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

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Troubled Iran struggles to maintain sway over Iraq militias

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA and SAMYA KULLAB
32 minutes ago

BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraqi militia factions expected the usual cash handout when the new head of Iran’s expeditionary Quds Force made his first visit to Baghdad earlier this year, succeeding the slain Gen. Qassim Soleimani. Instead, to their disappointment, Esmail Ghaani brought them silver rings.

For his second visit, Ghaani had to apply for a visa, something unheard of in Soleimani’s time — a bold step by Baghdad’s new government effectively curtailing Iran’s freedom of movement inside Iraq.

The episodes, relayed to The Associated Press by several Iraqi officials, illustrate Iran’s struggles to maintain sway over Iraqi militias six months after America assassinated Soleimani and top militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in a drone strike. Iran at the same time is grappling with the economic fallout from U.S. sanctions and the coronavirus outbreak.

Without imposing figures like Soleimani and al-Muhandis to unify disparate factions, divisions have emerged in the Popular Mobilization Forces, the umbrella group of mainly Shiite forces.

Their deaths also disrupted a trajectory to institutionalize the militias, which al-Muhandis had been meticulously planning with Soleimani’s blessing.

“With al-Muhandis gone, there is an absence of an anchor around which (PMF) politics revolves,” said Fanar Haddad, an Iraq researcher.

REDUCED FUNDS AND CLOUT

Among Iraq’s Shiite political and militia factions, Soleimani, a chief architect of Iran’s proxy groups across the region, held almost legendary status.

Charismatic and a fluent Arabic speaker, his rapport with Iraqi officials was unmatched. He slipped in and out of Iraq regularly to plan, mediate and give out cash assistance. One surprise visit by him was sufficient to broker agreement between rival factions, officials said.

Since his death, Shiite factions have shown discord, arguing over a premier candidate twice before they settled on Mustafa al-Kadhimi.

Soleimani’s successor as Quds Force commander, Ghaani, is less familiar with Iraqi militia leaders and speaks to them through an interpreter. Meetings in Iraq have increasingly been handled by Iranian Ambassador Iraj Masjedi, himself a former Quds Force member.

Ghaani’s gift of silver rings — symbolically important in Shiite Islam — rather than cash came during a meeting in April with leaders of several militia factions, according to three officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press.

Ghaani told them that, for the moment, they would have to rely on Iraqi state funding, they said, a sign of Iran’s economic crisis.

The PMF are paid primarily through the state — $2 billion in the 2019 budget — but the funds are not dispersed equally. Smaller Iranian-backed groups rely on other informal means of revenue and receive extras from Iran, roughly $3-9 million, two Iraqi officials close to the militias said.

GROWING FRACTURES

The PMF was created in 2014 as a framework to organize and pay the thousands who volunteered to fight the Islamic State group after a fatwa by Iraq’s top cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Since then, its political and military might has soared. Under the staunchly pro-Iranian al-Muhandis, it became a channel for Tehran’s influence.

His death opened the door for factions opposed to that influence — particularly ones associated with al-Sistani — to break from the PMF leadership. Militias complain that Iran-friendly groups receive preferential treatment.

The man seen as al-Muhandis’ likely successor, Abdulaziz al-Mohammadawi, known as Abu Fadak, met opposition from factions who saw him as the Iranian-backed choice. He has not been officially recognized by the prime minister, though he has assumed some administrative duties, according to officials.

Some of the most Iran-friendly militias under the PMF have shown signs of splintering.

Attacks against U.S. forces in March were claimed by a purported new group, Usbat al-Thairen, believed to have emerged from the powerful Kataib Hezbollah, which the U.S. accused in previous attacks.

Recently, four militias affiliated with the shrines connected to al-Sistani said they would take orders directly from Iraq’s premier, bypassing the PMF leadership.

A senior official from Kataib Hezbollah said the move has weakened the PMF and its legitimacy among the public. For many Iraqis, the group’s credibility is derived from al-Sistani’s fatwa.

The fissure was plain to see when, weeks into his leadership, Prime Minister al-Kadhimi visited the PMF headquarters. To his right, sat figures friendly with Tehran, to his left, those affiliated with al-Sistani.

It marks a “major wrench” by the Shiite establishment led by al-Sistani into Iran’s broader plans, said Randa Slim, director of the Conflict Resolution and Track II Dialogues Program at the Middle East Institute.

“They are basically saying we do not want an organ that takes its orders from Iran,” she said.

UNCERTAIN FUTURE

A larger question looms over the future of the PMF.

Al-Muhandis had been directing plans to transform a band of independent militias into a more professional force. Those plans remain unfinished, said three militia commanders on a recent visit to Mosul.

Under al-Muhandis, the PMF began referring to its units by brigade numbers rather than faction names and made moves toward imposing military rank structures and disciplinary courts. He oversaw the creation of engineering units providing services such as roadworks.

He held immense influence over militias and their supporters.

When protesters attacked the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad on Dec. 31 in response to American strikes on Kataib Hezbollah targets, it was al-Muhandis and not Iraqi security forces who was ultimately called upon to have them pull back, according to two Iraqi officials.

“Hajj Abu Mahdi made us an official group, it’s the most important thing he did,” said Mohammed al-Mousawi, a PMF commander. For the years ahead, he had planned greater training for fighters, academies and recruitment to improve management, al-Mousawi said.

Iran appears to be taking a back foot in Iraq. But, experts said, this is likely be short-lived.

“Iran has proved that it learns and evolves,” said Slim. “Now it’s in the learning phase.”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

US general: Taliban not yet met conditions for US withdrawal

By ROBERT BURNS
yesterday

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Taliban have not yet met conditions required for a complete U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan by next May as envisioned in a U.S.-Taliban deal signed in February, the commander overseeing U.S. forces there said Wednesday.

Gen. Frank McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, said the U.S. is ahead of schedule for an initial drawdown by July to 8,600 troops. Another U.S. official, who was not authorized to discuss details and so spoke on condition of anonymity, said troop levels are now below 9,000, compared with about 12,000 in February.

McKenzie stressed, however, that going to zero troops by May is dependent on conditions.

“Those conditions would be: Can we be assured that attacks against us will not be generated there? And as of right now ... frankly, if asked my opinion, those conditions have not been fully met,” he said in a video conference hosted by the Middle East Institute in Washington. McKenzie spoke from his headquarters in Florida.

McKenzie’s skepticism comes as President Donald Trump focuses on an early troop exit that would fulfill his frequent promise to get the United States out of Afghanistan. Trump has said U.S. troops are acting as police in Afghanistan and should get out of a conflict that is now almost two decades old.

In late May, Trump called for a quick return of American soldiers and urged Afghan forces to step up in the defense of their country. He tweeted: “Bring our soldiers back home but closely watch what is going on and strike with a thunder like never before, if necessary!”

Trump has often complained about the enormous cost of the war, which began in October 2001 with a U.S. invasion to topple the Taliban from power. The president’s impatience, and speculation that he may order that all U.S. troops leave by the November election, has caused some angst on Capitol Hill.

Four members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, including the panel’s vice chairman, Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia, wrote Tuesday to the director of national intelligence, John Ratcliffe, asking that he provide an update on intelligence planning for Afghanistan if a decision is made to pull out by November.

“A rushed and premature withdrawal would also risk losing the gains we have achieved in Afghanistan, not only in counterterrorism but also in building Afghan governance and military forces,” they wrote. “Our nation’s intelligence professionals have spent nearly two decades establishing security arrangements with our Afghan partners. Now it is incumbent upon our government to give them the time and space to prepare for an orderly, conditions-based drawdown, in conjunction with military and diplomatic counterparts.”

The Taliban had provided sanctuary for al-Qaida, which used Afghanistan as a base for plotting the 9/11 attacks.

“The threat to the United States is not the Taliban. It has never been the Taliban,” McKenzie said. “It’s the entities that they allow to live in Afghanistan that threaten us.” He mentioned the Islamic State group’s Afghan affiliate and al-Qaida.

“We believe the Taliban actually are no friends of ISIS and work against them,” he said, referring to the Islamic State group. “It is less clear to me that they will take the same action against al-Qaida.”

McKenzie said the Trump administration is engaged in “very robust dialogue” internally and with NATO and coalition partners “as we evaluate the way forward” in Afghanistan.



Associated Press writer Lolita C. Baldor contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use....

Ivory Coast Army Says 12 Soldiers Killed and Seven Wounded
By Reuters
  • June 11, 2020, 6:13 a.m. ET
ABIDJAN — Some 12 Ivorian soldiers were killed and other seven wounded in an attack at a northern border post near Burkina Faso early on Thursday, a senior officer at the Ivorian army chief of staff office told Reuters by phone.

Two other gendarmes are reported missing, while one assailant was killed.

The officer said the assailants were believed to have come from neighbouring Burkina Faso.

Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso launched a joint military operation last month to the tackle expanding threat from Islamist jihadists linked to al Qaeda and the Islamic State in the Sahel region.

(Reporting by Ange Aboa and Thiam Ndiaga; Writing by Juliette Jabkhiro; Editing by Bate Felix and Alison Williams)

-----

Posted for fair use....

WORLD NEWS
JUNE 11, 2020 / 3:11 AM / UPDATED 2 HOURS AGO
Ivory Coast army says 12 soldiers killed in attack near Burkina border


2 MIN READ

ABIDJAN (Reuters) - Twelve Ivorian soldiers were killed and seven wounded in an attack at a northern border post near Burkina Faso early on Thursday, a senior officer at the army chief of staff’s office said.

Two other military gendarmes are reported missing, while one assailant was killed. The assailants were believed to have come from Burkina Faso, said the officer, speaking to Reuters by phone.

It was not yet clear who carried out Thursday’s attack, which was the deadliest in Ivory Coast since gunmen from al Qaeda’s North African branch stormed the beach resort of Grand Bassam in March 2016, killing 19 people.

Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso launched a joint military operation last month to tackle the expanding threat from Islamist jihadists linked to al Qaeda and Islamic State in the Sahel region.

Islamist groups with links to Islamic State and al Qaeda have sought to widen their influence in West Africa in recent years by carrying deadly attacks on a regular basis.

The landlocked nations of Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso have been worst hit in part because their unpoliced desert reaches have allowed fighters to ghost across borders undetected.

Reporting by Ange Aboa and Thiam Ndiaga; Writing by Juliette Jabkhiro and Edward McAllister; Editing by Bate Felix, Alison Williams and Frances Kerry
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Russia And Turkey, Foes In Libya Strife, May Yet Find Accord: Analysts

By Didier LAURAS with AFP bureaus in Moscow and Istanbul
06/11/20 AT 7:42 AM

Russia and Turkey, who have formed a sometimes rocky alliance over the past four years, back opposing sides in Libya's wrenching war but may yet find a deal over the conflict that would leave the West as bystanders, analysts say.

Such a scenario would be a replay of Russia and Turkey's alliance on Syria, where despite being on opposing sides of the conflict they have worked closely together to find a solution to the civil war, causing unease in the West.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan have formed a strong partnership in just under half a decade, brought together by a shared distrust of the West, Moscow's support for Ankara in the wake of a 2016 coup bid, and economic cooperation.
Europe has been split over the conflict
Europe has been split over the conflict Photo: AFP / Mahmud TURKIA
But analysts warn that Russia and Turkey are only two parties -- albeit important ones -- in the hugely complex fight for Libya which has been riven by unrest since the fall of dictator Moamer Kadhafi in 2011.

