was also subject to a highly scrutinized effort to influence the 2016 presidential election, with limited evidence it was successful.

Both the United States and Russia withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty last year.

The last remaining U.S.-Russia arms control pact, the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) will expire on Feb. 5, 2021, 16 days after either President Donald Trump or his successor takes office. If it isn’t extended, the United States and Russia would no longer have any legal restrictions on nuclear weapons for the first time in nearly half a century.

Before re-signing the agreement, Trump has been pressuring China to sign the agreement as well, given that it is expected to double the size of its nuclear arsenal in the next decade.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Space Development Agency to deploy hypersonic missile defense satellites by 2022

Space Development Agency to deploy hypersonic missile defense satellites by 2022

spacenews.com

Space Development Agency to deploy hypersonic missile defense satellites by 2022

by Sandra Erwin — June 7, 2020

A June 5 solicitation for a “tracking phenomenology experiment” is a step in the development of a sensor network in space to track hypersonic missiles.

WASHINGTON — The Space Development Agency is soliciting bids to integrate a missile-warning sensor with a satellite bus and launch it to low Earth orbit by late 2021.

The June 5 solicitation is for a “tracking phenomenology experiment” to develop sensor algorithms for a future missile detection network in space. Proposals are due July 6.

The experiment is an initial step in the SDA’s plan to deploy a large constellation of low orbiting satellites in 2022 to detect and track maneuvering hypersonic missiles that the Pentagon predicts China and Russia will field in the near future.


The tracking experiment is central to the development of sensors that can accurately identify missile signals in background noise and clutter, according to SDA. “It will characterize scene backgrounds for a range of satellite viewing conditions to optimize algorithms, concepts of operations and wavebands for advanced missile detection and tracking,” said the June 5 request for proposals.

The contractor in this project will be responsible for taking a sensor payload provided by SDA, integrating it with a satellite bus and putting in on a launch vehicle.

Derek Tournear, the director of the SDA, said the missile defense phenomenology experiment will supplement two other satellites being developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency under the Blackjack program.

“There will be at least three LEO OPIR [overhead persistent infrared] satellites flown,” Tournear said June 4 during a Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance webcast.

These experiments will collect data “so that we can really justify that we’ve chosen the correct bands, that we understand some of the phenomenology,” Tournear said.

In parallel to the experiment, SDA will start soliciting proposals from contractors to build the first eight satellites of the missile tracking constellation. A final request for proposals will be out by June 15, Tournear said.

Tournear said satellites in different orbits will be needed to detect and track fast-flying hypersonic missiles. SDA’s eight satellites will provide a “wide field of view” from orbit but more detailed tracking data will be provided by another “medium field of view” layer of satellites that is being designed by the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency but has not yet been funded. The MDA program, known as the Hypersonic Ballistic Tracking Space Sensors, or HBTSS, would provide the so-called “fire control” data needed to be able to target an interceptor weapon to shoot down the hypersonic missile.

By 2022 or 2023, SDA plans to field an early version of a missile warning network with about 70 wide-field-of-view and medium-field-of-view satellites. “That will give us enough coverage in LEO so that we can have essentially regional persistence,” said Tournear. ‘We’ll have to determine which areas of the globe we want to focus on. That’s the first time we’ll have enough satellites up there to where we could actually fight a war with those satellites.” By 2025, “we’ll have more satellites up to where it we’ll be able to have full global coverage.”

Congress has questions

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), of the House Armed Services Committee, said DoD’s missile defense programs are likely to be a topic of discussion in the upcoming markup of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. Subcommittee debate is scheduled for June 22 and the full committee markup on July 1.

During the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance webcast, Lamborn asked Tournear and MDA officials on the panel to explain why the HBTSS space sensor layer was not funded in the Pentagon’s 2021 budget.

Tournear said there were “funding constraints” in the 2021 budget. If Congress decided to add money to the program, he said, that would help close the gap between the deployment of the wide-field-of-view and the medium-field-of-view systems.

Some lawmakers have questioned why SDA is moving forward with a tracking sensor layer if there is still no plan to deploy the HBTSS system that would be needed to shoot down an enemy missile.

“You start to get into this chicken and the egg issue that we want to head off at the pass,” said Tournear. “We want to move both of them at the same time. And I would contend that one of them is not more difficult than the other, both are necessary.”

Tournear also pushed back on criticism that SDA and MDA are doing overlapping work. “We’re doing a hybrid architecture together.,” he said. Tournear noted that both agencies are under the office of undersecretary of defense for research and engineering Mike Griffin. “As far as making sure that that SDA and MDA are tied closely together, well, for one thing, we’ve got the same boss. That’s a start that helps a lot.”

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....talk about a DOT.

Posted for fair use.....

Silex Systems presses ahead in nuclear enrichment, will Australia follow? - Australian Manufacturing Forum

Comment by Peter Roberts Technology development company Silex Systems is pressing ahead with a uranium enrichment project that has implications for any future move by Australia into nuclear industries. The Sydney company has signed a sales agreement with the US Department of Energy (DOE) to...

www.aumanufacturing.com.au

Silex Systems presses ahead in nuclear enrichment, will Australia follow?
You are here:

1. Home
2. Analysis and Commentary
3. Silex Systems presses ahead in…

Jun8

Comment by Peter Roberts

Technology development company Silex Systems is pressing ahead with a uranium enrichment project that has implications for any future move by Australia into nuclear industries.

The Sydney company has signed a sales agreement with the US Department of Energy (DOE) to allow it to process stockpiles of depleted nuclear fuels as part of its Paduach Project in Kentucky (plant site pctured).

Silex plans to process the fuels using its proprietary laser enrichment process being commercialised in partnership with Canada’s Cameco Corporation, with the partners producing uranium equivalent to one of the world’s top ten uranium mines.

While the commercialisation of the Silex process has been troubled in the past, the implications of an Australian company with the capabilities to enrich uranium could be a building block to a future nuclear fuels industry in Australia.

There is mounting pressure from the defence community to establish nuclear weapons capabilities in Australia, with defence analysts pointing to a need for greater self-reliance given the eclipse of US power in the region.

This is often connected in defence commentary to the upgrading of the Attack class submarines to be built in Adelaide from conventional to nuclear propulsion, a technology leap the French builder could easily manage.

Finally, while much of the conservative push-back against renewables has focused on using gas and coal, nuclear power is always high on the wish-list of many on the political right.

The Silex project involves the construction by GLE, a venture owned 51 per cent by Silex and 49 per cent by Cameco, of the Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility to process depleted uranium over a period of several decades.

Production would begin in the late 2020s of around 2,000 tonnes of natural uranium hexafluoride per annum, the equivalent of a mine producing 5.2 million pounds of uranum oxide.

This already enriched uranium would immediately give GLE capabilities in uranium production, as a uranium conversion supplier and enriched uranium supplier – three of the four production steps of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Silex was formerly developing the project in association with GE and Hitachi, who exited the project allowing Cameco, one of the world’s largest listed uraniium companies, to increase its holding.

Silex is based at Lucas Heights in New South Wales, the site of Australia’s only nuclear reactor, and works closely with the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO).

Interestingly Silex is also central to another developing Australian industry – the company is producing treated silicons being used in developing and making silicon quantum computer chips.

It has been estimated that to move into nuclear power Australia would need a concerted national effort over seven to 10 years to train nuclear technicians, perform the necessary science and construct facilities.

The advent of Silex as a capable uranium producer and enricher would make such a move all the easier and quicker.

While my personal opinion is we should avoid the nuclear industry given its risks, there is no doubt Australia could easily attain nuclear capabilties.
All that is lacking is political will.

Picture: Silex Systems/Paducah, KY Enrichment Plant Site
Subscribe to our free @AuManufacturing newsletter here.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

NATO’s Withdrawal: Unrest in Afghanistan will Affect Pakistan – KashmirWatch

NATO’s Withdrawal: Unrest in Afghanistan will Affect Pakistan

June 7, 2020
Sajjad Shaukat

In the agreement signed between the US and Taliban on February 29, this year, in Doha-the capital of Qatar, it is committed that within the first 135 days of the deal, the US will reduce its forces in Afghanistan to 8,600 from the current 13,000, working with its other NATO allies to proportionally reduce the number of coalition forces over that period. Under the agreement, if the Taliban adhere to their security guarantees and ceasefire, the Pentagon was to bring troop levels down from about 12,000 to 8,600 by mid-July, before withdrawing all forces by May 2021. Other NATO countries will also leave Afghanistan. As desired by the US-led NATO states, the Taliban agreed not to allow Al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in the areas they control and Afghan soil will not be used to conduct attacks in Afghanistan and on Western forces.

According to the AFP, “The US military withdrawal from Afghanistan is considerably ahead of schedule; an official told…a senior US defence official said the troop number was already at approximately 8,500, as commanders accelerate the withdrawal over fears of the coronavirus”.

The New York Times also wrote on May 29, 2020: “Senior military officials are set to brief President Trump on options for pulling all American troops out of Afghanistan, with one possible timeline for withdrawing forces before the presidential election…The proposal for a complete withdrawal by November reflects an understanding among military commanders that such a timeline may be Mr. Trump’s preferred option because it may help bolster his campaign”.

In this regard, the prisoners’ exchange is part of the US-Taliban agreement as a confidence-building measure ahead of formal peace talks. Kabul freed around 2,700 the total number of prisoners, while Taliban have so far released 420 government prisoners.

In the recent past, the Taliban announced a May 24-26 cease-fire to coincide with the Eid al-Fitr Islamic holiday. The developments have raised prospects of an extended cessation of hostilities and the long-delayed launch of direct talks between the government and the Taliban over a permanent cease-fire and a future power-sharing agreement.

Since the truce ended, the militants have observed an unofficial reduction of violence, despite staging several deadly attacks on government forces in response to the Afghan forces’ strike on the Taliban. But, they did not target NATO forces, as the Taliban leaders have repeatedly made it clear.

These developments have also been appreciated by US special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad who had played a key role in the US-Taliban deal.

Meanwhile, American forces conducted two airstrikes on Taliban fighters on June 5, this year to foil the militant group’s plan to launch attacks on Afghan security forces. Such a move could hurt the peace process, providing the Afghan government a pretext to further delay the peace talks with the Taliban leaders. On the same day, the deputy leader of the Taliban SirajuddinHaqqani said that despite the group’s belief in the peace negotiation talks as one of the core components of the solution to the conflict in Afghanistan, the Taliban will still continue the path of jihad (holy war) and strengthen its military power”.