"I would not say they are kingmakers as there are other players which can disrupt any deal that they would come to bilaterally," said Emadeddin Badi, a non-resident senior fellow with the Middle East Program at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank.

"But I would say that they have the highest level of political leverage over the factions involved in the contemporary conflict. They could both spoil a political solution to the conflict if they do not perceive that it addresses their interests," he told AFP.
Libya has been riven by unrest since 2011
Libya has been riven by unrest since 2011 Photo: AFP / Mahmud TURKIA
Russia, along with the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, has backed the strongman of eastern Libya Khalifa Haftar, who has reportedly enjoyed the support of the Wagner mercenary group allegedly run by an ally of Putin.
Restoring control of Libya to the GNA would be a huge boost to Erdogan
Restoring control of Libya to the GNA would be a huge boost to Erdogan Photo: AFP / Mahmud TURKIA

But Turkey, supported by its main regional ally Qatar, has backed the UN-recognised Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli.

It has helped on the ground by sending in pro-Ankara Syrian militia who worked with Turkey in its Syria operations and in the air with sophisticated Turkish drones.

Europe has been split, with France despite repeated protestations of neutrality seen as preferring Haftar and former colonial power Italy the GNA, with the EU largely watching from the sidelines.

Russia and Turkey also left the West as uneasy bystanders with their cooperation from 2016 over Syria. But the alliance remains shaky and is being severely tested over the fighting in Syria's last rebel-held province of Idlib.
Some analysts say the Kremlin is changing strategy
Some analysts say the Kremlin is changing strategy Photo: SPUTNIK / Alexey DRUZHININ

"I believe they can find common ground in that they could determine geographic spheres of influence (in Libya) by way of engaging with one another, both militarily and diplomatically," said Badi.

"However, a 'deal' between Moscow and Ankara would only be short-term at best -- it would not be sustainable."

The cards in Libya have been reshuffled after Haftar suffered a string of military defeats, with his forces ousted from the Tripoli region. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi said Haftar had accepted a ceasefire but there is scepticism over whether this will hold.

Pierre Razoux, research director at the French military's Institute for Strategic Research (IRSEM), said while there were other actors in Libya, Russia and Turkey were the players "most engaged on the side of their respective allies."

He said one possible compromise between Ankara and Moscow on Libya could encompass the Syrian conflict.

"Turkey would let Russia and the Syrian regime retake Idlib... while Russia would abandon the region of Tripoli and the gulf of Sirte to the GNA backed by Turkey," he said.

Restoring control of Libya to the GNA would be a huge boost to Erdogan, under whose rule Turkey has projected its influence over other former Ottoman territories from the Balkans to the Middle East.

"Ankara has historic ties with the Libyans, billions of dollars worth of infrastructure projects and unmistakable common interests," said Ankara-based political analyst Ali Bakeer.

In Moscow, Alexander Shumilin, director of the Europe-Middle East Center at the Russian Academy of Sciences, said the Kremlin had backed Haftar but was switching strategy in the light of his military defeats.

Putin is "faced with the choice between confronting Turkey in Libya or opposing Haftar by sacrificing him gently through calls for peace negotiations."

"Evidently, the second option is currently being favoured," he told AFP.

Copyright AFP. All rights reserved.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

With Russia making moves in Libya, the US wants to boost its ties with neighboring Tunisia

Steve Balestrieri,
SOFREP
Jun 9, 2020, 6:36 AM

A Russian fighter jet deployed to Libya

A Russian fighter jet deployed to Libya. AFRICOM
  • In the wake of the recent arrival of Russian fighter jets in Libya, the US military is in talks to boost its ties with neighboring Tunisia.
  • The head of US Africom and Tunisia's minister of defense recently discussed opportunities for training and planning exercises and reaffirmed the countries' strong ties.
  • Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

In light of the recent Russian move of sending advanced MiG-29 fighter and SU-34 ground attack jets to Libya, the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), is in talks with neighboring Tunisia to bolster ties between the two nations.

US Army General Stephen Townsend, the Commander of AFRICOM, spoke via phone with Imed Hazgui, Minister of Defense of the Republic of Tunisia. They discussed opportunities for upcoming training and planning exercises and reaffirmed the strong ties between the two countries.

Since 2011, the United States has invested more than $1 billion in the Tunisian military. The two countries have worked together and have enhanced Tunisian border security, military intelligence, and air-ground operations.

Tunisia's military faces the violence raging in Libya to its east; while on its western border with Algeria it faces Islamic jihadist fighters from both al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (ISIS).

With the civil war in Libya and the Russian move to pump more advisors and combat aircraft into the fray, Townsend and Hazgui agreed as to the need for improved security in the region. Townsend, while trying to increase the value of cooperation between the American and Tunisian militaries, was quick to point out that US combat troops will not be part of the personnel influx.
Russian military aircraft are being deployed to provide close air support and support the Wagner Group contractors that are supporting the Libyan National Army's (LNA) in the ongoing civil war. Russian fighter aircraft arrived in Libya, via Syria where they were repainted to camouflage their Russian origin. AFRICOM posted satellite photographs of a MiG-29 at the Libyan al-Jufra airbase.
A Russian MiG-29 Fulcrum spotted at Al Jufra Airfield in Libya

A Russian MiG-29 Fulcrum spotted at Al Jufra Airfield in Libya. AFRICOM
"Russia is clearly trying to tip the scales in its favor in Libya. Just like I saw them doing in Syria, they are expanding their military footprint in Africa using government-supported mercenary groups like Wagner," said Townsend. "For too long, Russia has denied the full extent of its involvement in the ongoing Libyan conflict. Well, there is no denying it now. We watched as Russia flew fourth-generation jet fighters to Libya — every step of the way. Neither the LNA nor private military companies can arm, operate, and sustain these fighters without state support — the support they are getting from Russia."

The SU-34 will be used as close-support attack aircraft while the MiG-29s are air superiority fighters and may be used to counter Turkish drones which have decimated the LNA in recent fighting.

"As Russia continues to fan the flames of the Libyan conflict, regional security in North Africa is a heightened concern," Townsend added. "We're looking at new ways to address mutual security concerns with Tunisia, including the use of our Security Force Assistant Brigade. Tunisia recognizes the benefits of American values, professionalism, and commitment. They very much value our partnership."

The Security Forces Assistance Brigade (SFAB) that General Townsend referred to is a training unit that deploys as part of a military assistance program. They are not combat troops.

"We know many of our African partners are under siege from malign actors and terrorist networks," the AFRICOM Commander said. "We also know we can't surge trust. Therefore, we remain committed to strengthening critical partnerships and working together to deliver solutions to common challenges."


Read the original article on SOFREP. Copyright 2020.
SOFREP is an apolitical news site run by former military special ops and intelligence professionals.
Follow SOFREP on Twitter.

MORE FROM SOFREP:
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

NEWS + INTELISLAMIST MILITANTS CONTINUE TO TARGET AND RAZE CHRISTIAN VILLAGES IN THE SAHEL
by Steve Balestrieri1 day ago
SHARE THIS:
FacebookTwitter

Photo of Dogmon farmers: Wikipedia

Photo of Dogmon farmers: Wikipedia
Within less than 24 hours, Islamic militants killed 27 civilians, some of whom were burned alive, in three attacks on predominately Christian farming villages in central Mali, local officials recently reported.

Communal violence has plagued the West African country in recent years, as Fulani herders, their traditional grazing lands drying up from climate change, have increasingly moved south into the farmland of the Dogon farmers. Fulani are using force to take over the land while targeting the Christian segment of the Dogon with elimination. Only about 12-15 percent of the Dogon are Christian, the majority being of animist religion, but more and more are turning to Islam because there is no alternative.

Local officials said that Fulani armed jihadists on motorcycles carried out the attacks in the villages of Bankass, Koro, and Tillé. The Fulani have not only been active in Mali but in Nigeria and Burkina Faso as well.
“We were surprised by the attack on the village of Tillé,” Doucombo Deputy Mayor Yacouba Kassogué told the news media. Doucombo is a small municipality in which Tillé is located. “Seven were killed, all Dogons, some of them burned alive.”

At least 20 other people were reported to have been killed in the neighboring villages of Bankass and Koro, most of them Christian.

“Since 2016, jihadists have been waging a war to occupy north and central Mali with the declared aim of establishing Sharia (Islamic law) throughout the country,” the Barnabus Fund, a Christian aid agency that supports prosecuted Christians, said in a statement.

“Mali suffered its worst year of extremist violence in seven years in 2019 [sic]. Jihadi militants carried out murderous attacks in the north and central area, laying waste to Christian villages and causing hundreds to flee with only the clothes on their backs.”

The targets of Fulani attacks are not determined by location but rather by religion.

At the same time, Nigeria has also suffered Fulani violence. The International Christian Concern (ICC) reports that Fulani Islamic jihadists attacked the Adara natives in Kajuru LGA, Kaduna State, Nigeria. This latest attack on the Christian population was conducted while many were still mourning the loss of loved ones, property, and their means of livelihood following a series of Islamic jihadist attacks in the past month on at least five villages and 12 settlements. The recent attacks on the Adara communities have displaced approximately 20,000 people.

Nathan Johnson, the ICC’s Regional Manager for Africa, was imploring the government for help against these increasing attacks.

“Kajuru Local Government Area has now been attacked nearly a dozen times in the past month. Despite this, the government has not taken any clear or decisive steps to stop the violence. They have not caught any of the perpetrators, saved any lives, or assisted any of those who have suffered,” he said.

“This continued inaction is costing many people their lives, homes, and loved ones. It is time that the government in Nigeria is held accountable for the many lives that they have failed to defend. They are either completely incompetent and must be removed, or they are complicit and need to be thrown in jail,” Johnson concluded.

Mali is ranked the 29th-worst country, in the world regarding persecutions on Christians, according to the Open Doors’ 2020 World Watch List; Nigeria is 12th. An Open Doors casebook study on Mali states that Islamic militants in the country “have been busy attacking the country’s security forces and Christians.” The reports adds that “Christian villages were targeted and destroyed, with the attacks sometimes having both ethnic and religious elements.”

“With the increasing attacks in the Mopti region and other areas, church schools and churches have been burned down, hundreds of schools (including Christian schools) have been closed down in 2019,” one source inside Open Doors said.
The violence in Mali has been ongoing since 2012 when Islamic jihadists, who had pledged allegiance to al-Qaeda, overran the northern two-thirds of the country. The government control in those areas had been weak to nonexistent.

The French, the former colonial rulers of Mali, responded to Mali’s need and sent 4,500 troops to help stabilize the situation. French Army units under “Operation Barkhane” drove the jihadists out of several areas. Yet, the jihadists regrouped and expanded their operations into neighboring counties of the Sahel. They are now also competing with other Islamic jihadists that have pledged their support to the Islamic State.
 

jward

passin' thru
US deploys aircraft carriers amid tensions with China

US deploys aircraft carriers amid tensions with China

Featured
WIB sea June 11, 2020 Andy Wolf 0


The Pacific region is no longer devoid of security, as two US Aircraft Carrier Strike Groups head into waters that have seemingly become infested with Chinese military activity in the wake of minimized US presence.
The USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz deployed to the area alongside their support vessels, sending a clear message to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy, which became active as US deployments slowed down due to coronavirus.
The Chinese-originated virus ravaged the USS Roosevelt earlier this year, forcing a long stay in Guam.


In response to diminished US presence, the Chinese deployed their single operational carrier, the Liaoning, to waters near Japan and Taiwan, respectively.
The Taiwanese Defense Ministry reported on Tuesday that the PLAN deployed fighters into the tiny nation’s air defense identification zone, though it was only for a short time.
Japan’s government previously reported sighting the Liaoning strike group moving through a southern island string in Japanese territory.

According to The Hill, Rear Adm. George M. Wikoff, commander of the strike group led by the Ronald Reagan, said the Navy was building on experience gained from the coronavirus outbreak to create a “bubble of health.”
“The bottom line is that the mission endures and doesn’t take a break for the virus,” Wikoff said. “We continue to promote regional security with our partners and maintain a very high state of readiness.”

© 2020 Bright Mountain Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
The content of this webpage may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written consent of Bright Mountain Media, Inc. which may be contacted at info@brightmountainmedia.com, ticker BMTM.


If you have any problems viewing this article, please report it here.

posted for fair use
 

jward

passin' thru
Eased border tensions bring China-India economic relations back to crossroads

Source:Global Times Published: 2020/6/11 21:54:46






2f28283c-0343-4052-9137-b91b9a2a1b6d.jpeg

File photo
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying said on Wednesday that China and India have taken actions to ease tensions along the border in accordance with the consensus reached between the two sides. Some observers hailed the official statement as a clear sign that the recent border standoff between China and India is de-escalating.

To a certain extent, the relaxed border situation will give both countries greater flexibility on future economic and trade exchanges, which is in line with the interests of both sides. If the tensions persist or even escalate into a conflict in a worst-case scenario, there would be little room for maneuver in China-India relations. And considering the impact of politics on the economy and business circles, bilateral trade would inevitably suffer amid rising anti-China sentiment in India.

So far, it seems everything is moving toward a positive direction, pointing to the increasing possibility of de-escalation in the border situation. That means the room for bilateral economic and trade cooperation will be expanded in the future, which will offer much-need breathing space to the already crippling Indian economy.

More than ever, the Indian government needs to focus its attention on its domestic issues such as the ongoing coronavirus pandemic and locust attacks. Failing to contain the spread of the virus, weeks of nationwide lockdown have stagnated the country's economy. The unemployment rate in urban India hit 27 percent in mid-May, according to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development even estimated in a Wednesday report that the Indian economy could contract by as much as 7.3 percent in fiscal year 2021. Moreover, further locust swarms are likely to attack India in the near future, which are expected to put extra pressure on food supply and need to be taken seriously by the Indian government.

When the border dispute is eased between China and India, bilateral economic and trade ties are expected to return to normal. However, it is worth noting that the global geopolitical situation has become more complex as China-US relations are on the brink of a new Cold War and Australia and India have just formed a comprehensive strategic partnership. At this juncture, India faces increased geopolitical pressure and temptation. India has long adhered to the non-alignment principle in its foreign policy. It remains to be seen whether India will continue to maintain its diplomatic independence or lean toward the US-led allies amid the changeable geopolitical environment.

If the Modi government chooses to make friends with China, then China-India economic ties will surely see more growth potential. But if India joins the US in confronting China, China will not hesitate to protect its own interests, whether political or economic. And the cost of losing China's friendship will be too high for India to bear.

posted for fair use
 

jward

passin' thru
Eight mass graves found in area retaken from Libyan rebel general
UN expresses horror at finds, mainly in town of Tarhuna, and backs GNA investigation

Patrick Wintour
Thu 11 Jun 2020 14.30 EDT Last modified on Thu 11 Jun 2020 16.05 EDT
Security forces affiliated with the Libyan Government of National Accord stand at a makeshift checkpoint in Tarhuna
Security forces affiliated with the Libyan Government of National Accord stand at a makeshift checkpoint in Tarhuna. Photograph: Mahmud Turkia/AFP/Getty Images

The United Nations has expressed horror at the discovery of eight mass graves in Libya, mainly in the town of Tarhuna, south of Tripoli, in an area recently retaken from forces loyal to Gen Khalifa Haftar.
The UN mission in Libya said it welcomed the decision by the internationally recognised Government of National Accord (GNA) to launch an investigation into the gravesNo estimate of the number of dead has been made public, but one grave contained at least 15 badly decomposed bodies. Some graves are said to contain entire families.
The UN mission in Libya said in a statement that it “notes with horror reports on the discovery of at least eight mass graves in past days, the majority of them in Tarhuna. International law requires that the authorities conduct prompt, effective and transparent investigations into all alleged cases of unlawful deaths.”
It called on investigators to “promptly undertake the work aimed at securing the mass graves, identifying the victims, establishing causes of death and returning the bodies to next of kin”. It said it was willing to help with the inquiry.
More bodies were found in the Tarhuna hospital, and according to the GNA at least 27 people have been killed by landmines and IED left by Haftar’s fleeing forces as their siege on Tripoli collapsed.

It is widely accepted that both sides may have committed war crimes in the year-long siege, but the scale of the crimes attributed to Haftar’s allies has the potential to embarrass his principal external backers France, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Jordan.
The German ambassador to Libya, Oliver Owcza, was seen shaking hands with Haftar only on Tuesday and has faced criticism within Libya for being seeing to prop up the strongman’s credibility. Germany views the talks with Haftar as part of an attempt to revive peace talks, but many argue that a precondition of any talks should be the removal of Haftar from the scene and the development of a new political leadership in Libya’s east.

GNA diplomats in the US are working hard to persuade influential Republicans that the Trump administration’s disengagement from Libya has left a vacuum that has been filled by Russia.
Mohammed Ali Abdallah, a GNA political adviser in the US, told the Heritage Foundation, a thinktank, that unless the US stepped up there was a risk that Russia would establish a strong military presence in the southern Mediterranean, access to one of the world’s largest gas fields and control of the pipeline for illegal refugees into Europe.
Wars without end: why is there no peaceful solution to so much global conflict?

He said Haftar’s backers “have either acknowledged his defeat and started to look for alternative plans or gone back the drawing board in order to escalate the crisis and make sure a stable Libya is never achieved – which is the ultimate goal of Russia.”


Abdallah said Haftar “neither wants to be or can be part of any future political solution” and his continued involvement would be a disaster.


He called on the US to increase the diplomatic pressure on allies such as the UAE to end their military support for Haftar.

posted for fair use

^^^^^^^^^^
 
Last edited:

jward

passin' thru

Egypt and Turkey getting prepared for war at Libya border

on June 09, 2020






After several months of tolerating Turkish incitements,it appears the Egyptian army,the most powerful in Africa is ready for war.



Egypt seems to be tired of the instability and wants an end to the war. On Saturday Egypt made public a plan to end the civil war that has been going on for years in Libya, in an initiative agreed upon by the commander of the Libyan eastern forces that have suffered heavy losses in recent weeks.



Turkey doesn't want the war to end and have shown that it wants the status quo to remain the same. The Egyptian military having a contrary opinion has announced it is ready to enter Libya and attack Turkish backed GNA’s Islamist militias & Syrian mercenaries.
Although there is a general misconception that embarking on such mission is very dangerous. This is because Egypt has been battling militants in the Sinai for a long time and not really getting a handle on it. What people fail to understand is that the Egyptian military is the most powerful in Africa and 10th most powerful in the world



In the same way the Nigerian military has been battling Boko Haram for long, people often forget that it is one of the largest and most formidable fighting force in Africa.

Turkey has been throwing its weight around the world like a drunken stupor. Turkish President, who is better recognized as a dictator than a president have used beguiling means to exploit and blackmail the European Union. It been waging secret operations against Greece and once threatened war.


In Syria, a Russian fighter jet was shot down and threatened war with Syria. Turkish military once threatened to leave NATO,they also acquired a Russian S-400 SAM systems despite objections by the NATO alliance. This prompted President Trump to cancel the sale of F-35 stealth fighters.

Turkey has been reported to be secretly supporting Boko Haram insurgents and in recent times have decided to over stretch its muscle in Libya by deploying forces to the besieged country. This upset a Libyan Parliamentarian Aguila Saleh, who


in December 2019 said Turkey’s willingness to send troops to Libya cannot be tolerated.

Turkey already see's itself as a world power and once threatened to hold U.S tactical nuclear weapons in Ankara hostage after Trumps decision to block the sale of F-35 fighters to Turkey. Throw into the mix Greece and Cyprus.


Egyptian President El-Sisi has sought for international support for this idea and called on the UN to invite Libya’s rival administrations for talks. The initiative, called the “Cairo declaration”, urged the withdrawal of “foreign mercenaries from all Libyan territory”,

Many Arab nations have declared their support for Egypt’s Cairo Declaration that proposes to implement a ceasefire in Libya starting from June 8, and a return to the political process
The initiative also suggests holding United Nation's supervised presidential council elections, while drawing a constitutional declaration to regulate elections for a later stage, and ending all foreign interference in Libya’s internal affairs.
Meanwhile, Bahrain said it also welcomed Egypt’s Cairo Declaration and that it supported all efforts exerted by Egypt to help “maintain Arab national security and defend Arab interests and issues.



posted for fair use
 

jward

passin' thru
US vows to reduce Iraq troop presence in first strategic talks in over a decade





Issued on: 12/06/2020 - 05:47Modified: 12/06/2020 - 05:47

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Brigadier General Vincent Barker (R) shakes hands with Iraqi General Mohammed Fadel (C), wearing face mask and gloves, following the outbreak of coronvavirus disease (COVID-19), during the hand over of Qayyarah Airfield West from US-led coalition forces to Iraqi Security Forces, in the south of Mosul, Iraq March 26, 2020.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. Brigadier General Vincent Barker (R) shakes hands with Iraqi General Mohammed Fadel (C), wearing face mask and gloves, following the outbreak of coronvavirus disease (COVID-19), during the hand over of Qayyarah Airfield West from US-led coalition forces to Iraqi Security Forces, in the south of Mosul, Iraq March 26, 2020. © Thaier Al-Sudani/File Photo, Reuters


The United States said Thursday it would reduce troops in Iraq in the coming months as friction between the two countries eased under a new US-friendly premier in Baghdad.




The United States also promised support to prop up the struggling Iraqi economy as the two nations held their first strategic dialogue in more than a decade.
Tensions skyrocketed following a US strike on Baghdad in January that killed Iranian general Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, with lawmakers in Baghdad demanding the expulsion of the roughly 5,200 US troops in the country.
President Donald Trump responded by threatening crippling sanctions and, according to US military sources, Washington began planning a vast bombing spree against groups blamed for the rockets.
In a joint statement, the United States said that the reason for its military's return to Iraq in 2014 -- defeating extremists from the Islamic State group -- had made major headway.

"The two countries recognized that in light of significant progress towards eliminating the ISIS threat, over the coming months the US would continue reducing forces from Iraq," a joint statement said.
"The United States reiterated that it does not seek nor request permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq."
The coalition has already consolidated to just three bases in recent months, down from a dozen.
The joint statement, hashed out ahead of time, did not give figures and Thursday's dialogue was brief, with David Schenker, the top US diplomat for the Middle East, telling reporters the delegations did not discuss a timeline for reducing troops.
Due to coronavirus travel restrictions, top-level talks expected to take place in Baghdad were demoted to a brief online kick-off session.