Earlier, the Afghan President Ashraf Ghani had rejected prisoner swap with the Taliban. Afterwards, he also availed the opportunity of coronavirus to delay the process. The political crisis in Afghanistan worsened on March 9, 2020, as Ashraf Ghani and former Chef Executive Abdullah Abdullah took separate oaths as country’s president in connection with the September elections, as the latter did not recognize the election-results.

In fact, President Ghani thought that if the US-led NATO forces which are well-equipped with latest arms failed in coping with the Taliban fighters, as to how Afghan forces can encounter them. Therefore, he wants that NATO forces should continued their presence in the country.

Likewise, India which does not intend to see peace in Afghanistan and is undermining regional stability by creating unrest in Afghanistan, also desires the presence of the NATO forces in that country in order to protect its billions of dollars-investment there.

However, it was due to the US pressure that President Ghani agreed to release the Taliban prisoners, while Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah resolved their differences and signed a power sharing deal on May 17, this year.

In this context, Abdullah Abdullah said on May 31, 2020, “The negotiating team [of Afghanistan] is ready to begin the talks [With Taliban] at any moment.” However, he added that there must be a fresh cease-fire during the talks.

Despite all of this, the implementation of the US-Taliban peace agreement has been delayed. In this connection, besides late release of the Taliban prisoners and the peace talks between the government and Taliban, which were scheduled to begin before March 10, 2020 has not been started so far.

It is notable that setting aside the completion of various phases of the US-Taliban deal, America has started withdrawing its troops from Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, the US-led NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan will have drastic implications inside that war-torn country by creating further unrest which will affect the entire the region, especially Pakistan.

It is mentionable that Pakistan shares common geographical, historical, religious and cultural bonds with Afghanistan. There is a co-relationship of stability and peace in both the countries. Therefore, since Khalilzad started his efforts to convince the Taliban to have direct talks with the US, Pakistan had been playing a major role. Zalmay Khalilzad who repeatedly visited Pakistan and met the civil and military leadership, including country’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Quershi, admired Pakistan’s role in the US-Taliban historical agreement.

It is noteworthy that after the 9/11 tragedy, President George W. Bush insisted upon Islamabad to join the US global war on terror. Pakistan was also granted the status of non-NATO ally by America due to the successes, achieved by Pakistan Army and country’s primary intelligence agency ISI against the Al-Qaeda militants.

After the end of the Cold War, America left both Pakistan and Afghanistan to face the fallout of the Afghan war 1.

As a consequence, civil war and instability in Afghanistan had implications on Pakistan which faced numerous problems Afghan refugees, criminals and gangsters, drug traders, supply of weapons, drone attacks, terrorists’ attacks etc. Because of the longest porous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, consisting mountains and terrain area, it was easy for these elements which used to enter Pakistan from Afghanistan. The infiltration infected the country with sectarianism, Kalashnikov culture and religious extremism.

Nonetheless, after the departure of the US and other NATO forces from Afghanistan, external economic and security assistance will diminish. Other international donors who are fighting the COVID-19 endemic will be unlikely to step in to replace US spending. The US-led puppet government in Kabul will lose influence. Reduction in funding will have negative impact on the capacity of the government and its combat capabilities. Governance structures in Afghanistan consist of overlapping layers of formal, centralized de jure authorities; regional power brokers with mixed official and informal authority at the local level. So, like the past, a civil war will start in Afghanistan among various local warlords who control their own Militias. It is likely to weaken the center, resulting into the rule of Taliban who already control almost 70 percent areas of the country, will defeat the Northern Alliance and afterwards, will occupy the non-Pashtun areas dominated by other warlords.

As a matter of fact, Indian and Afghan rulers who are feeling the pinch of the US-Taliban peace agreement are trying to sabotage it for their collective interests at the cost of Afghan people, Pakistan and regional stability.

While, Indian RAW which is in connivance with Israeli Mossad and Afghanistan’s intelligence agency National Directorate of Security (NDS) has well-established its network in Afghanistan and had been fully assisting cross-border incursions and terror-activities in various regions of Pakistan through Baloch separatist elements and anti-Pakistan groups like Jundullah and Afghanistan-based Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), including their affiliated outfits.

Notably, Pakistan’s Armed Forces and particularly Army have successfully broken the backbone of the foreign-backed terrorists by the military operations Zarb-e-Azb and Radd-ul-Fasaad, while ISI has broken the network of these terrorist groups by capturing several militants and thwarting a number of terror attempts. So, peace has been restored in various regions of the country, especially in Balaochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) provinces.

But, in the recent past, some terror-attacks in Pakistan and Balochistan show that New Delhi is trying to damage the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Both India and America has already opposed this project.

Indian desperation has been increasing in the backdrop of growing engagements of Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and Russia which want stability in Afghanistan.

It is misfortune that on Indian direction, in the recent past, President Ghani accused Islamabad for terror attacks in Afghanistan.

New Delhi and Kabul which desire to prolong the stay of the US-led NATO troops in Afghanistan are exploiting the dual policy of America against Pakistan, China, Russia and Iran.

Undoubtedly, after the withdrawal of the US-led NATO troops from Afghanistan, Afghan regime will fall like a house of cards owing to the Taliban assault. Even, India would not be in a position to maintain its network in wake of the successful guerrilla warfare of the Taliban—rendering Indian proxy support against Pakistan ineffective.

Regarding Indian activities in Afghanistan the then NATO commander, Gen. McChrystal had pointed out: “Indian political and economic influence is increasing in Afghanistan…is likely to exacerbate regional tensions.”

In this respect, Washington must be aware of the coming negative developments, which could create misunderstanding between America and the Taliban, as before the NATO’s departure, RAW and NDS can use some terror outfits like TTP and Daesh (ISIS) for targeting the military installations of the US and its allies to shift the blame game towards those Taliban whose leader has signed the peace deal. Even, after the NATO’s withdrawal, when Afghanistan will further face lawlessness and civil war owing to the negative role of these secret entities, New Delhi and Kabul could also accuse Islamabad of cross-border terrorism in Afghanistan like the past approach, because the US and Pakistan have been promoting cordial relations due to President Trump’s positive approach towards the latter.

In the meantime, if any terror attack occurs in the US homeland, Indian-Afghan rulers are likely to manipulate it against Pakistan by convincing Washington that Islamabad is behind it.

At present, coronavirus which affected almost every country has also enveloped Afghanistan which has reported more than 14,092 cases, infected by this deadly virus and more than 270 deaths. In America, more than 1,861,200 cases have been recorded with more than 107,100 deaths. Besides the spread of COVID-19, the US is also not taking much interest in completion of the US-Taliban agreement owing to unending violent protests across the country over the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died on May 25, 2020 in the police custody in Minneapolis. During clashes, the police killed several black people.

By availing this golden opportunity, Afghan rulers may create complications which could castigate the US-Taliban deal.

We may conclude that besides the whole region, US-led NATO’s withdrawal from Afghanistan will create unrest in that country, particularly affecting Pakistan which will, again, face the drastic fallout in wake of the COVID-19 pandemic which impacted 93,000 persons with death toll of 1,800 people.

Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants, Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Email: sajjad_logic@yahoo.com

 

[danielboon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1270108748594454528

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/AFP/status/1270108748594454528

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

U.S. envoy: U.S., Russia agree on June nuclear arms control talks, invite China

The U.S. and Russia have agreed on a time and place for nuclear arms negotiations in June and invited China, U.S. Special Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea wrote on Twitter on Monday. China has repeatedly reiterated that it has no intention of participating in the so-called trilateral...

news.cgtn.com

World 09:59, 09-Jun-2020

U.S. envoy: U.S., Russia agree on June nuclear arms control talks, invite China

CGTN

The United States and Russia have agreed on a time and place for nuclear arms negotiations in June and invited China, U.S. Special Envoy for Arms Control Marshall Billingslea wrote on Twitter on Monday.

"Today agreed with the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov on time and place for nuclear arms negotiations in June. China also invited," Billingslea wrote.

China has repeatedly reiterated that it has no intention of participating in the so-called trilateral arms control negotiations with the United States and Russia.

Citing a U.S. Department of State official, Bloomberg reported the same day that a new round of arms control talks would be held in Vienna on June 22.

The upcoming meeting will be the first arms control talks between Billingslea and his Russian counterpart, said Bloomberg, suggesting that "the Trump administration has softened its stance on extending New START (New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)."

The 9M729 land-based cruise missile on display with its launcher in Kubinka outside Moscow, Russia, January 23, 2019. /AP

In 2010, Washington and Moscow signed the New START, which stipulates the limits to the numbers of deployed nuclear warheads and strategic delivery systems by both sides. The New START, the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty in force between the two nuclear superpowers, will expire on February 5, 2021.

The agreement can be extended for at most five years with the consent of the two countries. Russia has expressed willingness to extend the treaty, while the Trump administration has yet to officially reply.

The U.S. withdrew from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia last year.
Read more:
Will the New Start Treaty follow the INF's destiny?
Lavrov reaffirms readiness to extend New START in phone call with Pompeo

China has no intention of taking part in trilateral talks

On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in March, the United States said it would propose a bold new trilateral arms control initiative with Russia and China to help avoid an expensive arms race and instead work together to build a better, safer and more prosperous future for all.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian responded that Beijing has no intention of taking part in the so-called China-U.S.-Russia trilateral arms control negotiations.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian attends a regular press briefing in Beijing, March 6, 2020. /Chinese Foreign Ministry

China is willing to continue to work with all parties to strengthen communication and coordination under the framework of the existing multilateral mechanisms, Zhao told a regular press conference.

Regarding the issue of nuclear disarmament, it is imperative that the United States responds to Russia's call for extending the New START and further reduces its huge nuclear arsenal, which will create conditions for other nuclear-weapon states to join multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations.

Zhao said China has always pursued a national defense policy that is defensive in nature. China's nuclear power has always been maintained at the lowest level necessary for national security, which is not on the same order of magnitude as the huge nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia.

(With input from Xinhua, Reuters)

RELATED STORIES


China: U.S. accusations in arms control report "not worth refuting"

World

09:09, 16-Apr-2020


U.S. envoy presses Taliban to curb violence in new talks

Asia

20:12, 06-May-2020


Russia, Iran condemn U.S. cancellation of nuclear sanction waivers

World

17:05, 28-May-2020

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

Gruntstuff - Latest News Bulletins! - Gruntstuff

Gruntstuff – Latest News Bulletins! was last modified: August 1st, 2019 by Ajay

gruntstuff.com

General News

China denies US claim that it tested nuclear weapons
June 9, 2020
Add Comment
Donna Miller
2 Min Read

The Chinese language Communist Get together is rejecting an accusation from the US that it carried out a low-level nuclear take a look at at a weapons take a look at website, saying the nation had not violated its dedication to worldwide arms management treaties.