New PM changes tone
Tensions have calmed substantially since Mustafa Kadhemi -- an ex-spy chief with close ties to the US and its allies in the region -- took the reins as Iraq's premier in May.
Two Iraqi officials said Kadhemi has been invited to the White House this year, a diplomatic olive branch his predecessor Adel Abdel Mahdi had never received.
"There was a lack of confidence in the relationship with the previous government," one of the officials said.
Iraq in the joint statement promised to protect US bases that have seen a barrage of rocket fire blamed on paramilitary groups tied to Iran, a top adversary for the Trump administration.
The United States said it would look to encourage investment and promote economic reform in Iraq, which was rocked last year by major protests against unemployment and corruption.
"We will support the new government through the international financial institutions to help it meet the challenge of COVID-19 and declining oil revenues," Schenker said.
Iraq's economy relies almost exclusively on oil exports, with faltering prices and low demand drastically shrinking the government's ability to pay wages, pensions and welfare to eight million Iraqis.
After Kadhemi took charge, the United States extended a waiver from American sanctions to let Iraq keep importing needed gas from Iran, although the exemption runs out in September.
"The entire US-Iraq bilateral relationship will not be fixed in a single day," said Robert Ford, an analyst at the Middle East Institute and a US diplomat in Baghdad during the last round of strategic talks in 2008, which ironed out the US drawdown from the occupation that began after the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein.
"But for once, we seem to have the right people in the right place at the right time," he said.

Eyes on troop future
A dramatic or sudden drop could hamper the coalition's efforts to back an Iraqi fightback against IS sleeper cells, which have escalated attacks in recent weeks.
"Whatever comes out of the dialogue is going to set the future of our strategic relationship," a top American official from the coalition told AFP.
"Am I still going to fly surveillance drones or not? Do you still want our intelligence?" he added.
Other coalition countries are watching closely.
"The ability of non-US members of the coalition to be in Iraq depends on whether the US can stay. We're tied down by this dialogue, too," a Western diplomat told AFP.

The spokesman for the pro-Iran Fatah bloc, Ahmad al-Assadi, has insisted on a six-month deadline for foreign troops' departure.

On Monday and Wednesday, two rockets hit near Baghdad airport and the American embassy, after weeks of calm.

But the rhetoric was more tempered than usual, with even the hardline Kataeb Hezbollah saying it would take a formal stance on the talks only after the first session.

"These groups are retrenching, which gives Kadhemi some space with the Americans," Ford said.

(AFP)

posted for fair use
 

jward

passin' thru
...what's this make now, 3rd, 5th, guest at the "oh lets test, no reason" party?...

France Just Test Fired A Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile In The Atlantic
A U.S. Air Force RC-135R Cobra Ball launch surveillance aircraft took in the test while orbiting over the Caribbean.
By Tyler Rogoway
June 12, 2020
https%3A%2F%2Fapi.thedrive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F06%2F235235235fs-1.jpg%3Fquality%3D85
French Navy
SHARE

Tyler RogowayView Tyler Rogoway's Articles
twitter.com/Aviation_Intel
The French Triomphant class nuclear ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) Le Téméraire test-fired an M51 submarine-launched ballistic missile in the Atlantic off of Finistère, France in the early hours of June 12th, 2020. Some sort of a test appeared to be in the works just three days ago when Le Téméraire was spotted sailing out of port with huge test instrumentation masts attached that are commonly fitted to submarines prior to developmental ballistic missile launches. Then, last evening, our good friend @aircraftspots began tracking a U.S. Air Force RC-135S Cobra Ball ballistic missile and rocket tracking aircraft flying out over the Caribbean. Not long after, a French Falcon 50 maritime patrol aircraft showed up in the area, indicating a launch was likely imminent.

The other day French NAVY SSBN surprisingly launched M-51 SLBM. Just routine training for the crew or test of newly built M-51 ver. 3 ??
Any idea what was the launch for? pic.twitter.com/HVvqCB2wwm
— KURYER (@RSS_40) June 9, 2020
French Navy Falcon 50 FNY5015 arriving into the area to operate in the same area as ZIGGY11. pic.twitter.com/D7xFyEFUps
— Aircraft Spots (@AircraftSpots) June 12, 2020
If the launch occurred off France in the Eastern Atlantic, the Cobra Ball was likely involved in tracking the missile's midcourse and possibly its terminal phase to impact. The Falcon 50 may have been up to make sure the termination area was cleared of sea traffic. It's also very possible that the impact or flight termination area was in another region altogether and this is just the vantage point the RC-135S wanted to get of the test. In that case, the presence of the French Falcon 50 maritime patrol jet may have been just a coincidence as they are a common sight in that area.



U.S. Ballistic Missile Sub Fired An Impressive Four Trident II Missiles In Just Three DaysBy Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
Check Out This Soviet Submarine Firing A Nuclear Ballistic Missile While Docked PiersideBy Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
Storm Brewing Over Royal Navy Trident Ballistic Missile Test FailureBy Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone
Watch One Of Russia's Newest Ballistic Missile Subs Launch A Rare Four Missile SalvoBy Joseph Trevithick Posted in The War Zone
The Harrowing Tale Of The Nuke-Laden Russian Typhoon Class Sub That Almost Sunk In 1991By Tyler Rogoway Posted in The War Zone

Roughly similar to the U.S. and Royal Navies' UGM-133A Trident II SLBM, albeit with a bit less range, the M51 was just introduced into service in 2010. An enhanced variant, the M51.3 (or version three), is currently in development. It's possible, if not highly probable, that the missile tested was the M51.3. The Triomphant class submarine used for the test is the last of four SSBNs in the French Navy's inventory to be thoroughly refitted to receive the M51.

Globalsecurity.org describes the M51.3 as such:

"The work on the third version (M51.3) were launched in 2014. The M51.3 is designed to maintain the capabilities of the ocean component facing the most severe missile defenses, which will enter service in the middle of the next decade [eg, about 2025] when the M51.1 ends it service life. The M51.3 program is a development of a new third stage of the M51 missile (M51.3) for commissioning after 2020, the current stage having continued from the previous generation M45. It will offer on the operational plan for increased performance."



It would be interesting to know if the Cobra Ball was recording the test on behalf of the French or if it was collecting intelligence on its own.
Beyond potentially testing France's latest and most advanced SLBM, which will represent the backbone of the country's nuclear deterrent for decades to come, the launch also serves as a reminder to France's potential foes that it possesses an extremely potent second-strike nuclear capability. Each Triumphant class submarine carries 16 SLBMs, each of which is capable of carrying up to six (possibly even ten) multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs).

Update: 10:15 AM EST—
France's Minister of the Armed Forces, Florence Parly, has issued a statement about the test launch, in French.

Je félicite toutes celles et tous ceux dont l’engagement a permis le succès de cet essai. Leur implication est essentielle à la dissuasion nucléaire française et à notre souveraineté. pic.twitter.com/gW7gVZL3Ae
— Florence Parly (@florence_parly) June 12, 2020
The statement says, in part:

The missile was tracked throughout its flight phase by radars. The impact zone is located in North Atlantic several hundred kilometers from all sides. This test was carried out without nuclear warhead and in strict compliance with France’s international commitments. This firing validates the operational capacity of the SSBN Le Téméraire’s global weapon system and once again demonstrates the high-tech excellence that French industries are implementing in this area.

The French Navy's Chief of Staff, Admiral Christophe Prazuck, has also Tweeted out a message congratulating the crew of Le Téméraire, as well as other personnel involved.

Bravo Zulu à tous les marins de la FOST, force océanique stratégique, et au cercle encore plus vaste des marins de toutes les forces, qui ont directement contribué à ce succès ! https://t.co/XnyZuLq9Cz pic.twitter.com/wkFmhOORnu
— Chef d'état-major de la Marine (@amiralPrazuck) June 12, 2020
In addition to the aircraft monitoring the test, France's Directorate General of Armaments (DGA) says that the French Navy's missile range instrumentation ship Monge was also involved in tracking the M51's flight.

Le #missile a été suivi tout au long de son vol par les moyens du centre d’expertise DGA Essais de missiles, dont le navire d’essais et de mesures Monge opéré par la @MarineNationale https://t.co/Kvg3kBeFKe pic.twitter.com/ZWMSEK3XEP
— Direction générale de l'armement (@DGA) June 12, 2020
We will update this post as more information on the test comes available.
contact the author: Tyler@thedrive.com

posted for fair use
 

jward

passin' thru
hmm. tucking this in here in case we've declared war on that newly formed country in the NW..
..now it's four.. :: shrug ::

The Boeing E-6 Mercury (formerly E-6 Hermes) is an airborne command post and communications relay based on the Boeing 707-320. The original E-6A manufactured by Boeing's defense division entered service with the United States Navy in July 1989, replacing the EC-130Q. This platform, now modified to the E-6B standard, conveys instructions from the National Command Authority to fleet ballistic missile submarines (see communication with submarines), a mission known as TACAMO (TAke Charge And Move Out). The E-6B model deployed in October 1998 also has the ability to remotely control Minuteman ICBMs using the Airborne Launch Control System. The E-6B replaced Air Force EC-135Cs in the "Looking Glass" role, providing command and control of U.S. nuclear forces should ground-based control become inoperable. With production lasting until 1991, the E-6 was the final new derivative of the Boeing 707 to be built.[2]

Codenamed Looking Glass, it is United States Strategic Command's (USSTRATCOM) Airborne Command Post (ABNCP), designed to take over in case the Global Operations Center (GOC), located at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska, is destroyed or incapable of communicating with strategic forces. The term "Looking Glass" is used because the ABNCP "mirrors" the abilities of the US Strategic Command GOC to control nuclear forces.[7]

The E-6 fleet is based at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, and operated by Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron 3 (VQ-3), VQ-4, and VQ-7.

General characteristics

  • Crew: 22
  • Length: 152 ft 11 in (46.61 m)
  • Wingspan: 148 ft 2 in (45.16 m)
  • Height: 42 ft 5 in (12.93 m)
  • Wing area: 283.4 sq ft (26.33 m2)
  • Empty weight: 172,795 lb (78,378 kg)
  • Max takeoff weight: 342,000 lb (155,129 kg)
  • Powerplant: 4 × CFM International CFM56-2A-2 turbofan engines

Performance


  • Maximum speed: 530 kn (610 mph, 980 km/h) dash speed
  • Cruise speed: 455 kn (524 mph, 843 km/h) at 40,000 ft (12,192 m)
  • Range: 6,600 nmi (7,600 mi, 12,200 km)
  • Combat range: 6,350 nmi (7,310 mi, 11,760 km)
  • Endurance: 10 hours 30 minutes on station at 1,000 nmi (1,200 mi; 1,900 km) unrefuelled
28 hours 54 minutes with one refuelling 72 hours maximum with multiple refuellings
  • Service ceiling: 40,000 ft (12,000 m)
  • Wing loading: 112.13 lb/sq ft (547.5 kg/m2)
  • Thrust/weight: 0.281
  • Critical field length: 6,700 ft (2,042 m)
  • Max effort Take-off run: 5,400 ft (1,646 m)
  • Landing run at max landing weight: 2,600 ft (792 m)

Avionics


  • AN/ARC-182 VHF/UHF TxRx
  • AN/ARC-190 HF
  • AN/AIC-32 Crew Intercom
  • triplex Litton LTN-90
  • LTN-211 VLF/Omega
  • Smiths SFM 02 digital/analog flight management system
  • AN/APS-133 colour weather radar

Aleph א
@no_itsmyturn

57s
3X #USAF

Boeing E-6B Mercuries are up. AE0412 | PEEL56 AE0413 | RUFF07 AE0416 | FLORY69 #TACAMO
View: https://twitter.com/no_itsmyturn/status/1271496660976271363?s=20
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Navy Calling Up 1,600 Reservists to Fill in For Shipyard Workers Out for COVID-19

By: Ben Werner


June 11, 2020 2:29 PM • Updated: June 12, 2020 11:45 AM

The Navy is activating 1,629 reservists to help reduce a carrier and submarine maintenance backlog at its public shipyards that is exacerbated by COVID-19, according to Naval Sea Systems Command.

Nearly a quarter of the production workforce at the Navy’s four public shipyards are unable to come in to work due to being deemed “high risk” for catching COVID-19, NAVSEA said in a news release. Virus mitigation efforts include expanded safety leave for those who are high risk, which keeps the workforce healthy but slows the rate of production at the yards.

The reservists sent to work at the shipyards will start arriving in July and will have one-year orders, which can be adjusted if needed. They are part of the Navy’s Surge Maintenance program, established in 2005, and will supplement current civilian shipyard staff. This is the SurgeMain program’s largest reservist mobilization.

“Our sailors are electricians, pipefitters, sheet metal workers, plumbers, hydraulic technicians, mechanics, machinists, carpenters, welders and more,” Capt. Michael MacLellan, the national director of SurgeMain, said in the NAVSEA statement. “Many of our people have prior experience at the shipyard where they’re being sent, down to the specific shop where they will be working alongside the shipyard’s organic civilian workforce.”

SurgeMain reservists will start arriving in phases at the following shipyards:

  • Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine, will receive 267 reservists.
  • Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Va., will receive 486 reservists.
  • Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility in Bremerton, Wash., will receive 676 reservists.
  • Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii, will receive 200 reservists.



Before COVID-19, the Navy struggled for years to reduce the number of days ships and submarines have to wait for space at the service’s four shipyards. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday set the goal of eliminating maintenance time lost due to shipyard availability by the start of Fiscal Year 2021 when he issued an update in December to the Navy’s “A Design for Maintaining Maritime Superiority 2.0.”

“As we have learned over the past decade, it is cheaper to maintain readiness than to buy it back. Our toughest near-term challenge is reversing the trend of delivering only 40 percent of our ships form maintenance on time.” Gilday wrote in the update. “Our goal is to improve productivity, reduce lost days through depot availability extensions by 80 percent in FY20 compared with FY19, and eliminate lost days through depot extensions by the end of FY21.”

The Navy has focused this year on improving the way it planned for and scheduled maintenance, Vice Adm. Tom Moore, the commander of NAVSEA, previously told USNI News. The current mobilization of reservists is intended to prevent the Navy from losing any of the gains made in reducing maintenance backlogs.

“We have been methodical in how we planned this mobilization,” Moore said in the NAVSEA statement. “We did not mobilize anyone who already works in the ship maintenance or construction field, and we worked to place people into shipyards where they have previously drilled so there was a built-in comfort factor for both the reservist and the shipyard personnel.”


Related
Navy Claims Successes In Improving On-Time Ship Maintenance, But Backlogs Persist Navy Claims Successes In Improving On-Time Ship Maintenance, But Backlogs Persist
December 4, 2019
In "Education Legislation"
CNO, Commandant: Naval Forces Can Meet Today's Obligations, But 2021 Readiness At Risk With Pandemic CNO, Commandant: Naval Forces Can Meet Today's Obligations, But 2021 Readiness At Risk With Pandemic
May 21, 2020
In "Budget Industry"
Norfolk Aircraft Carriers Seeing Success in OFRP Schedule, With Truman Out of Maintenance Early Norfolk Aircraft Carriers Seeing Success in OFRP Schedule, With Truman Out of Maintenance Early
August 2, 2017
In "Budget Industry"
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Polish FM attends first meeting of Coalition for the Sahel

News & Politics
(PAP) ej/mb June 12, 2020

Polish Foreign Minister Jacek Czaputowicz took part in a videoconference on Friday as the first meeting of the Coalition for the Sahel, organised by the European Union and G5 Sahel, bringing together officials of 60 countries and international organisations.

The United Nations and the African Union were among the participants of Friday's video meeting, during which Czaputowicz stated: "The aim of our cooperation is to fight cross-border criminal networks and increase the resistance of the countries of the Sahel to crisis."

During his speech, the head of Polish diplomacy gave his assurance of Poland's full support of the coalition and stressed its importance for improving coordination and cohesion of international activities aimed at stabilising the security situation in the Sahel region of North Africa.

Local state institutions are often not in a position to face the growing scale of terrorist attacks, he said, adding that the reason for instability is also the inability of meeting the basic needs of local communities.

The activities of the European Union and Poland in the Sahel region are an expression of our solidarity and proof of a partnership-based approach to overcoming the challenges, which - left without an appropriate response - are very likely to bring negative consequences for the residents of the Sahel, other parts of Africa, but also Europe, Czaputowicz said.

The foreign minister also pointed out that in recent years, Poland has granted military support to Chad and Mali and gave his assurance of support for the peace process in Mali, a country co-founding the Community of Democracies.

The G5 Sahel is a regional grouping of five African countries: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger, which since February this year has been presided over by Mauritania, on a revolving basis. The G5 Sahel was established in 2014 with the aim of tightening regional cooperation. In 2017, within its framework, the G5 Sahel Joint Force was created, conducting joint military activities in the region.

The activities of the Coalition are based on four pillars: Pillar 1 - the fight against terrorism, Pillar 2 - increasing military capacity; Pillar 3 - support for state administration; Pillar 4 - socio-economic development.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

June 13, 2020 6:16 am AEST

Canada joins International Coalition for Sahel




From: Global Affairs Canada
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, today announced that Canada will join the International Coalition for the Sahel. Minister Champagne will participate in the coalition’s Small Group of Foreign Ministers.
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, today announced that Canada will join the International Coalition for the Sahel. Minister Champagne will participate in the coalition’s Small Group of Foreign Ministers.
During virtual meetings with their respective counterparts, Minister Champagne and Minister Sajjan reiterated Canada’s commitment to support the countries in the Sahel in advancing their priorities for peace and security, economic and social development, inclusive governance, gender equality and climate change.
The ministers also highlighted Canada’s commitment to international assistance in the Sahel, and underlined Canada’s engagement in contributing to international efforts to stabilize the region, by participating in operations, exercises, and capacity-building initiatives.
Quotes
“Canada is proud to be a partner in the International Coalition for the Sahel. We look forward to working with countries in the Sahel as well as with international partners to help restore peace, stability and prosperity in the region.”
– François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs
“Canada remains committed to working with our partners around the world. Our defence policy, Strong, Secure, Engaged, demonstrates our commitment to doing our part for the international community. We will continue to contribute to global efforts to support a more secure and stable Sahel region.”
– Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence
Quick facts
  • The G5 Sahel is an institutional framework for coordination and regional cooperation in development policies and security matters in West Africa, established by five African states: Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger.
  • The International Coalition for the Sahel is a group that aims to facilitate coordination and interaction between the various dimensions of international action to support the G5 Sahel countries.
  • Canada supports the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA) through the deployment of civilians, police and military officers.
  • Canada contributes to development in the Sahel, particularly through major bilateral assistance programs in Mali and Burkina Faso.
  • Canada provides capacity-building training for the Nigerian Armed Forces through Operation NABERIUS.
  • Canada supports France under Operation FREQUENCE using military aircraft to support the movement of French personnel and military equipment to and from the Sahel region.


/Public Release. View in full here.
Tags:Africa, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chad, climate change, community, Foreign Affairs, foreign minister, France, gender equality, Government, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, operation, United Nations
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

World Markets
Arms seized by U.S., missiles used to attack Saudi Arabia 'of Iranian origin' -U.N.

Contributor

Michelle Nichols Reuters

Published
Jun 12, 2020 12:11PM EDT

NEW YORK, June 11 (Reuters) - Cruise missiles used in several attacks on oil facilities and an international airport in Saudi Arabia last year were of "Iranian origin," U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council in a report seen by Reuters on Thursday.

Guterres also said several items in U.S. seizures of weapons and related materiel in November 2019 and February 2020 were "of Iranian origin."

Some have design characteristics similar to those also produced by a commercial entity in Iran, or bear Farsi markings, Guterres said, and some were delivered to the country between February 2016 and April 2018.

He said that "these items may have been transferred in a manner inconsistent" with a 2015 Security Council resolution that enshrines Tehran's deal with world powers to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

Iran's mission to the United Nations said there were "serious flaws, inaccuracies and discrepancies" in the report.

"Iran categorically rejects the observations contained in the Report concerning the Iranian connection to the export of weapons or their components that are used in attacks on Saudi Arabia and the Iranian origin of alleged U.S. seizures of armaments," the mission in New York said in a statement.

Washington is pushing the 15-member council to extend an arms embargo on Iran that is due to expire in October under the nuclear deal. Council veto-powers Russia and China have already signaled their opposition to the move.

Guterres reports twice a year to the Security Council on the implementation of an arms embargo on Iran and other restrictions that remained in place after the deal.

The U.N. chief said the United Nations examined debris of weapons used in attacks on a Saudi oil facility in Afif in May, on the Abha international airport in June and August and on the Saudi Aramco oil facilities in Khurais and Abqaiq in September.

"The Secretariat assesses that the cruise missiles and/or parts thereof used in the four attacks are of Iranian origin," Guterres wrote. Guterres also said that drones used in the May and September attacks were "of Iranian origin."

He also said the United Nations had observed that some items in the two U.S. seizures "were identical or similar" to those found in the debris of the cruise missiles and the drones used in the 2019 attacks on Saudi Arabia.

The Security Council is due to discuss Guterres' report later this month.

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Kelly Craft has said she will circulate a draft resolution to extend the arms embargo on Iran soon. If Washington is unsuccessful, it has threatened to trigger a return of all U.N. sanctions on Iran under the nuclear deal, even though it quit the accord in 2018. Diplomats say Washington would likely face a tough, messy battle.

Iran has breached parts of the nuclear deal in response to the U.S. withdrawal and Washington's reimposition of sanctions.

"I call upon all Member States to avoid provocative rhetoric and actions that may have a negative impact on regional stability," Guterres wrote in the 14-page report.

(Reporting by Michelle Nichols; editing by Grant McCool and Jonathan Oatis)

((michelle.nichols@tr.com; +1 212 355 6053; Reuters Messaging: Twitter: @michellenichols))

The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

June 12, 2020

Mexican cartels strengthen in Colombia, despite the coronavirus







The Mexican drug cartels have become stronger in Colombia, occupying spaces left by the FARC, a domain that tends to worsen with the coronavirus pandemic, taken advantage of by these criminal organizations to increase their social control.
The warning is made by the director of the Peace and Reconciliation Foundation (Pairs), León Valencia, when presenting “Radiography of the ominous presence of the Mexican cartels,” a report on the growing power of the mafias of that country in Colombia, the largest producer. world of cocaine.