“The US neglects all of the info and makes wanton accusations in opposition to China. That is irresponsible and ill-intentioned,” Chinese language International Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian mentioned whereas chatting with reporters Thursday.

Zhao went on to name the claim “an entire distortion of the info.”

An arms management report from the State Division, first obtained by the Wall Avenue Journal on Wednesday, alleged that the Chinese language Communist Get together could also be flouting worldwide regulation by implementing these assessments, which they are saying occurred throughout the northwest area of the nation utilizing low explosive energy.

The considerations stemmed from exercise which was found at China’s Lop Nur testing website. One giveaway, in accordance with the report, included intensive excavations and the usage of particular chambers to comprise explosions.

Additionally fueling US suspicions is the interruption in recent times of information transmissions from monitoring stations in China designed to detect radioactive emissions and seismic tremors.

The battle comes as President Trump hopes to open nuclear arms talks with Beijing as half of a bigger effort to barter a brand new deal that consists of Russia.
The settlement the US alleges China just isn’t following is the Complete Nuclear Check Ban Treaty.

The treaty permits testing and different actions to make sure the protection and reliability of nuclear weapons, together with some experiments, so long as they don’t produce a nuclear explosive response.

The treaty isn’t legally enforced as a result of too few nations have ratified it, although each the US and China say they’re abiding by the phrases of the accord.
Whereas the settlement has been signed by each nations, neither has ratified it.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

China has said it's ready to deploy troops 'within hours' as border dispute hots up

Image of a plane full of gun-wielding troops has emerged as two nuclear states face off.

www.nzherald.co.nz

WORLD
Dangerous face-off between nuclear nations: China ready to deploy troops 'within hours'

9 Jun, 2020 3:26pm
news.com.au
By: Benedict Brook

China has said thousands of troops, armoured vehicles and artillery could be deployed "within hours" as a conflict over a contested border between the nation and India, two nuclear powers, heats up.

Over recent days, Chinese media has aired arresting pictures of civilian planes full of soldiers in fatigues holding guns. Hundreds more solders were seen boarding trains.

Ostensibly, it's all part of a military exercise to see how quickly China's military machine can crank up. However, the troops have reportedly been sent within easy reach of the mountainous border with India where clashes have flared.

Hong Kong's South China Morning Post reported the so called "manoeuvre operation" by the Chinese People's Liberation Army was completed in "just a few hours" and saw troops whisked from the country's central Hubei province. They were sent to an unspecified location in the nation's northwest.

Chinese state media has shown images of a civilian plane full of troops as part of a drill that coincided with an ongoing border conflict with India. Photo / Weibo, CCTV

India and China have been facing off against one another along a disputed border known as the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

The demarcation line separates Indian-controlled territory from Chinese-controlled territory and was formed after the 1962 Sino-Indian War that China won decisively.

The disputed Himalayan border was the main cause of the war. Now a new conflict has erupted.

Last month at a mountain pass of strategic importance, the two sides began dropping stones and also physically beat each other, according to Chinese media. At least four Indian and seven Chinese soldiers were injured.

The Chinese military responded by erecting shelters, building concrete bunkers and setting up camps in the strategic high-ground. This is in areas that had been under Indian control. The move reportedly caught India by surprise.

Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said "large numbers" of Chinese troops had crossed into India's side of the LAC.

Related articles:
BUSINESS Behind China's Twitter campaign, a murky supporting chorus
9 Jun, 2020 2:05pm
9 minutes to read

WORLD India stunned by China's seizure: Standoff between their armed forces
8 Jun, 2020 6:27am
3 minutes to read

This combination of two satellite photos at an air base in Tibet, China (close to India) shows development around the airport. Photo / AP

India responded by rushing troops to the Galwan River Valley in northern Ladakh and the Pangong Lake in central Ladakh.

China's latest move coincides with talks aimed at defusing the crisis between the two nations, which both possess stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Indian officials crossed to the Chinese side of the line at the weekend to try to plot a route out of the crisis. However, Indian media reported it could be a long, drawn-out process with "hard-nosed negotiations".

India is demanding that Chinese troops return to their side of the LAC and destroy the hastily built bunkers it has erected north of a mountainous lake called Pangong Tso.

Both sides agreed the dispute should be resolved peacefully but India also said the weekend's talks were "inconclusive".

CIVILIAN PLANES
The PLA's Major Colonel Mao Lei reportedly said the drill had made "significant breakthroughs" in terms of the scale of mobilised troops and how they were transported.

"[Using civilian transport] substantially expanded our means of transporting forces and increased efficiency in manoeuvring an entire organisation of troops," Mao told Chinese television station CCTV.

Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece the Global Times has linked the drill to the border tensions with India.

AUSTRALIA INDIA DEFENCE PACT
At the weekend, the Global Times noted that India and Australia had signed a new defence pact and suggested it was part of an effort by New Delhi to put pressure on Beijing to step back from the border region.

READ MORE:
• Standoff between Chinese and Indian armed forces
• George Floyd death: Why China and Russia are celebrating US protests
• Covid 19 coronavirus: China delayed releasing data while WHO heaped praise
• Comment: Why the US could no longer win a war against China

"Some analysts regard this move as a joint effort between India and Australia to counter China," the newspaper wrote.

"Whereas this accord is set against the backdrop of escalating border tensions between China and India, this intensifies friction between Beijing and Canberra."

It said the India–Australia defence agreement could bring a significant strategic change to the region.

"Such changes will shape a confrontational atmosphere in the region, jeopardising peace and stability."

BORDER FLARE UPS
China and India have regularly come to blows over their 3400km-long and infuriatingly ill-defined border.

Remote and treacherous, these disrupted areas are home to few people. But any moves to tame the areas - such as the building of a road to ease access - immediately risk a conflict.

South China Morning Post reported the "manoeuvre operation" by the Chinese People's Liberation Army was completed in "just a few hours". Photo / Getty Images

Both sides are hugely sensitive to any kind of infrastructure works in the disputed areas. The fear is that the more either nation builds roads and fortifications on its side of the LAC, the more grounds it will have to assert its claim to that territory.

While it's not clear what kicked off the latest flare-up, it's thought China was none-too-pleased by Indian road-building efforts on the side of the LAC administered by New Delhi.

Three years ago, the countries also came to blows in another border region – and also over a road. But that time it was a road built by China on its own – disputed – side of the LAC.

In early June 2017, China began building a new road leading to the Doklam plateau, a disputed area close to both the Indian frontier and that of the tiny mountain kingdom of Bhutan.

China accused Indian troops stationed in Bhutan – which has only a small army and relies militarily on India – of straying across the frontier to prevent the road's construction. That conflict took 70 days to defuse.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

Afghanistan: Pakistan proxy Haqqani network driving Taliban’s strategy

Pakistan has been supporting terrorist groups in the past and current revelations in the UN report on the role of Haqqani network in steering Taliban agenda should come as no surprise.

www.financialexpress.com

Afghanistan: Pakistan proxy Haqqani network driving Taliban’s strategy
Updated: June 8, 2020 3:17:41 PM
Pakistan has been supporting terrorist groups in the past and current revelations in the UN report on the role of Haqqani network in steering Taliban agenda should come as no surprise.

BY BRIG NK BHATIA

UN Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team in its 11thannual report addressed to the Security Council Committee concerning the Taliban and other associated individuals and entities constituting a threat to the peace, stability and security of Afghanistan has made scathing revelations on the close nexus between Taliban, Al Qaeda and ISIL-K, both prior to and post conclusion of the Peace Agreement between USA and Taliban on 29 February 2020.

Related News

• IAF's ARPIT to fight Coronavirus! What is it and how it will rescue people from remote places
• Pakistan trying to revive Al-Badr group; making attempts to hide its support to terrorism in J&K: DGP

The report reveals that the Taliban during the process of negotiations with the USA leading up to the peace agreement were in constant touch with Al-Qaeda. The agreement thus concluded called upon the Taliban to ”prevent the use of the soil of Afghanistan by any group or individual against the security of the United States”, thereby agreeing not to allow al-Qaeda or any other extremist group to operate in the areas they control. It would not be correct to assume that the USA was not aware of the backhand contacts between the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the process leading up to conclusion of the agreement.

As per the report Hafiz AzizuddinHaqqani and YahyaHaqqani of the Haqqani network were meeting al-Zawahiri as late as February 2020 for consultations in relation to impending peace agreement. YahyaHaqanni also known by his alias QariSaheb is brother in law of Haqqani network chief SirajuddinHaqqani and has been the key link between Haqqani network and Al Qaeda since 2009.

The report brings out that Taliban and Al-Qaeda had strengthened their position in the preceding year. Therefore to conclude that the two had severed their ties would be sheer imagination and fictitious. In fact, as the report points out the link between the two is deep-rooted and the two terrorist outfits in fact had joined hands to form a new joint unit of 2,000 armed fighters in cooperation with Al Qaeda to be funded by it. One of the interlocutors of talks between Haqqani network and Al Qaeda, Hafiz AzizuddinHaqqaniwas to be in overall command and lead the joint front in East Afghanistan which happens to be Haqqani stronghold comprising areas ofLoyaPaktiya (Khost, Logar, Paktika and Paktiya). Al-Qaida was also planning to establish new training camps in eastern Afghanistan.

It has been long established that that Taliban and Al Qaeda have had a close relationship. It would have been naïve on part of the USA to expect snapping up of this relationship irrespective of the written commitments that the Taliban made to the USA in their interactions and in the written agreement concluded for bringing peace to Afghanistan.

This brings to the conclusion that the Haqqani network for the last couple of years seems to have been driving Taliban strategy in Afghanistan with a tight grip and clout over Taliban hierarchy and operations.

A report authored by Dr Antonio Giustozzi on Taliban’s organization and structure in 2017 reveals the Taliban to be a “fragmented” group since 2007 when Haqqani network led MiranShah Shura abandoned Taliban only to rejoin it in 2015. Similarly, other factions broke away rendering the outfit weak. Detention of Mullah Baradar in 2010 by Pakistan further led to the Taliban’s weakening. The death of Mullah Omar led to the passing of Taliban mantle onto Mullah Mansour who had been against talks with the US and anathema to Pakistan, resulting in his moving to Iran.