“We are very afraid of the post-pandemic,” he told Efe in Valencia, explaining that in the country, as in Mexico, drug traffickers use the power of money in times of crisis like the current one to extend their tentacles among society.
According to Valencia, with “an economic crisis like the one already underway” due to the pandemic, “those who have money in their hands are going to have many possibilities”, it does not matter that this capital is of illegal origin.
“So we put this alert because we see that the post-pandemic for illegal groups that have possibilities of having amounts of money, if they manage to contact Colombian organizations, they can greatly increase their social control, they can greatly increase their power,” said Valencia, one of the greatest connoisseurs of the conflict and violence in Colombia.


Reversal of roles
According to the report by the Pairs Foundation, although the relationship of organized crime in Colombia and Mexico comes from previous decades, at present “it has been boosted due to the significant flow of capital and arms brought from the North American country.”
The Mexican cartels, which since the 1980s were partners with Colombians for the introduction and distribution of cocaine in the United States, expanded their business and in recent years began to invest in drug production in the Andean country, with which they are dominating the entire drug trafficking chain.


“What they (Mexicans) decided was to start participating directly in the production of cocaine in Colombia, and what is most important, to invest, and not only buy, but invest in production through organizations directly” , assured the expert.
To increase their penetration in the country, organizations such as the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco Nueva Generación Cartel took advantage of the signing of the peace agreement of the Colombian Government and the FARC, in November 2016, to occupy with local allied gangs “those places where the guerrilla exercised full control (…) of illegal activities, among them drug trafficking. “
New partners


This prompted the strengthening of Colombian armed groups such as the Gulf Clan, the Caparrapos, the Pachenca, the Popular Liberation Army (EPL) -also called the Pelusos-, and the Postfarc Armed Groups (dissent), some of which had problems interns, adds the study.
“The Mexican cartels were subordinated in some way to the Colombian cartels, but that relationship has already been reversed, in reality, the kings, the capos de capos, are the Mexicans,” said Valencia, explaining that nevertheless, Colombia is still the Origin of cocaine production due to the quality of the coca leaves and the experience of these groups in refining processes.
The Pares Foundation has identified 97 illegal groups throughout the country “and an important part has alliances with Mexicans,” according to Valencia, and detailed that 27 of them are on the border with Venezuela. “Of those, 13 groups are foreigners, they are transnationals,” he added.


“That is a very special place for illegal groups, the border with Venezuela (…) and those (groups) control part of the business, not only of cocaine but also of contraband and (the illegal exploitation of) minerals”, assured.
National presence
With this x-ray, the investigation concludes: “The presence of Mexican cartels in the country coincides with the places of greatest intensity of coca cultivation or with strategic corridors for drug trafficking,” and points to regions such as the Pacific coast in the department of Nariño. and the north of Cauca, both in the southwest; Catatumbo (bordering Venezuela), Bajo Cauca (northwest), and Magdalena Medio (center).


The guerrilla of the National Liberation Army (ELN) also operates in some of these regions, which has come to make “temporary alliances” with drug groups in regions such as northeast Antioquia, while in others, such as the Nariño coast, It participates in disputes “over the monopoly of some areas where coca cultivation has been increasing.”
According to the study, the expansion of the Mexican cartels is characterized because “they have a direct influence on the Colombian armed groups through financing or articulation” although “they do not have large armies of ‘Mexicans’, since they go beyond the logic of regulation and control territorial”.
Other characteristics are “the presence (in Colombia) of nationals from Mexico, but also from Central American countries” -especially from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador- and participation “in the regulation of the drug trafficking market to guarantee the supply of drugs to the United States. “


Assassinations of social leaders
Regarding the impact that the growing presence of Mexican cartels can have on the increase in assassinations of social leaders, since the two situations coincide over time, Valencia considers that they may be related.
“The perverse thing about organized crime is that it needs anomie, they need to break social cohesion, they need no order, so they destroy everything” because in this way they are removing obstacles to their businesses.


The expert adds that, in this sense, “social leaders are a target for them” and this is likely to happen in regions such as Cauca and the Pacific coast, in Nariño, where there is a great territorial dispute between gangs.
“Black communities and indigenous communities have resisted all the actors and are resisting these and so many black and indigenous leaders are being sacrificed in that arrival of the Mexicans,” he added.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....
Posted for fair use.....

Russia’s nuclear deterrence principles: what they imply, and what they do not

Commentary
Gustav Gressel
12th June, 2020

Russia’s nuclear policy has long been shrouded in secrecy. But a newly published presidential decree on nuclear deterrence clarifies some issues while still leaving ample room for speculation.

The Kremlin took the unprecedented step last week of publishing a presidential decree setting out Russia’s policy principles on nuclear deterrence. The six-page decree sets out brief remarks on Russia’s nuclear deterrence posture, such as objectives, threshold (the point in a conflict at which nuclear weapons would be used), and command authority (which includes who decides on launching a nuclear attack). It has come as a surprise to see the paper published on the record. In the past, the relevant decree on the principles of nuclear deterrence was kept classified. The only public statement on nuclear deterrence was a standard sentence repeated in Russia’s military doctrine and other documents stating that Russia would only resort to nuclear weapons if it was attacked by weapons of mass destruction, or if an attack threatened the very existence of the state.

Such general wording, of course, left ample room for speculation. Some observers interpreted Russia’s reluctant communication on nuclear matters in the most careful, conservative, and defensive way, disbelieving that Russia would ever consider a launch-on-warning posture. Now, thanks specifically to article 19a of the newly released document, we know it does have this posture.

Other observers in the past argued that Russian military thinking’s focus on offence and pre-emption would likely leave a mark on nuclear matters as well and concluded that Russia had adopted an ‘escalate to de-escalate’ doctrine. According to this view, Russia would resort to the pre-emptive first use of a non-strategic nuclear weapon once the Russian army had achieved its operative goals to end the war on Moscow’s terms. While the existence of such an ‘escalate to de-escalate’ doctrine and other details on Russia’s potential use of nuclear weapons was contested in the past, the final sentence of Article 4 of the doctrine comes closest to answering this question. It states that, once a war has started, nuclear deterrence policy is to seek to prevent it from escalating further, or from being terminated on terms unfavourable to Moscow. This is a short version of what in Russian military literature is termed ‘escalation control’. Escalation control implies that threats, demonstrations of strike capabilities, and inflicting “calibrated damage” on the enemy (which may, but does not have to, include nuclear weapons) should contain, localise, and if possible terminate a war on Moscow’s terms. This is more flexible and adaptable than most previous assumptions on Russian ‘escalate to de-escalate’ or ‘escalate to win’ concepts. However, flexible escalation control is no less challenging for NATO, as the final result may still be a pre-emptive, limited nuclear strike. One needs to stress that Russia and the West have fundamentally different traditions and perceptions on what ‘defensive’ military operations are and where ‘pre-emption’ on a ‘legitimate’ security threat transitions into ‘aggression’. For this reason, nothing in the decree precludes Russia embarking on ‘escalate to de-escalate’.

The practical backdrop remains to dissuade the US from intervening in a war Russia has started with an immediate non-aligned neighbour, particularly Ukraine.

The practical backdrop to Russian deliberations on escalation control of course was, and remains, to dissuade a large nuclear power – the US – from intervening in a war Russia has started with an immediate non-aligned neighbour, particularly Ukraine. A head-on confrontation with NATO is not Russia’s primary concern, but could develop out of another crisis. In such a confrontation, nuclear weapons and their dissuasive potential would play a major role. But as such scenarios would hardly develop according to a script or pre-planned decision, Article 18 will be the most relevant: it sets Putin as the sole decision-maker about the use of nuclear weapons. The decision of whether or not to use them would depend on how he perceives the circumstances and whether, if, and in what contexts, threats are made or weapons used. This said, the decree does not differentiate between strategic and non-strategic nuclear weapons and does not at any point imply or hint that the Russian armed forces would rely on the employment of nuclear weapons to fulfil tactical or operative tasks assigned. In this regard, all nuclear weapons – regardless of range and yield – are ‘strategic’ in terms of being a political tool to influence political decision-making processes.

Article 19 deliberates on the conditions under which nuclear weapons could be released. It explicitly mentions a ‘launch on warning’ posture. This is a signal to the US that conventional or low-yield re-entry vehicles (the latter are in development) of intercontinental missiles would be treated as a full-scale attack and that Washington should therefore not think of employing them in a tactical or limited attack close to Russia’s borders. Paragraph 19c states that Russia would retaliate using nuclear weapons against a conventional attack that impedes Russian nuclear forces or their command structure; this provision emulates the 2018 US nuclear posture review. But, deliberate or not, the paragraph is very imprecise, as it also does not distinguish between strategic and non-strategic nuclear forces. The proliferation of dual-use platforms that has taken place in recent times across the Russian armed forces would allow nuclear ‘retaliation’ for any sort of conventional strike into Russia’s territory. In order to conventionally defend NATO territory in case of a Russian attack, such deep strikes would still be necessary.

The Russian decree does not contain any detailed provisions on force structure, weapons systems (future or present), force modernisation, or references to other nuclear powers. Much detail is lacking from what one might normally expect to see in a nuclear doctrine. Article 15 states merely that nuclear deterrence needs to be adaptable, and should leave the enemy guessing about the time, scale, and manner of the use of nuclear weapons. It also says that Russia intends to maintain the minimal force required to achieve its tasks. Article 10 states that the Russian nuclear forces intend to inflict unacceptable damage on an enemy under any condition. While previous documents – like the military doctrine of 2000 – talked of calibrated damage, the phrases in this paper are less ambitious. If one assumes counter-value targeting (attacking cities) as an underlying assumption, Russia may be able to inflict ‘unacceptable’ damage more easily than trying to calibrate strikes according to the threat situation and American defences.

Taken together, all these provisions seem surprisingly minimalist. It may well be that Russia intends to signal to the United States that, if the American-Chinese arms race takes off, Moscow does not intend to follow suit and “spend itself into oblivion”, as US assistant secretary for terrorist financing in the Treasury, Marshall Billingslea, put it. Russia is hardly likely to publicly admit that in the 21st century it will most probably be a secondary nuclear power. But, in fact, it does seem to be adapting to this role.

Finally, Article 3 notes that Russia’s nuclear deterrence is flanked by other state measures to achieve its goals, including diplomatic and “information policies” (propaganda). The publication of the doctrine and the content of Article 3 effectively represent the firing of the starting pistol on a new ‘information campaign’ in the West: expect to soon see an information operation that aims to inflate the purported capabilities of Russia’s nuclear forces and induce fear (such as the new “Wunderwaffen”, presented in March 2018), and new diplomatic overtures in the fields of arms control, in particular designed to split the alliance. At least on the latter, Putin may get assistance from the White House: Trump’s clumsy and undiplomatic handling of the INF and Open Skies issues provide more opportunities to exploit than any Russian diplomat would have ever dreamed of creating.