The killing of Mullah Mansour in May 2016 in a US drone attack inside Pakistan when he was reportedly proceeding to Quetta from Iran pointed to Pakistan’s complacency in his killing.

The power struggle within the Taliban for leadership ensued leading to the nomination of HaibatullahAkhund as Emir after a series of talks and prodding by Iran and Russia. His nomination was resisted by SirajuddinHaqqani andObeidullahIshaqzai, nephew of slain Mullah Mansour.

HaibatullahAkhundalthough central to the organisation continues to face challenges within the Taliban with respect to the approach to negotiations with the Afghan government. While he supports negotiations the same are opposed by SirajjuddinHaqqani andObeidullahIshaqzai. This approach is now officially reflected in the Taliban’s approach to peace wherein the Taliban refuses to recognise or negotiate with the Afghan government led by President Ghani.

Another point of divergence amongst Taliban leadership is Haqqani and Ishaqzai favouring coexistence and an alliance with the Islamic State and other global jihad groups such as Al Qaeda. This has been amply established by the UN report referred to above.

Of the three power centres of Taliban, neither HaibatullahAkhund nor ObeitullahIshaqzai are military strategists of the calibre of SirajuddinHaqqani. This leaves SirajuddinHaqqani to lead central Taliban military strategy and campaigns.

Haqqani network is the only centralised and unified group amongst all Taliban factions. Prodigies’ of now-deceased JallaludinHaqqani, they comprise the Miran Shah Shura under SirajuddinHaqqani, son of Jallaluddin who is also the first deputy to Emir of Taliban. Haqqani network draws its strength from the Haqqani clan unified under SirajuddinHaqqani. It is based in Miran Shah, North Waziristan.

As is widely known Haqqani network has been referred to as “veritable arm“of Pakistan’s InterServices Intelligence (ISI) since their long relationship has been well established. ISI since formative years of the establishment of the group has been mentoring and directing its activities. This should be a reason of concern for the global community in relation to peace overtones underway in Afghanistan.

The disclosure in UN report on the presence of up to 6500 Pakistani’s including 800 and 200 cadres of Lashkar e Tayyiba and Jaesh e Mohammad respectively is also worrisome. The presence of such a large Pakistani cadre of trained terrorists could not have been without the explicit support and directions of ISI. These cadres due to limitations of local leadership and guidance would for sure be operating under the Haqqani network.

Similarly, the report points out that ISIS-K “lacked the capability to launch complex attacks in Kabul on its own”. It has been taking responsibility for operations that had, in all likelihood, been carried out by the Haqqani Network”.

This places Haqanni network as the lead protagonist for undertaking military operations against the Afghan government forces, Shia minorities and Indian interests at the behest of ISI to protect Pakistan’s opaque strategic interests.

Pakistan has been supporting terrorist groups in the past and current revelations in the UN report on the role of Haqqani network in steering Taliban agenda should come as no surprise.

This should also serve as a warning, particularly to the US that has once again relied on Pakistan to deliver a flawed roadmap for peace in Afghanistan by facilitating talks with the Taliban. It would also be too simplistic to assume on part of USA to believe that Taliban or its mentors would severe its relations with Al Qaeda, forgetting Pakistan’s dubious role in sheltering none other than Osama bin Laden.

(The author is Indian Army Veteran. Views are personal.)

 

[jward]

Dozens killed in attack in northern Nigeria






At least 59 people have been killed in a suspected jihadist attack in north-eastern Nigeria.

Gunmen entered a remote village in the Gubio district of Borno state on Tuesday afternoon, killing dozens.

The village was also razed, in what is believed to have been a reprisal attack, according to local reports.

No group has yet claimed the attack. The AFP news agency said that 59 bodies had been recovered, while Reuters reported that 69 people were killed.

Reuters reported that the militants suspected villagers of sharing information about their movements to security forces, while AFP said jihadist fighters had been killed by locals trying to protect livestock.

• The war in the desert: Why the Sahara is terror's new front line
• Have Nigeria's militants been defeated?

While it is unclear who carried out the attack, both the jihadist group Boko Haram and an offshoot which fights under the banner of the Islamic State group have carried out deadly attacks in the north east of Nigeria.

Boko Haram, which sparked global outrage in 2014 when they abducted more than 270 schoolgirls in Chibok in Borno state, is also active in neighbouring Chad, Niger and Cameroon.

In March, its militants ambushed and killed at least 47 Nigerian soldiers in the country's north east, before killing almost 100 soldiers in Chad the following day.

The group's decade-long insurgency has left thousands dead and displaced many more.

posted for fair use

Dozens killed in attack in northern Nigeria

At least 59 people are reported to have been killed in the raid by jihadist militants on Tuesday.

www.bbc.com

Media captionBoko Haram’s decade of terror explained

Related Topics

 

[jward]

Border situation cooling, says Army; military officers meet again today
The sources also claimed that both sides have 'retreated a bit' after the Saturday meeting
Topics
India-China border dispute | Ladakh standoff | Sikkim standoff
Ajai Shukla | New Delhi Last Updated at June 10, 2020 02:26 IST

The Army sources said they met one-to-one for almost three hours before engaging further at delegate-level talks

• ALSO READ
  Echoes of Kargil: China intrusion can lead to India losing DBO link
  India, China remain engaged through diplomatic, military channels: Army
  Defence minister Rajnath Singh speaks to US on China's LAC intrusion
  Ladakh stand-off: India-China senior military officers' meet on June 6
  Missing in Action: the unfinished stories of India's lost soldiers

Top Army sources on Tuesday said, based on a decision taken at the meeting between Indian and Chinese generals in Ladakh on Saturday, lower-ranked officers from both sides will meet over the coming 10 days to discuss conflicts in their respective areas of responsibility.
The sources said that in this series of “higher military commander level” (HMCL) meetings, the first will be held on Wednesday at Patrolling Point 14 (PP14), near the Pangong Tso.
The sources also claimed that both sides have “retreated a bit” after the Saturday meeting. Describing the meeting between Indian and Chinese corps commanders on Saturday, the Army sources said they met one-to-one for almost three hours before engaging further at delegate-level talks.

ALSO READ: Worst year for aviation, global airlines to lose $84 bn in 2020: IATA
The sources said the two sides “mutually agreed and identified five locations of conflicts” between the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Indian troops. These conflict locations are PP14, PP15, PP17, the north bank of Pangong Tso and Chushul.
Countering criticism that the PLA intrusions took the Army by surprise, the sources claimed “there has not been any Intelligence failure” and that the “Indian Army has stopped the PLA quickly and strongly.” They claimed the army “has matched (the PLA) in terms of men and machinery at every location.”
“The Indian side has conveyed that construction will not stop, including on the DSDBO road, as it is well within the Indian boundary,” they said. Denying that any heads would roll, the sources expressed full satisfaction with the way the Leh corps commander and the northern army commander had handled the intrusions.
In a statement of resolve, they said the Army “is fully prepared for a long and permanent deployment if the PLA does not retreat.”
Portraying a coherent Indian military-political response, the sources stated: “All three services, the chief of defence staff, the national security advisor, the defence minister and the ministry of external affairs are coordinating well amongst themselves.”

ALSO READ: MNREGA jobs are short-term, only lasting solution is projects: L&T chief
On the broader military-political perspective, the sources said: “The core issue is the undecided Line of Actual Control (LAC). Until that is solved, these episodes and issues will continue to happen.” The sources criticised the PLA’s militarisation of the border areas. “China has deployed fighter bombers, rocket forces, air defence radars, jammers, etc. India has deployed all its major assets along the LAC… just a few kilometres away from the frontline. India will continue to have major build up until China withdraws the build up (it has) done there,” said the sources.
The sources indicated that it was proposed during the corps commanders’ meeting on Saturday that such meetings should be held “once or twice every year for better interaction between the two armies at a higher level.”
Read our full coverage on India-China border dispute
posted for fair use

Border situation cooling, says Army; military officers meet again today

The sources also claimed that both sides have 'retreated a bit' after the Saturday meeting

www.business-standard.com

 

[Housecarl]

The urge to scream November Sierra is over powering......

Posted for fair use.........

The key to peace in Afghanistan? Eliminate Taliban sanctuaries | Lowy Institute

Unless Pakistan’s support to the Afghan insurgency is shut down, there is no chance of a lasting Afghan peace.

www.lowyinstitute.org

The key to peace in
Afghanistan? Eliminate
Taliban sanctuaries
FARKHONDEH AKBARI TIMOR SHARAN
Unless Pakistan’s support to the Afghan insurgency is
shut down, there is no chance of a lasting Afghan peace.

Published 10 Jun 2020 06:00   0 Comments   Follow @TimorSharan
Following meetings this week in Kabul between Afghan President Ashrafi Ghani and senior Pakistani military and intelligence officials, the president’s office stated that the generals conveyed Pakistan’s support for an independent Afghan republic. It could be seen as another positive note in recent developments in the Afghan peace process, after months of uncertainties. But such promises have been made before during high-level visits, with little actual change in Pakistan’s posture.

If the genuine US objective is peace in Afghanistan, the issue of Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan can no longer be swept under the carpet. It is time to go beyond acknowledging Pakistan’s role in sustaining the Taliban insurgency and to work out how one might hold Pakistan to a constructive role in a post peace-deal era.

The US has hailed its peace deal with the Taliban, signed on 29 February, as an important foreign policy success, and it is one that US President Donald Trump seems likely to exploit in the upcoming election campaign. It may, however, prove to be a mixed blessing. The intra-Afghan negotiations that were supposed to commence on 10 March seem as distant as ever – partly because of the dispute (resolved for now) between President Ashraf Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah over the 2019 presidential election results, but more seriously as a consequence of disagreements over the release of Taliban prisoners.

Aside from whether US negotiators had any actual authority to promise the release of Taliban prisoners, the Afghan government questioned the practicality of freeing 5000 Taliban prisoners in a span of two weeks, as agreed in the Taliban-US deal. From the Afghan government perspective, any possible prisoner exchange should have been leveraged against a significant reduction in violence, if not a ceasefire, prior to intra-Afghan negotiations.

To move from conflict to peace, a clear and well-defined relation between Pakistan and the Taliban has to be formalised in the Afghan peace agreement.

Instead, under pressure from the US, Ghani signed a decree to release Taliban prisoners in phases, sequenced with the intra-Afghan talks. The Taliban, however, rejected the decree and criticised the government’s commitment to peace, demanding the release of all prisoners before the commencement of intra-Afghan negotiations.

In recent weeks, both the Afghan and the US governments protested that the rate of violence by the Taliban is at odds with their commitments – at least in words, if not on paper – and with the spirit of the peace process.

But the announcement by the Taliban of a three-day ceasefire during Eid al-Fitr was welcomed, and despite the delay and earlier setbacks, momentum around intra-Afghan negotiations has increased hopes of striking a power-sharing agreement of sorts with the Taliban.

Still, the question remains whether such a “peace” can be sustained.

Previous Afghan political settlements – the 1989 Rawalpindi shura, the 1992 Peshawar Accord, and the Islamabad Accord in 1993 – have shown that the Afghan Mujahideen tanzims (military-political organisations) could reach an “agreement” but still fail to commit to the agreement, because it did not address the real source of the conflict, such as external military and financial support or external sanctuaries. Following the intra-Afghan talks in Rawalpindi, for example, Pakistan continued to favour and support the radical Hizb-e-Islami, whose leader, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, was committed to accepting nothing less than a position of dominance.

Plenty of academic and policy studies show that external support, such as providing sanctuary, has a decisive impact on the outcome of insurgencies. Externally backed insurgencies tend to last longer, and violence is prone to continue even after peace agreements are signed.

Unless Pakistan tangibly commits to shutting down Taliban sanctuaries, the group will retain the option to return to war.
As outlined by a prominent scholar of Pakistan, Qandeel Siddique, Pakistan’s interest in Afghanistan is driven by two broad objectives: to achieve strategic depth in Afghanistan and to avoid strategic encirclement by India.

To achieve the first, Pakistan has utilised the Taliban and the larger Pashtun population in an attempt ultimately to ensure a relatively friendly and reliably pro-Pakistan government in Kabul.

In pursuit of the second, fearful of India’s increasing diplomatic and commercial presence in Afghanistan and also in Central Asia, Pakistan is pursuing an ongoing battle to undercut India in the region. In the mindset of the Pakistani security establishment, India has been supporting Baloch and Wazir insurgencies inside Pakistan, and it enjoys huge support among northern and some southern strongmen in Afghanistan.

To move from conflict to peace, a clear and well-defined relation between Pakistan and the Taliban has to be formalised in the Afghan peace agreement. So far, Pakistan’s role in the Afghan peace process has been seemingly constructive but limited mainly to informal consultations, the release of Taliban deputy leader Mullah Baradar from custody (based on a US request) and facilitating Taliban travels abroad.

Unless the problems of the sanctuaries and of Pakistan’s support for the Taliban are addressed, a political settlement will not be sustainable. The 1988 Geneva Accords and the commitment of both the Soviet Union and Pakistan to stop support for their respective clients did not produce success because both guarantors – the Soviet Union and the US – continued to provide aid and weapons to their clients. Afghan government officials understandably express the concern that without guarantees from Pakistan and closing of sanctuaries, the Taliban will always have the leverage of returning to fighting after the US withdrawal.

The Afghan government and a number of experts insist they do not see major changes on the ground to indicate a fundamental shift in Pakistan’s policy towards Afghanistan, and maintain that Pakistan is once again playing Washington to achieve its objectives. A recent US Defense Intelligence Agency report, issued on 19 May, found that “Pakistan continues to harbor the Taliban and associated militant groups in Pakistan, such as the Haqqani Network, which maintains the ability to conduct attacks against Afghan interests.”

Already Pakistani generals have talked openly about a regime change in Kabul, believing that the Afghan government will not survive once the coalition forces pull out and funding for the Afghan security forces shrinks.

All parties who have a direct or indirect stake in a conflict must be signatories to a peace settlement agreement. To minimise the risk of the Taliban resuming violence, the closing of sanctuaries and respect for international obligations must be addressed as part of any wider Afghan peace settlement. It is also necessary that regional and international actors with a stake in Afghanistan are signatories to the agreement. Pakistan’s security concerns in Afghanistan can be addressed by seeking to include India as a signatory to a separate regional settlement, along with Iran, China and Russia.

There are, of course, problems in enforcing international agreements. But the legal limits and deficits of a peace agreement depend on how obligations are codified in the text and on the political will to legalise those obligations. If crucial elements are left out, agreements will be in trouble long before enforcement problems even arise.

(This article has been updated from its original version to reflect new developments.)

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

Posted for fair use.......

Taiwanese Fighters Drive Off Chinese Jets After Navy Transport Plane Flies Over The Island

The unusual flight certainly caught the attention of Beijing, which appears to be more focused on Taiwan's independence than ever before.

www.thedrive.com

Taiwanese Fighters Drive Off Chinese Jets After Navy Transport Plane Flies Over The Island
The unusual flight certainly caught the attention of Beijing, which appears to be more focused on Taiwan's independence than ever before.

BY JOSEPH TREVITHICK
JUNE 9, 2020

Taiwanese fighter jets reportedly "drove off" Chinese Su-30 Flankers after the latter briefly entered the island's air defense identification zone earlier today. That incident came after a U.S. Navy C-40A Clipper passenger transport aircraft flew an extremely unusual route over Taiwan's western coast, a flight that was almost sure to draw some form of rebuke from authorities in Beijing, who consider the island part the country's sovereign territory.

Taiwan's Ministry of Defense announced that the aerial altercation had occurred to the southwest of the island on June 9, 2020. The Ministry's statement said that unspecified Taiwanese Air Force fighter jets had intercepted the Chinese Flankers and issued verbal warnings for them to leave the area before more forcefully driving them out of the area.

USAF MC-130J SPEC OPS TRANSPORT FLIES THROUGH TAIWAN STRAIT WITH U.S. SPY PLANE NEARBY
By Joseph Trevithick
Posted in THE WAR ZONE

TAIWAN WILL "FORCIBLY EXPEL" CHINESE PLANES AFTER RECENT TAIWAN STRAIT BOUNDARY VIOLATION
By Joseph Trevithick
Posted in THE WAR ZONE

TAIWAN WANTS LAND-BASED HARPOON ANTI-SHIP MISSILES TO COUNTER GROWING CHINESE NAVAL POWERBy Joseph Trevithick
Posted in THE WAR ZONE

CHINA'S LARGEST BASE HAS REPLICAS OF TAIWAN'S PRESIDENTIAL BUILDING, EIFFEL TOWERBy Joseph TrevithickPosted in THE WAR ZONE

IT'S OFFICIAL! TRUMP ADMIN SENDS TAIWAN F-16 DEAL TO CONGRESS, HERE'S WHAT'S IN IT (UPDATED)By Tyler Rogoway
Posted in THE WAR ZONE

Following an increase in Chinese military flights around the island in recent years, Taiwan's President Tsai Ing Wen, who won a second term in a landslide in January, has previously said that Taiwanese jets would conduct a "forceful expulsion" of any Chinese combat aircraft that crossed the so-called "Median Line" in the Taiwan Strait. The Median Line is the de facto boundary between the island and the People’s Republic of China on the mainland, the latter of which sees Taiwan as an integral part of its national territory.

ROCAF
Taiwanese Air Force F-16A/B fighter jets. The Taiwanese Ministry of Defense did not say what fighters it sent to intercept the Chinese Su-30s on June 9.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army has been conducting major exercises in the South China Sea to the southeast of Taiwan, including with its new aircraft carrier, the Shandong, which many experts and observers have taken to be a signal aimed at Taiwanese authorities. Beijing routinely threatens to use military force if the government in Taipei moves to formally declare independence. Notably, the PLA's largest land training facility at Zhurihe, which you can read about in this recent War Zone feature, has a highly accurate mockup of Taiwan's President Office Building, as well as one representing the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs building and other full-scale urban structures.

The rhetoric between Beijing and Taipei had ratcheted up substantially after Tsai's election victory and has grown even more heated following her inauguration, in which she said that the island would move to further distance itself politically from the mainland. In addition to widespread domestic support for her government, the Taiwanese President has also enjoyed a particularly strong and close relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. Taipei has secured unprecedented arms deals in the past year or so, including getting approval to purchase new, advanced Block 70 variants of the F-16C/D Viper fighter jet, something that the government in Beijing has said would be a "red line" issue in the past.

The United States technically recognizes the People's Republic of China as the only legitimate government in China, but has reserved the right to continue to engage with Taiwan and help provide for its defense until its final status is officially resolved. As such, as friction between Beijing and Taipei has increased, the U.S. military has stepped up so-called Freedom of Navigation Patrols (FONOP) through the Taiwan straight, sending both ships and planes through the area as a demonstration of the United States' ongoing commitment to Taiwan.

The C-40A flight, which took place on June 9 before the incident between Taiwanese and Chinese fighter jets, appears to be another example of that. However, while the Median Line in the Taiwan Strait, and the airspace above it, is technically a neutral international space, the Clipper's route took it through actual Taiwanese airspace, where U.S. military aircraft generally don't venture.

USN
A US Navy C-40A like the one that flew over Taiwan on June 9.
Plane spotters using online flight tracking software first noticed the C-40A appearing to leave Kadena Air Base on the Japanese island of Okinawa and then head southwest toward Taiwan. The aircraft, which has the Bureau Number serial number 169036 and is assigned to the Navy Reserve's Fleet Logistics Support Squadron 61 (VR-61), based at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island in Washington State, then passed near Taipei on Taiwan's northern tip before heading south along the coast.

Golf9 @KimagureGolf9
https://twitter.com/KimagureGolf9/status/1270158994196148224

CNV7642(C-40A 169036) is flying over West coast line of Taiwan.
It's a rare flight course...

971
6:01 PM - Jun 8, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

301 people are talking about this



Flight tracking data shows the aircraft then continued south into the South China Sea and then eventually made its way to U-Tapao Airport in Thailand. After leaving there, it appeared to fly toward the strategic island of Guam in the South Pacific.

Golf9 @KimagureGolf9
· Jun 8, 2020

Replying to @KimagureGolf9
It seems they flew a little inland from the coastline of Taiwan.

Golf9 @KimagureGolf9

CNV7642(C-40A 169036) is approaching to U-Tapao AB Thailand.


115
9:13 PM - Jun 8, 2020
Twitter Ads info and privacy

22 people are talking about this

ADS-B EXCHANGE
A full look at the recorded flight tracking data regarding the Navy C-40A's flight on June 9.

The flight over Taiwan proper is a much more pointed demonstration of the de facto independence of the island and its ability to set its own rules about the use of its airspace that more traditional FONOPS. The Taiwan Times newspaper reported that Shih Shun Wen, a spokesperson for Taiwan's Ministry of Defense, said in a statement that "the nation's military has full control over the airspace over Taiwan and that the current situation is normal," but declined to confirm or deny the C-40A had flown over the western coast. Taiwan's China Times newspaper also reported that the Clipper had made an emergency landing at Ching Chuan Kang Air Base in the city of Taichung, but there is no evidence that this was the case.