With Trump also unilaterally reducing America’s military presence in Europe (in Germany in particular), transatlantic relations have reached a new low. However, the new Russian policy principles on nuclear deterrence also underpin the existential role the US plays to counterbalance the Russian military in Europe, and in particular nuclear capabilities. For the foreseeable future, France will be neither able or willing to replace the United States’ nuclear balancing role, contrary to occasional wishful thinking about this in Germany. For now, Europeans hope that the November 2020 election will relieve them of their troubles with Trump. But there is no plan B if that election does not deliver their much hoped-for anticipated result.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use.....

Afghanistan — Four Killed, Eight Wounded, in Mosque Attack
June 12, 2020 Juliet Norah Afghanistan, Afghanistan Freelance Global Gig, Asia, Asia Freelancing Global Gig, Featured News, Global World, News Article
Register to Follow Author
  • “Explosives placed inside the Sher Shah Suri Mosque exploded during Friday prayers,” read a statement from the ministry.
  • No group has claimed responsibility for the attack yet.
  • The United States peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad was in the country to revive the U.S. peace deal with the Taliban.
At least four people have been killed in a bomb attack at a mosque in Kabul, Afghanistan. Among the dead was a prayer leader, Azizullah Mofleh Frotan, one of the city’s most prominent mullahs. While confirming the incident, the Interior Ministry spokesman Tariq Arian said that the bomb was placed inside the mosque.
image-71-300x168.jpeg
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Khorasan Province (ISIL-KP), or ISIS-K, is a branch of the militant Islamist group Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), active in Afghanistan and Pakistan. ISIL announced the group’s formation in January 2015.

“Explosives placed inside the Sher Shah Suri Mosque exploded during Friday prayers,” read a statement from the ministry. According to a government official, the attack in Western part of the capital left eight other people wounded. The police helped condone off the area, and carried the injured to awaiting ambulances that took them to nearby hospitals.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack yet, but mosque attacks are usually linked to the Islamic State. There has been an increase in the number of attacks from the militants, of which the Islamic State has claimed a number of them.

Earlier in the month, two people, including a prayer leader, were killed, and two others were wounded, after another bomb explosion in a mosque, an attack claimed by IS. The prayer leader, Mullah Mohammad Ayaz Niazi, was famous in the city, and his sermons attracted mammoth crowds.

The bomb was planted inside Wazir Akbar Khan Mosque, and according to the country’s Interior Ministry spokesperson, the bomb targeted worshippers who had gathered for the evening prayers at 7.25 PM local time. The mosque, a famous worship area was located at the city’s Green Zone, and neighbored offices of several international organizations and embassies.

The Islamic State also claimed attack that left a journalist and one other employee of a local TV station, Khurshid TV, dead after a minibus carrying the employees of the TV station was struck by an improvised explosive device.

In a different attack, a roadside bomb claimed seven lives and left six others wounded. The blast hit a truck that carried laborers in Khan Abad district, in the country’s northern Kunduz Province. The area is said to be under the control of the Taliban. The Taliban and Islamic State are active militant groups in the country.
Zalmay_Khalilzad-215x300.jpg
Zalmay Khalilzad is an Afghan-American diplomat, who has served as the Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation at the State Department since September 2018.

Earlier in the week, the United States peace envoy Zalmay Khalilzad was in the country to revive the U.S. peace deal with the Taliban. The country is set to begin peace talks for the prosperity of the country, following a peace deal signed in February.

The peace deal, signed between the Unites States and the Taliban, gives a way for the Afghan government and the Taliban to start negotiations for the best interest of the country.

The talks between the militant group and the government have delayed because of the political rivalry between the two presidential candidates after last year’s elections. However, the two leaders reached an agreement earlier in the month. The agreement between the two leaders and the release of the prisoners is seen as a major step in the commencement of the talks.

The peace deal signed between the Unites States and the Taliban requires the Afghan government is to release 5,000 insurgents. In exchange, 1,000 Afghan soldiers and police captured by the militant group will be freed. The agreement was signed so as to pave the way for US troops to leave the country after the long military engagement.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Posted for fair use....

World News
June 11, 2020 / 7:06 PM / Updated 14 hours ago
Iraq, U.S. affirm commitment to U.S. troop reduction: statement

2 Min Read

CAIRO (Reuters) - Iraq and the United States affirmed their commitment to the reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq, a statement from the two countries said, as officials discussed Washington’s future relationship with Baghdad.

“Over the coming months the U.S. would continue reducing forces from Iraq and discuss with the Government of Iraq the status of remaining forces,” the statement, published on Thursday, said.

Since 2014, the primary mission of U.S. troops deployed in Iraq has been defeating the Islamic State militant group. Officials in the U.S.-led coalition say Iraqi forces are now mostly able to handle the insurgents on their own.

Western military trainers are expected to remain in Iraq, but it is not clear how many. The United States has had around 5,000 troops stationed in the country, and coalition allies another 2,500.

An earlier newsflash by Iraq’s state news agency cited Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi as saying there would be a total withdrawal of troops. The article was later removed.

Iraq’s parliament had voted earlier this year for the departure of foreign troops from Iraq, and United States and other coalition troops have been leaving as part of a drawdown.

The two countries’ joint statement said Washington will discuss with the Iraqi government the status of the remaining forces, stressing it does not seek permanent bases or a permanent military presence in Iraq.

U.S. economic advisers might also be provided to help Iraq with economic reform efforts. The financial fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic and low global oil prices have hit Iraqis hard. Oil exports generate almost all of OPEC member Iraq’s state revenue.

Reporting by Samar Hassan and John Davison; Editing by Christian Schmollinger, Lincoln Feast and Steve Orlofsky
 

jward

passin' thru
Kim Jong Un's Sister Threatens S. Korea With Military Action
The powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has threatened South Korea with military action as she bashed Seoul over declining bilateral relations and its inability to stop activists from floating anti-Pyongyang leaflets across the border.

By Associated Press, Wire Service Content June 13, 2020, at 11:33 a.m.


By KIM TONG-HYUNG, Associated Press
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — The powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un threatened military action against South Korea as she bashed Seoul on Saturday over declining bilateral relations and its inability to stop activists from floating anti-Pyongyang leaflets across the border.

Describing South Korea as an “enemy,” Kim Yo Jong repeated an earlier threat she had made by saying Seoul will soon witness the collapse of a “useless” inter-Korean liaison office in the border town of Kaesong.
Kim, who is first vice department director of the ruling Workers’ Party’s Central Committee, said she would leave it to North Korea’s military leaders to carry out the next step of retaliation against the South.
“By exercising my power authorized by the supreme leader, our party and the state, I gave an instruction to the arms of the department in charge of the affairs with enemy to decisively carry out the next action,” she said in a statement carried by the North’s official Korean Central News Agency.
“If I drop a hint of our next plan the (South Korean) authorities are anxious about, the right to taking the next action against the enemy will be entrusted to the General Staff of our army,” she said. “Our army, too, will determine something for cooling down our people’s resentment and surely carry out it, I believe.”
Kim's harsh rhetoric demonstrates her elevated status in North Korea’s leadership. Already seen as the most powerful woman in the country and her brother’s closest confidant, state media recently confirmed that she is now in charge of relations with South Korea.

The liaison office in Kaesong, which has been shut since January due to coronavirus concerns, was set up as a result of one of the main agreements reached in three summits between Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in in 2018.
Moon’s government had lobbied hard to set up nuclear summits between Kim and President Donald Trump, who have met three times since 2018. At the same time, Moon also worked to improve inter-Korean relations.
But North Korea in recent months has suspended virtually all cooperation with the South while expressing frustration over the lack of progress in its nuclear negotiations with the Trump administration.
Over the past week, the North declared that it would cut off all government and military communication channels with the South and threatened to abandon key inter-Korean peace agreements reached by their leaders in 2018.

They include a military agreement in which the Koreas committed to jointly take steps to reduce conventional military threats, such as establishing border buffers and no-fly zones. They also removed some front-line guard posts and jointly surveyed a waterway near their western border in an unrealized plan to allow freer civilian navigation.
In an earlier statement last week, Kim Yo Jong said that the North would scrap the military agreement, “which is hardly of any value,” while calling North Korean defectors who send leaflets from the South “human scum” and “mongrel dogs.”
Her comments on Saturday came hours after a senior North Korean Foreign Ministry official said that Seoul should drop “nonsensical” talk about the North’s denuclearization, and that his country would continue to expand its military capabilities to counter what it perceives as threats from the United States.
In response to North Korea’s anger over the leaflets, South Korea’s government has said it would press charges against two defector groups that have been carrying out border protests.

The South also said it would push new laws to ban activists from flying the leaflets across the border, but there’s been criticism over whether Moon’s government is sacrificing democratic principles to keep alive his ambitions for inter-Korean engagement.
For years, activists have floated huge balloons into North Korea carrying leaflets criticizing Kim Jong Un over his nuclear ambitions and dismal human rights record. The leafleting has sometimes triggered a furious response from North Korea, which bristles at any attempt to undermine its leadership.
While Seoul has sometimes sent police officers to block the activists during sensitive times, it had previously resisted North Korea’s calls to fully ban them, saying they were exercising their freedom. Activists have vowed to continue with the balloon launches.

But it’s unlikely that North Korea’s belligerence is about just the leaflets, analysts say.
The North has a long track record of dialing up pressure on the South when it doesn’t get what it wants from the United States. Its threats to abandon inter-Korean agreements came after months of frustration over Seoul’s refusal to defy U.S.-led sanctions and restart joint economic projects.
Some experts say North Korea, which has mobilized people for massive demonstrations condemning defectors, is deliberately censuring the South to rally its public and shift attention away from a bad economy, which likely has worsened during the COVID-19 pandemic.
It’s unclear what kind of military action the North would take against the South, although weapons tests are an easy guess. Kim Dong-yub, an analyst from Seoul’s Institute for Far Eastern Studies, said North Korea could also be “planning something” near the countries’ disputed western maritime border, which has occasionally been the scene of bloody clashes over the years.

Nuclear talks faltered at Kim Jong Un’s second summit with Trump in Vietnam in February last year after the United States rejected North Korea’s demands for major sanctions relief in exchange for a partial surrender of its nuclear capabilities.
Trump and Kim met for a third time that year in June at the border between North and South Korea and agreed to resume talks. But an October working-level meeting in Sweden broke down over what the North Koreans described as the Americans’ “old stance and attitude.”
On the two-year anniversary of the first Kim-Trump meeting, North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Son Gwon said Friday that the North would never again gift Trump with high-profile meetings he could boast as foreign policy achievements unless it gets something substantial in return.
Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

posted for fair use



Expect Something Big': Kim Jong-Un's Powerful Sister Threatens Military Action Against South

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden

by Tyler Durden

Sat, 06/13/2020 - 13:55



Earlier this week North Korea announced it would cut off all government and military communications with the South, also as its foreign ministry declared Pyongyang would "never again" allow President Trump to use 'empty' dialogue to score political points, suggesting the whole prior year long Trump-Kim bromance is now effectively dead.
And now the increasingly visible and powerful sister of Kim Jong Un has further gone on the offensive by threatening military action against South Korea Saturday.