It's worth noting that the C-40A's flight comes after weeks of other unprecedented aerial activity in the Pacific region. This has included a number of long-range sorties by U.S. Air Force B-1B bombers, many of which are clearly meant to send a message to China, as well.

The chill in relations between authorities in Taipei and their counterparts in Beijing does not look set to end any time soon. Relations between the two parties had already seen additional strains this year over the handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Chinese government's efforts to force Taiwanese authorities out of international response efforts, as well as the months-long crackdown on protests in Hong Kong over the mainland's efforts to curtail that semi-autonomous region's unique freedoms. Tsai Ing Wen's government says it will look for ways to help Hong Kongers in response to the Chinese Communist Party proceeding with implementing a new draconian National Security Law covering the latter region.

With the parties on both sides of the Taiwan Strait, as well as the United States, digging in their heels, at least rhetorically, it seems more likely than not that we will continue to see more assertive signaling, including aggressive aerial encounters and FONOPS, in the near future.

Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Sudan militia leader in custody on Darfur war crimes charges

Authorities say Sudanese militia leader Ali Kushayb has been arrested on war crimes charges related to the conflict in Darfur more than 13 years after a warrant was issued for him.

apnews.com

Sudan militia leader in custody on Darfur war crimes charges
By HIPPOLYTE MARBOUA and MIKE CORDER
yesterday

BANGUI, Central African Republic (AP) — In a significant breakthrough in the pursuit of justice for crimes in Darfur, Sudanese militia leader Ali Kushayb, who is charged with 50 crimes against humanity and war crimes in the devastating conflict, has been arrested more than 13 years after a warrant was issued for him and transferred to the International Criminal Court in The Hague, authorities said Tuesday.

Kushayb surrendered to authorities in a remote corner of northern Central African Republic, near the country’s border with Sudan, International Criminal Court spokesman Fadi El Abdallah said. He later added that Kushayb arrived at the ICC’s detention center Tuesday evening.

In the Darfur conflict, rebels from the territory’s ethnic central and sub-Saharan African community launched an insurgency in 2003, complaining of oppression by the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum.

The government responded with a scorched-earth assault of aerial bombings and unleashed militias known as the Janjaweed, who are accused of mass killings and rapes. Up to 300,000 people were killed and 2.7 million were driven from their homes.

The court’s prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda said Kushayb’s surrender and transfer into the court’s custody nearly two decades after the Darfur conflict raged was “a powerful and somber reminder that the victims of atrocity crimes in the Darfur region of Sudan have waited too long to see justice done. The victims in the Darfur situation deserve to finally have their day in court.”

The ICC charged Sudan’s ousted former president Omar al-Bashir with genocide for allegedly masterminding the campaign of attacks. Al-Bashir has not been turned over to the court to face trial. Kushayb’s detention sets the stage for the court to hold its first trial focused on the Darfur conflict.

Brad Brooks-Rubin, managing director of The Sentry, a watchdog group co-founded by George Clooney, called Kushayb’s detention “a modest triumph for the cause of accountability for atrocity crimes in Africa.”

“This represents a glimpse of hope for people in Darfur and around the world who desperately seek justice and security but are too often forgotten,” he said.

According to the ICC’s arrest warrant, Kushayb is accused of commanding thousands of Janjaweed militia back in 2003-2004 and acting as a go-between for the militia and Sudanese government. The ICC says he “personally participated in some of the attacks against civilians” and allegedly “enlisted fighters, armed, funded and provided food and other supplies to the Janjaweed militia under his command.”

Among offenses listed on his arrest warrant are murder, rape, persecution and pillage.

No immediate date was set for Kushayb to appear before the court. At his initial appearance, judges will seek to confirm his identity and that he has read and understood the charges against him and his rights. The next stage will be a preliminary hearing, likely to be months from now, at which prosecutors will attempt to convince judges that their evidence is strong enough to merit putting Kushayb on trial. He faces a maximum sentence of life imprisonment if convicted.

Central African Republic Attorney General Eric Didier Tambo confirmed to The Associated Press that Kushayb had been extradited to The Hague in the Netherlands on Tuesday after being brought to Bangui the day before. It was not immediately known how long he had been in Central African Republic.

Kushayb and al-Bashir evaded arrest on war crimes charges for more than a decade amid reluctance by other African nations to carry out arrest warrants.

Al-Bashir, who is accused of crimes including genocide, traveled abroad freely and it was not until after he was deposed last year that Sudanese authorities agreed to extradite him to The Hague. However, the ex-president has not yet been turned over to the ICC.

Human Rights Watch welcomed Kushayb’s detention.

“Today is a landmark day for justice for victims of atrocities committed across Darfur and their families,” said Elise Keppler, associate director of the group’s International Justice Program. “The world watched in horror as Sudan’s government carried out brutal attacks on Darfur civilians, killing, raping, burning and looting villages, starting in 2003. But after 13 years, justice has finally caught up with one major fugitive of the crimes.

Kushayb’s arrest underscored the importance of the International Criminal Court, which has faced fierce criticism from the United States.

“Justice is not always immediately possible, making the ICC’s role as a permanent court so critical,” she said. “ICC arrest warrants have no expiration date, but do rely on cooperation from states to be enforced.”

___

Mike Corder reported from The Hague, Netherlands. Krista Larson in Dakar, Senegal, contributed to this story.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

U.S. seeks to house missiles in the Pacific. Some allies don't want them

U.S. allies are nervous about agreeing to base new missiles on their territory.

news.yahoo.com

U.S. seeks to house missiles in the Pacific. Some allies don't want them

David S. Cloud, LA Times • June 10, 2020

The governor of a Japanese territory where the Pentagon is thinking about basing missiles capable of threatening China has a message for the United States: Not on my island.

“I firmly oppose the idea,” said Gov. Denny Tamaki, the governor of Okinawa, in an email to The Times.

Officials in other Asian countries are also signaling they don’t want them.

But Pentagon planners aren’t backing down after the Trump administration withdrew last year from a 33-year-old arms-control treaty that barred U.S. land-based intermediate range missiles in Asia.

Senior officials now say that putting hundreds of American missiles with non-nuclear warheads in Asia would quickly and cheaply shift the balance of power in the western Pacific back in the United States' favor amid growing Pentagon concern that China’s own expanding arsenal of missiles and other military capabilities threaten U.S. bases in the region and have emboldened Beijing to menace U.S. allies in Asia.

The missile plan is the centerpiece of a planned buildup of U.S. military power in Asia projected to consume tens of billions of dollars in the defense budget over the next decade, a major shift in Pentagon spending priorities away from the Middle East.

But it also highlights the complex relationship between the U.S and its Asian allies, many of whom feel increasingly threatened by China but are reluctant to back new U.S. military measures that might provoke Beijing, which has built the biggest navy in the world in the last decade.

Australia and the Philippines publicly ruled out hosting American missiles when the Trump administration first floated the idea last year. South Korea is also considered an unlikely location, current and former officials say.

In Japan, the decision on whether to allow U.S. missiles on its territory will be made by the central government in Tokyo. Gov. Tamaki said officials at the Pentagon and in Tokyo have told him there are no definite plans to put missiles on Okinawa. But Tamaki isn’t reassured.

With a Japanese mother and an American father who served with the Marines on Okinawa before abandoning the family, Tamaki personifies the complex relationship between the U.S. and its allies in Asia. He was elected two years ago after pledging to oppose expansion of the already-substantial U.S. military presence on the island.

More than half of the 50,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Japan are in Okinawa, most concentrated at a Marine base surrounded by residential areas in the largest city. Opposition to the 70-year-old U.S. military presence has sparked local protests for years, which would likely intensify if there were a move to base missiles there.

“If there is such a plan, I can easily imagine fierce opposition from Okinawa residents,” Tamaki said.

For the last year, the Pentagon has been testing several new types of short and intermediate range missiles — those with ranges up to 3,400 miles — including a ballistic missile that could be placed in Guam, a U.S. territory, and mobile missiles carried on trucks.

The first of the new weapons could be in operation within two years, though no decision has been announced about where they will be based. Similar missiles are now carried on U.S. warships and planes based in Asia, but there are no land-based systems.

U.S. officials say that many allies are privately supportive of the missile plan and may come around to permitting them on their territory but don’t want to provoke opposition from Beijing and their own public before decisions are on the table.
The U.S. has a defense treaty with Japan, as it does with South Korea, the Philippines and Australia. Taiwan is not a formal ally but has close, unofficial defense ties with Washington.

“We are very attentive to our allies’ concerns, and we recognized their political challenges,” said a senior defense official, who agreed to discuss Pentagon planning if he was not identified. “Everything that’s said in the media is not necessarily what’s said behind closed doors.”

To lessen the political opposition, the U.S. could rotate missile batteries in and out of locations around the region or place them in strategic locations without publicly disclosing it.

"It wouldn't make much sense to announce plans now, which would stoke Chinese anger and possibly play into the domestic politics," said Randy Schriver, who was a senior Pentagon official responsible for Asia until his resignation last year.

A decision to go ahead in Asia would intensify an arms race between the region’s two biggest powers whose relations — already tense over President Trump’s confrontational trade agenda and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s hawkish policies — have nosedived since the coronavirus outbreak.

“It’s naïve and dangerous,” said Alexandra Bell, a former Obama administration arms control official and a critic of deploying U.S. missiles. “Instead of looking at how we can prevent a full-out arms race, that’s our opening salvo?” added Bell, a senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington.

Putting land-based missiles in Asia capable of attacking China is not a new strategy.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. kept them at bases across the region, including in Okinawa, where hundreds of nuclear-armed warheads were stored secretly for decades even though Japan’s constitution prohibited the presence of nuclear weapons on its territory.

The missiles were gradually taken out of service in the 1960s and 1970s, due to budget cuts and a shift in U.S. strategy away from defense of the region focused on nuclear weapons. In 1987, the Reagan administration signed an arms control treaty that prohibited the U.S. and the Soviet Union (and later Russia) from deploying any land-based intermediate range missiles, including in Asia.

China was not a signatory, leaving it free to build up its missile arsenal.

The Trump administration withdrew from the treaty last year after accusing Russia of developing new land-based missiles that violated its terms. The exit opened the way for the Pentagon to consider reintroducing ground-launched missiles in Asia.

With mobile missiles around the region, the U.S. could pose an even bigger challenge for China, forcing it to hunt for hundreds of launchers capable of targeting its planes, ships and bases, strategists say.

“Ground-based missiles aren’t some kind silver bullet,” said Eric Sayers, a former consultant to U.S. commanders in the Pacific and a fellow at the Center for New American Security, a Washington think tank. “But they are a way in the near term ... to create dilemmas for the [People's Liberation Army] planners.”

Although the risk of large-scale conflict with China seems low, tensions have continued to ratchet up over Beijing’s crackdown in Hong Kong, its military maneuvers near Taiwan, its border dispute with India and its offshore maritime claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea.

Nearly a quarter of world trade travels through the South China Sea, making the contest between Beijing and Washington over control of its sea lanes and rich resources especially tense and certain to continue, no matter who wins the U.S. presidential election in November.

The U.S. Navy for decades dominated the “first island chain,” as strategists call the area of the western Pacific stretching from Japan to Taiwan to the Philippines that fell within America’s defense umbrella after World War II.

But American reliance on bases, warships and airfields in the region has become increasingly risky, officials and analysts say.

China has developed its own missiles, sophisticated radars and anti-satellite weapons as well as a growing fleet of warships and submarines in recent decades that could threaten American bases and other targets early in a conflict, said Collin Koh, a research fellow in Asian maritime security at the Rajatnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

China’s People’s Liberation Army can project significant firepower on U.S. and allied military installations in the western Pacific and “threaten to overwhelm” American forces “in times of armed conflict,” Koh said.

The Chinese weapons in many cases have ranges that exceed those on U.S. warships, though the U.S. retains a significant advantage in attack submarines and in advanced fighters and bombers armed with cruise missiles that can be fired from long distances.

"Their capability and their reach has created vulnerabilities for our legacy basing structure," said the defense official, who agreed to discuss U.S. planning on the condition that he not be identified.

 

[jward]

Sino-Indian Border Crisis in the Himalayas
The Warcast

June 2, 2020

Episode Notes:
Chinese and Indian troops are engaged in a dangerous standoff over their disputed border. Information is scarce about this crisis in the Himalayas, but according to Indian media reports, it started in late April when 5,000 Chinese troops intruded across the Line of Actual Control, the de facto border between the two countries. The Indian Army appears to have been taken by surprise.

Jeff M. Smith joins the Warcast to explain developments in South Asia. Jeff is a research fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center, and is the author/editor of Asia’s Quest for Balance: China’s Rise and Balancing in the Indo-Pacific and the author of Cold Peace: China-India Rivalry in the 21st Century.

[ 01:05 ] What started this crisis
[ 03:16 ] What’s new about this incident
[ 05:45 ] Official responses from Beijing and New Delhi
[ 10:09 ] What to look for going forward

Sino-Indian Border Crisis in the Himalayas - War on the Rocks

warontherocks.com

 

[jward]

China Is Pushing India Closer to the United States
Border issues, Pakistan issues, and an aggressive Beijing are causing New Delhi to pick sides in the new cold war.
By Anik Joshi | June 9, 2020, 3:13 PM

An Indian Army soldier stands in front of a group of People's Liberation Army soldiers after participating in a joint anti-terrorism drill on Nov. 25, 2016. Indranil Mukherjee/AFP via Getty Images


As Chinese soldiers rough up Indian ones around Pangong Lake in Ladakh along the two countries’ disputed border, one thing is clear—while India and China have faced off in the region before, nobody knows what’s coming next. India’s friendship with China once seemed natural for a country that put socialist principles in its national constitution and that prided itself on Cold War neutrality. It was unsurprising that India under its first prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, was interested in broadening ties with other newly created socialist nations, including China. But factors more powerful than ideological affiliation knocked the relationship off course, leading to an overlooked war and the tensions of today.

At first, the relationship was all smiles and comradeship. In its early days, the Indo-Chinese relationship was supposedly based on five principles enunciated in the Panchsheel Agreement: mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual nonaggression, mutual noninterference in internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence. These principles, plus a shared belief in socialist economics, led to a strong relationship. As the slogan went, “Hindi Chini bhai-bhai”—India and China are brothers.

In 1954, Nehru met Mao Zedong in Beijing, and the two leaders agreed on many issues—chiefly, the need to remain strong against Western imperialism. Nehru had little love for the United States, despite being hosted by Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy. In the early days of the Cold War, he commented that “there is on the whole more reason on the side of Russia.” Mao saw himself as continuing the anti-imperialist tradition of Chinese revolutionaries.
But India and China disagreed on the border between the two nations, thanks in part to the legacy of uncertain colonial boundaries. The Ardagh-Johnson Line was a border drawn by British India that placed Aksai Chin inside Jammu and Kashmir in India. China claimed to have never accepted this border and instead argued for the Macartney-MacDonald Line, a later boundary that gave it more territory. The McMahon Line, meanwhile, was named for a former foreign secretary for the British government in India, Henry McMahon, who signed an agreement in 1914 in Simla with the then-effectively independent Tibet—though China rejected this agreement. There were talks in India in April 1960 between Nehru and Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai to address the border issues but no solution. Keen to maintain a strategic barrier between the two nations, India kept funding resistance movements in Tibet and hosted the Dalai Lama when he fled.

Tensions on the border continued to grow, and India and China continued to send forces to the region. In 1962, the idea of Indo-Chinese brotherhood died 14,000 feet above sea level when the two nations went to war. The Indian forces were overwhelmed as Nehru was caught off guard. China was able to breach Indian territory and later withdraw on its own terms. Yet China didn’t see India as a permanent enemy—Mao once remarked that force would be able to “knock Nehru to the negotiating table.” The war of 1962 had domino effects that would be felt for years domestically after the fact. Future Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, then a young member of parliament, denounced Nehru’s government for its failure, and even today, the events of 1962 are broadly seen as humiliating domestically.
But even more critical to understanding the India-China relationship today may be the role of the Pakistan-China alliance.

But even more critical to understanding the India-China relationship today may be the role of the Pakistan-China alliance.

Initially, the United States was an important ally to Pakistan, and as a function of that, Pakistan and China weren’t especially close. But that soon changed.

As both Pakistan and China had border issues with India, common cause soon emerged. One of the most important events was the Bangladesh war of independence in 1971. China supported Pakistan in this war both with military aid and through millions of dollars in loans. Though Pakistan lost the war to India in 1971, favors continued to flow both ways. China vetoed Bangladesh’s attempt to enter the United Nations until 1974. In addition, Pakistan offered support to the Chinese in the days after the Tiananmen Square massacre and has taken China’s side on a number of key issues, such as Taiwan and Tibet.
In recent years, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan and his predecessors have sought to deepen ties with China through initiatives like the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, combined with Chinese funding for Gwadar Port and other economic initiatives. That has muted any Pakistani criticism of China’s oppression of Muslims, such as the million-plus Uighurs and other minorities sent to camps in Xinjiang. At the same time, Pakistani cooperation with the United States has crumbled under pressure. If there is a new cold war, Pakistan has chosen a side.

This has in turn helped strengthen the relationship between the United States and India, although there are also other factors at play. Since the 1990s, India has been slowly pushed ever closer to the West. In the early 1990s, India undertook incredibly ambitious economic reforms—more radical than those required by the International Monetary Fund for desperately needed loans. The two key economic reforms dealt with conducting business in India and international commerce. Business in India between 1947 and the early 1990s was subject to the License Raj, the burdensome regulations needed to run even a small business. China, which had liberalized its economy to a degree in the 1980s, was storming ahead as a result.

India choosing free markets was a sea change for a nation, demonstrating that the country was ready to move past failed economic policies, and a shift toward the Western/American economic sphere soon followed. As India began to see high rates of growth, it became more of a viable competitor with China. This happened in tandem with India tightening relations with Chinese adversaries and American allies such as Vietnam and Japan.
Today, the United States remains important to the Indo-Chinese relationship. In recent times, India has sought to strengthen ties with Washington, partially powered by a fear of Chinese economic and political influence in the region—especially in ports in nearby oceans. As the Chinese get more aggressive in the Indian Ocean, India has been seeking an ally to bolster deterrence.
Read More


Why India and China Are Sparring
The two nuclear powers have long had their differences. But the pandemic has led to some frayed nerves—and revealed longer-term ambitions.
South Asia Brief | Ravi Agrawal

Then-Prime Minister Manmohan Singh signed a civilian nuclear deal with President George W. Bush in the early 2000s, and Barack Obama maintained close ties with New Delhi. Finally, the relationship between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and that between Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump, set up an interesting contrast. When Xi visited India in 2014, Modi allowed Tibetan exiles to protest—a luxury that had not been extended by the previous government in Delhi. When Trump visited this year, Modi greeted him with a rally in his home state attended by more than 100,000 people and viewed by nearly 50 million.

China has responded to this by further strengthening ties with Pakistan. Beijing and Islamabad have joined efforts against both locusts and the coronavirus pandemic. China has donated both products like masks and expertise in managing the fallout from the twin crises. Meanwhile, defense ties between the United States and India have only grown. 2019 featured the first land, sea, and air exercise in the history of Indo-American relations. This was in many ways a continuation of policy pursued by the Bush and Obama administrations—both of which saw India as a partner in the pivot to Asia and tried to move closer through areas like arms sales.

Border issues may be the focus of Sino-Indian conflict today, from the near-clash in Doklam in 2017 to today’s standoff—but the geopolitical tensions and alignments involved are much bigger. India’s growingly comfortable relationship with the West heralds a clear choice in any global conflict. We’re a long way from Hindi Chini bhai-bhai.

China Is Pushing India Closer to the United States

Border issues, Pakistan issues, and an aggressive Beijing are causing New Delhi to pick sides in the new cold war.

foreignpolicy.com

Anik Joshi is a public policy professional in Washington D.C.

 

[jward]

Russian air defense systems outmatched by Turkish drones in Syria and Libya

By Seth Frantzman | June 10, 2020 | sfrantzman@gmail.com | @sfrantzman

The Turkish-backed GNA is unique example of an army that uses drones as an essential tactical unit for close air support and strategy; I don’t mean that the US or Israel doesn’t use them; but the way you see here as a key major PART of the operation; not an addendum #dronewars pic.twitter.com/QxdU7xYVsu
— Seth Frantzman (@sfrantzman) June 6, 2020

Recent conflicts in northwestern Syria and western Libya have showcased the increasing importance of Turkey’s drones and Russian missile defense systems. This has significant ramifications for the wider Middle East because it reveals the unprecedented strategic role drones and air defense are playing across the region.
Both Russia and Turkey have been seeking new markets for their air defense and drone systems respectively. The outcome of these conflicts are given extra weight because they tie in with other countries, such as Iran, the UAE, Egypt, France, the U.S. and Israel.