Kim Yo Jong vowed “We will soon take a next action.” Referencing her brother, she described, “By exercising my power authorized by the Supreme Leader, our Party and the state, I gave an instruction to the arms of the department in charge of the affairs with enemy to decisively carry out the next action,” according to KCNA news agency.
Kim Yo-jong, now increasingly in the spotlight, is the most powerful woman in North Korea, increasingly speaking on behalf of her brother, the Supreme Leader. AFP/Getty Images

“The right to taking the next action against the enemy will be entrusted to the General Staff of our army. Before long, a tragic scene of the useless north-south joint liaison office completely collapsed would be seen,” Kim Yo Jong added.
The widely reported "reason" behind the sudden jingoistic stance is related to activists apparently continuing to defy the north in floating anti-Pyongyang leaflets across the border.
Such activism has been particularly sensitive to the north because it's driven in many cases by defectors. Lately Pyongyang's angry rhetoric against South Korea welcoming and hosting such defectors and their political activism has intensified.
But there's also rising tensions given Seoul's failed to materialize assurances that Washington would ease sanctions as part of denuclearization talks. This further appears an opportunity for Kim's increasingly visible and powerful sister to flex her authority over the military and next in line to rule.
THREAD: Kim Yo Jong's warning this evening is v. worrying.

On Monday I wrote that the DPRK wants to create an inter-Korean crisis.

Well, in two days it's June 15, the 20th anniversary of the first inter-Korean summit.

I strongly suspect something is being timed to coincide.
— Chad O'Carroll (@chadocl) June 13, 2020
Some analysts also believe Kim Jong Un is looking to rapidly manufacture an inter-Korean crisis for much bigger leverage amid stalled and effectively dead talks with the US. Importantly June 15, a mere two days away, will mark the 20th anniversary of the first inter-Korean summit.


Thus we are likely to see some big provocative fireworks in the form of some drastic action or weapon test, sure to re-trigger soaring tensions by Monday.

posted for fair use
 
Last edited:

jward

passin' thru
Report
Trump Rushes to Kill Off Iran Nuclear Deal Before Election
Washington is seeking to extend a U.N. arms embargo that would eliminate any hope of revival.
By Keith Johnson, Colum Lynch | June 12, 2020, 1:08 PM

EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell, who slammed U.S. pretensions to still have a voice in the fate of the Iran deal, speaks to reporters in Brussels on June 9.

EU foreign affairs chief Josep Borrell, who slammed U.S. pretensions to still have a voice in the fate of the Iran deal, speaks to reporters in Brussels on June 9. Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP/Getty Images


The battle between the United States and the remaining parties to the Iran nuclear deal is heating up, with huge stakes not just for the survival of the near-moribund accord but for the entire future of the U.N. Security Council and its ability to rein in bad actors.
Two years after unilaterally pulling out of the 2015 Iran deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Trump administration is dialing up efforts to kill it completely—even though Washington appears to have no alternative plan for addressing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions beyond sanctions. U.S. officials have been pushing the remaining parties, besides Iran—the European Union, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and China—to extend a U.N. arms embargo that otherwise will expire in October, just weeks before a hotly contested U.S. presidential election. The end of that arms embargo, five years after the nuclear deal went into effect, was one of the selling points of the deal for Iran in the first place.
But now, arguing that Iran’s destabilizing activities in the region make it too risky to allow unfettered arms sales to Tehran, Washington is threatening to force the issue and trigger an automatic “snapback” of all U.N. sanctions on Iran, placing it in direct confrontation with European allies as well as Russia, China, and Iran, which want to keep the nuclear pact alive.
This week, the major remaining parties have become increasingly vocal in their rejections of U.S. pretensions to still be involved in the JCPOA at all. On Monday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry called the U.S withdrawal from the accord the “root cause” of the current crisis, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the United Nations that American efforts to simultaneously leave the deal and try to determine its future are “ridiculous and irresponsible.”

On Tuesday, the European Union’s foreign-policy chief, Josep Borrell, attacked U.S. insistence that, even though it left the 2015 pact, it was still somehow a participant with a voice in its future. “They withdraw. It’s clear. They withdraw,” Borrell told reporters. On Wednesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called on Russia and China, both permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, to take steps to block any U.S. efforts to blow up a pact it hasn’t been party to for more than two years.
“This has been brewing for several months, and now all the dirty laundry is coming into the public eye,” said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
Iran has warned that it may withdraw entirely from the nuclear pact, as well as the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, if U.N. sanctions are reimposed, opening a path to the accelerated enrichment of uranium and shutting the door on international inspections of Iran’s nuclear program by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

The showdown threatens not just the viability of the Iran nuclear deal, which has been tottering for two years—but which the remaining participants still hope can be salvaged—but also the legitimacy of the U.N. Security Council.
“For people who oppose the JCPOA and who don’t like the U.N., this is a golden opportunity to kill two birds with one stone,” said Richard Nephew, who helped craft sanctions during the Obama administration. “In the worst-case scenario, the deal is dead, and the U.N. is rendered obsolete and neutered, which isn’t a bad thing from their [the Trump administration’s] perspective,” added Nephew, now at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy.
For an administration that came into office seeking to contain China and restrain Iran’s and North Korea’s nuclear programs, the approach seems misguided, said Jonathan Fulton, an expert on China and the Middle East at the Atlantic Council.
“You can’t solve North Korea or Iran without China, and you can’t solve North Korea if you blow up the JCPOA, because there’s no incentive to cooperate and any deal you make could be shredded,” he said. Then there was the yearslong Trump administration trade war with China. “It’s getting impossible to cooperate on anything,” he said.
Read More

An International Atomic Energy Agency inspector visits the Natanz enrichment facility, south of Tehran, on Jan. 20, 2014.
Despite U.S. Sanctions, Iran Expands Its Nuclear Stockpile
Two years after Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, Tehran has cut in half the time it would need to produce enough weapons-grade fuel for a nuclear bomb.
Report | Colum Lynch

Technicians work at the Arak heavy water nuclear reactor in Iran on Dec. 23, 2019.



The Iran Deal Is Not Dead Yet, but It’s Getting There
Europe’s decision to start the dispute settlement process may set the clock ticking on the deal’s ultimate demise.

Trump also appears to be making no progress against North Korea; on Friday, its news agency announced that the relationship between leader Kim Jong Un and Trump was terminated, two years after they first met in Singapore and raised hopes of a deal. “Nothing is more hypocritical than an empty promise,” North Korea’s foreign minister, Ri Son Gwon, said in a statement to the state-run Korean Central News Agency.
U.S. brinksmanship over the Iran question threatens to bring everything down. U.N. Security Council members could grudgingly concede that the United States, as it contends, has the right to unilaterally force the reimposition of the arms embargo—but that doesn’t mean anyone will honor it, least of all Russia and China.
“I don’t see any scenario where Russia and China agree to abide by snapback sanctions,” Nephew said. And worse, he suggested, it’s unlikely those permanent, veto-wielding members of the Security Council will sign up to any future efforts to use sanctions to rein in rogue states.

“We are not going to get another sanctions resolution at the U.N. Security Council for a generation, if ever. If you’re never going to get compliance from other states, it will be a choose-your-own-adventure—and nobody will do it,” Nephew said. Or, other states could simply refuse to even acknowledge the U.S. claim of a snapback on the embargo, which could lead to a paralyzed United Nations.
“In no circumstance will there be anything good. Either you have slow bleeding or you blow up the whole structure,” he said.
In the meantime, since the United States pulled out of the accord, Iran has carefully ramped its nuclear activities back up. It has restricted access to inspectors from the IAEA and reportedly hid past evidence of its nuclear program. It has shrugged off limits on the number of uranium-enriching centrifuges it can operate and has blown through limits on how big and how enriched its uranium stockpiles are—potentially bringing it closer to a nuclear bomb, the prevention of which was the whole point of the JCPOA in the first place. But experts say Iran isn’t racing for the bomb as much as trying to ramp up pressure on the remaining parties.

“The steps Iran took to breach the deal are serious and concerning, but they do not pose a near-term risk,” said Kelsey Davenport, a nonproliferation expert at the Arms Control Association. “Iran has breached the deal in a very calibrated, transparent manner—they are creating leverage, not dashing toward a bomb.”

Perhaps anticipating a deadlock, the United States has yet to engage in any substantive negotiations on an arms embargo in New York since February, when it first floated the idea of proposing a resolution extending the arms embargo on Iran beyond its October expiration. Diplomats say Washington has held some very general discussions about its plans in capitals, but it has held off those plans to table an actual resolution.
Kelly Craft, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said this month that the United States would soon distribute a draft resolution extending the arms embargo, though it’s doubtful Washington could muster the votes needed to pass it. That would leave the United States with the option of invoking the automatic “snapback” of the embargo on grounds that Iran has failed to meet its obligations—even though the IAEA found that Iran was in compliance until Washington withdrew from the deal.

The immediate point of contention between the United States and the rest of the parties to the pact is whether Washington even has a say in the fate of any aspect of the deal going forward. That is important because on Oct. 18, a U.N. arms embargo—which was extended for a five-year period as part of the Iran nuclear pact—is set to expire. The Trump administration insists that it is named as a participant in Resolution 2231, which endorsed the nuclear accord it no longer recognizes, so it can still play arbiter to a deal it has nothing to do with. The European Union, China, and Russia—like many experts—reject that idea.
“The U.S. legal argument is ludicrous. The United States has said on numerous occasions that it is no longer a part of JCPOA, but it is cherry-picking elements of 2231 that support its pressure campaign while refusing to meet U.S. obligations elsewhere,” Davenport said.

For now, Iran, Russia, China, and European parties to the deal seem to be playing for time, trying to hold the nuclear accord together at least through the November U.S. presidential election. Russia and other countries are toying with procedural efforts to slow down the U.S. march to the snapback. If presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden wins—as recent polls suggest is a possibility—the deal could be resuscitated, though any additional restrictions on Iran’s missile programs and regional activities would require Tehran’s approval.

But the Trump administration seems determined to employ a scorched-earth policy and ensure that, whatever happens in November, Barack Obama’s Iran deal is a cadaver.
“Iran hawks want to kill any trace of the JCPOA before the term is up, burn down any diplomatic bridges with Iran,” said Geranmayeh of ECFR.

Others concur that the U.S. effort to invoke U.N. arms sanctions on Iran—against the wishes of all the parties to the accord—would be a way to demolish any talk of reviving a deal that has been anathema to Republicans for five years. Trump has occasionally talked of driving the Iranians back to the table for a new deal, but Tehran has refused.
“This is about smashing the JCPOA and ensuring that any future administration cannot put the pieces back together,” Davenport said. And she warned that future efforts to curb nuclear proliferation could be endangered if Washington decides to reimpose an arms embargo that helped bring Iran to the nuclear table in the first place.

“They are trying to change the goal posts,” she said. “If the United States goes down this road, it would have serious consequences not just for the Iran deal but for nuclear proliferation writ large.” And the fallout from this fight could have even bigger impacts as the United States still seeks to corral international support to deal with rogue regimes from North Korea to Venezuela.
“If we are in a situation where there is such a fundamental clash between the United States and other permanent members [of the Security Council], they are going to have a much more difficult time pushing through resolutions on areas where the United States may have previously been able to persuade Russia and China to come aboard,” Geranmayeh said.
“It could really do irreparable damage to the U.N. Security Council framework.”




Keith Johnson is a senior staff writer at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @KFJ_FP



Colum Lynch is a senior staff writer at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @columlynch

posted for fair use
 
Top