The current conflicts in Syria and Libya illustrate a rapid change in the balance of power for drones and air defenses. Since June 2019, this field has entered a new era after an Iran shot down a U.S. Global Hawk near the Gulf of Oman, coupled with the Iranian drone and cruise missile swarm attack on Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq facility in September. Iran evaded Western-supplied air defense that the Saudis had in place.

While the US and Israel have been dominant in the use of drones for the last four decades, these new incidents represented a shift in the use of drones and their strategic impact.
Iran, for instance, is supplying drones to the Houthis in Yemen and the US has interdicted drone component shipments.
In February and March, conflict in Idlib between the Russian and Iranian-backed Syrian regime and Turkish-backed Syrian opposition forces bubbled over into a brief clash between Turkish armed forces and Syrian regime elements. Turkish drones, known as Bayraktar TB-2 and Anka-S, played a key role in destroying Syrian units, including Russian-made Pantsir air defense systems. This operation using drones to fly in a Syrian airspace controlled partly by Russia has been characterized as a “drone blitz” or “new way of war.”

Russia-supplied air defense in Syria had once downed a Turkish F-4 in 2012. Not wanting to risk aircraft, Turkey sent in drones in 2020. Turkey lost drones in Idlib, estimates say around six to eight were destroyed in February 2020, or approximately ten percent of its drone fleet. However, over the short offensive from February 28 to March 4, Turkey claimed to have outwitted and destroyed several of Russia’s Pantsir and BUK air defense systems, which were being used by Syrian regime forces.
Turkish defense industry expert Bahri Mert Demirel said that the “Pantsir could not perform its duty in Syria because Turkey carried out serious electronic warfare and deployed radar electronic attack systems including KORAL to intercept and deceive radar systems in Syria.”

In all, Turkey’s Defense Ministry claimed eight air defense systems had been destroyed, essentially blinding and incapacitating the Syrians to the drone threat and forcing a ceasefire. For Russia, which maintains a base in Khmeimim near Idlib, the setback for its Syrian ally was important. Russia has supplied S-300s to Syria after an Israeli airstrike in the fall of 2018. Like Turkey, Israel has destroyed the Russian Pantsir in Idlib and it’s unclear how well Russian radars have performed for the Syrian regime trying to halt thousands of Israeli strikes on Iranian targets.
A second round of Turkish drones versus Russian air defense played out in Libya in the first weeks of May, culminating in the capture of the Watiya airbase by Government of the National Accord forces on May 17. Turkish media celebrated the defeat of the Russian system which is being used by the Libyan National Army of Khalifa Haftar, and which may have been supplied by the UAE. Haftar, whose forces are based in eastern Libya, are backed by Russia, Egypt and the UAE with support from France and others in the Middle East.

Libya is home to a complex conflict that has grown in importance as Turkey signed a deal with Tripoli in November for energy rights in the Mediterranean – which now links Turkey’s role in Libya to wider energy conflicts with Greece and regional skirmishes such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia Gulf crisis.
Turkey’s drones, with their relatively slow speed, short range and MAM laser-guided smart munitions, should have been no match for the Pantsir system, especially since operators in Libya had time to analyze what went wrong in Syria. The Pantsir has a gun and missile system and two radars with optics to aid is weapons. Its missiles had a longer range than the MAM missiles on the drones. Instead the Pantsirs, at least nine of them, were hunted down in May in Libya, destroyed in hangers with their radars not operating, or struck in the back while unable to see the incoming threat due to jamming or operator inexperience.

Russia’s response to setbacks in Syria and Libya has been to send warplanes to both countries. MiG-29s for the Syrians and Libyan LNA forces. U.S. AFRICOM has raised concerns about the Russian supply of warplanes.
The outcome of the recent battles in Syria and Libya have several ramifications. First, they illustrate how drones and air defense systems are increasingly used by non-western powers and proxy forces, part of a larger global change where Chinese and other UAV manufacturers are making inroads. Second, Russia may have suffered a setback in marketing its air defense systems if it can’t improve the Pantsir’s track record. Third, drones have been revealed as a key arm for militaries to use in coordination with ground forces or even proxy forces to provide a kind of instant, relatively inexpensive, and expendable air force. Iran, Israel and others are closely watching the outcome of these battles.

The number of drones being downed in conflict has increased in the last years. According to our estimate, the total reported downings increased from 31 in 2016 to 123 reportedly shot down in 2019, with 67 already shot down in 2020. While the ability to confirm all reports from Idlib or Libya is difficult, it is beyond clear that drones are playing a more strategic and tactical role. They are also proliferating in conflicts from Africa to Asia, with China, Russia, Iran and Turkey drawing lessons from the clashes.

Seth J. Frantzman is Executive Director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis, and author of ‘After ISIS: The US, Iran and the Struggle for the Middle East.’ A contributor to Defense News and The Jerusalem Post, he is conducting research for a forthcoming book called ‘Drone Wars.’

Seth J. Frantzman is Executive Director of the Middle East Center for Reporting and Analysis, and author of ‘After ISIS: The US, Iran and the Struggle for the Middle East.’ A contributor to Defense News and The Jerusalem Post, he is conducting research for a forthcoming book called ‘Drone Wars.’

posted for fair use

Russian air defense systems outmatched by Turkish drones in Syria and Libya | FDD's Long War Journal

After many years of conflict in Syria and Libya, the involvement of Turkey, Russia and other powers is leading to increasingly sophisticated clashes between the latest UAV and air defense technology. The use of new technology has ramifications for future conflicts in the Middle East and provides...

www.longwarjournal.org

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Iran urges Russia, China to resist U.S. push to extend arms embargo

Iran on Wednesday called on Russia and China to resist a push by Washington to extend a U.N.-imposed arms embargo due to expire in October under Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with six powers.

www.reuters.com

WORLD NEWS
JUNE 10, 2020 / 3:10 AM / UPDATED 2 HOURS AGO
Iran urges Russia, China to resist U.S. push to extend arms embargo


3 MIN READ

DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran on Wednesday called on Russia and China to resist a push by Washington to extend a U.N.-imposed arms embargo due to expire in October under Tehran’s 2015 nuclear deal with six powers.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration has been taking a harder line with the United Nations to extend and strengthen the embargo on Iran, warning that its lifting would let Tehran acquire weapons that could fuel conflicts in the Middle East.

“Americans are already angry, upset, and wanting to take this issue to the Security Council. We want four permanent members of the (U.N. Security) Council to stand up to America,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in a televised speech.

“Particularly, we expect Russia and China to resist this U.S. plot. America will not succeed ... and we will increase our defence capabilities as we have been doing so even under sanctions.”

Tehran and its rival Saudi Arabia, a close U.S. ally, have been involved in proxy wars and political confrontations in the region for decades, from Iraq and Syria to Bahrain and Yemen.

Council veto-powers Russia and China have already signalled they are against re-imposing an arms embargo on Iran.

If the U.N. Security Council does not extend the embargo, Washington has threatened to trigger a so-called snapback of all U.N. sanctions on Iran, including the arms embargo, using a process outlined in the nuclear deal.

However, Russia and China, both parties to the deal, have already started making the case at the United Nations against Washington’s claim that it can trigger a return of all sanctions on Iran at the Security Council.

The United States withdrew from the deal in 2018, arguing it was flawed to Tehran’s advantage, and has reimposed sanctions crippling Iran’s economy. Under the deal, Iran agreed to halt its sensitive nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief.

Iran has gradually rolled back its commitments under the accord since the United States quit. The nuclear deal allows for a return of sanctions on Iran, including the arms embargo, if Tehran violates the deal.
Writing by Parisa Hafezi, Editing by William Maclean

 

[Zagdid]

Italy says sale of warships to Egypt is undergoing 'political assessment'

Rome is reportedly preparing to supply Egypt with two frigates despite outcry over torture and murder of Giulio Regeni in 2018

www.middleeasteye.net

Italy says sale of warships to Egypt is undergoing 'political assessment'
By MEE staff Published date: 10 June 2020 18:37 UTC | Last update: 14 sec ago

Italy's foreign minister denied reports that Rome authorised the sale of two frigates to Egypt, after a parliamentary commission investigating the torture and death of an Italian student in Cairo demanded an "urgent" meeting with the prime minister over the matter.

In statements delivered to parliament's lower house on Wednesday, Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio said talks with Cairo were ongoing and the sale had yet to be finalised.

"Authorisation is subject to strict application of legal criteria," Di Maio said, and "the government has obviously decided to conduct a political assessment".

Di Maio's comments came after Italian media reported on Monday that Rome had already authorised the sale of two Fremm frigates to Egypt, worth an estimated $1.34bn, despite internal backlash over the murder of student Giulio Regeni.

The decision, the news agency said, came a day after Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte spoke over the phone with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.

Fremm is a multi-mission warship designed for the navies of France and Italy. In recent years, the ships have been exported to Morocco, Greece and Brazil, among other countries.

According to the La Repubblica newspaper, the sales of frigates are reportedly part of a wider deal with Cairo worth $9-12bn.

The wider deal reportedly includes the sale of four other frigates, 24 Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jets, 24 M-346 jet trainer aircraft and a surveillance satellite.

The deal was submitted to parliament on 28 May, the paper reported.

In response to news of the sale, a parliamentary commission investigating the torture and murder of Regeni requested an "urgent" meeting with Conte "in light of the latest significant developments concerning Italian-Egyptian bilateral relations".

'Continuing to demand the truth'
Regeni, a 28-year-old postgraduate student at Cambridge University, was found dead in February 2016 a week after disappearing in the capital Cairo.

Italy placed five members of Egypt's security forces under official investigation in 2018 for their alleged involvement in Regeni's disappearance and torture.

Rome prosecutors investigating his death said in December that he was ensnared in a "spider's web" spun by the Egyptian security services in the weeks leading up to his death.

Egyptian officials have repeatedly denied any involvement in the killing of Regeni, who had been researching Egypt's independent unions for his doctoral thesis.
No charges have been made since his body was discovered at the side of a road four years ago.
Regeni's parents have previously expressed dismay over Italy's bid to sell the warships to Egypt.
Acknowledging the backlash, Di Maio told parliament on Wednesday that his government seeks "significant progress in the investigation into the case of the barbaric murder of [Regeni]".
The "Italian government and institutions are continuing to demand the truth from the Egyptian authorities via real, substantive and effective cooperation," Di Maio said.