WAR 06-23-2018-to-06-29-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
(326) 06-02-2018-to-06-08-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...6-08-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(327) 06-09-2018-to-06-15-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...6-15-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(328) 06-16-2018-to-06-22-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...6-22-2018___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.rferl.org/a/flare-up-between-kosovo-and-serbia-after-liberian-gaffe/29314209.html

Flare-Up Between Kosovo And Serbia After Liberian Gaffe

June 22, 2018 17:18 GMT
Pete Baumgartner
Arbana Vidishiqi

When Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia a decade ago, the tenderfoot government in Pristina began a staunch duel with Belgrade to be recognized by the world.

With 53 countries recognizing Kosovo's long-sought statehood in the first year after the 2008 proclamation on statehood, official acknowledgements from around the world dwindled to two in 2017 and just one, Barbados, so far this year.

Serbia has vowed many times it will not recognize Kosovo as an independent state and has actively tried to dissuade -- along with powerful friend Russia -- other countries from formally doing so.

So there was great glee in Belgrade upon hearing Liberian Foreign Minister Gbehzohngar Milton Findley say in Belgrade on June 20 that his country was reversing its decade-old decision to recognize Kosovo. In a further slight, he described it as "the province of Kosovo."

The apparent diplomatic blow to Europe's newest state was arguably more stinging because it was coming from the first African colony founded by outsiders to have declared independence, in 1847.

"The essence of what my friend and brother said is that the Republic of Liberia, which recognized Kosovo in 2008, has now taken the decision to annul the note on recognition...until the negotiations within the EU-facilitated dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia end," Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic said. "For us, this decision is very important, good, and positive, because it shows that this dialogue process continues and this is, in a way, our contribution to the...dialogue in Brussels, which will resume on [June 24]."

Pristina was quick to challenge the idea that Findley had withdrawn recognition.
Kosovar Foreign Minister Behgjet Pacolli said on June 20 that he had spoken with the Liberian government and that they had "confirmed" that Liberia "has not revoked the recognition of Kosovo."

He added that the "news...spread by Serbian media is fake and part of the fake news attempts by Serbian FM Ivica Dacic."

Behgjet Pacolli

@pacollibehgjet


I just spoke with the Government of Liberia and they confirmed to me that #Liberia has not revoked the recognition of #Kosovo. The news and note spread by Serbian media is fake and part of the fake news attempts by Serbian FM Ivica Dacic. We will counter these actions.
7:22 AM - Jun 20, 2018

122

65 people are talking about this

Kosovar parliament speaker Kadri Veseli told RFE/RL on June 21 that "I do not want to waste energy on Serbia's efforts, which are disappointing."

Indeed, whatever the Liberian foreign minister intended to say in the Serbian capital, the Liberian Foreign Ministry "reaffirmed" its bilateral ties with Kosovo in an official statement on June 22. It refuted the "reports in some international and social media of its revocation of diplomatic relations with the Republic of Kosovo."

Kosovo currently says it has received official recognition from 117 countries (see list) and has also been accepted into many international sports bodies, including FIFA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC).

Serbia is known to lobby countries that have already recognized Kosovo in hopes of getting them to reverse their decisions.

Dacic predicted during a visit to Argentina in November that the number of countries to have recognized Kosovo's statehood would eventually dip to "less than 100."

"At first glance, [the diplomatic effort to get nonrecognitions] looks like a Sisyphean task," Dusan Janjic, president of the Forum for Ethnic Relations NGO in Belgrade, told RFE/RL. "Obviously, the idea is not to reach the top of the hill, but to simply roll the stone."

Janjic said Serbia is trying to prove to its people that "we are persistent, we fight, we accomplish what we can and...somewhat complicate Kosovo's path toward UNESCO and the UN."

The Liberian muddle is not the first instance of Belgrade asserting that a country was annulling its recognition of Kosovo's independence.

In late 2017, Serbian officials said both Suriname ​ and Guinea-Bissau had withdrawn their recognition of Kosovo.

Two months ago, it claimed that Burundi had done likewise.

Pristina responded by saying it had not received any official notification from those countries that they no longer recognize Kosovo's independence.

The reports of Suriname's alleged reversal emerged after its foreign minister, Yldiz Pollack-Beighle, had met in Moscow with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Analyst Janjic said Moscow's support is crucial for the anti-Kosovo independence battle.

"I think it’s mainly about the assistance, in a diplomatic sense, on the part of so-called friends of [the countries that Belgrade is trying to get to annul their recognition of Kosovo], with Russia being one of the most important partners," he said.

Janjic added that Belgrade uses a combination of "lobbying with money," intelligence, and political connections -- including ties from Yugoslavia's decades as a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement -- to try to convince countries not to recognize Kosovo, its former province, as an independent state.

Despite Serbia's efforts to ruin Kosovo's ongoing drive for recognition, Kosovar parliament speaker Veseli is not worried.

"We will get even more recognitions," he says, "because Kosovo is going to join the UN, and then the number of specific [country] recognitions will be irrelevant."

Kosovo's independence, he says with confidence, is an "irreversible reality."

RFE/RL Balkan Service correspondent Amra Zejneli contributed to this report from Pristina.

Pete Baumgartner
Pete Baumgartner is a senior correspondent who primarily covers politics and sports in Central Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus.
BaumgartnerP@rferl.org
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
parallel universe
��️*�� Retweeted
BNL NEWS
‏ @BreakingNLive
13m13 minutes ago

BREAKING: Bomb goes off in assassination attempt on the President of Zimbabwe.
Developing...
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Guy Elster
‏Verified account @guyelster
46m46 minutes ago

#BREAKING Explosion reported at #Zimbabwee president's campaign rally, Mnangagwa not hurt: state media
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Guy Elster
‏Verified account @guyelster
31m31 minutes ago

#Zimbabwe two vice president and a minister sustained injuries in the blast at a stadium in the second city of Bulawayo, that was aimed probably against the president
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/clash-leave-militants-soldiers-dead-pakistan-56104379

Clash leave 6 militants, 2 soldiers dead in Pakistan

By The Associated Press
DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan — Jun 23, 2018, 5:49 AM ET

Pakistan's army says it killed six militants in a search operation in South Waziristan near the Afghan border where two soldiers were also killed in the clash.

A military statement says the operation was conducted Saturday in the Spina Mela area based on information that some militants entered there from Afghanistan disguised as tribesmen being repatriated into the area.

The tribes were dislocated from Spina Mela for a military operation in 2009 and were being repatriated.

The statement says weapons and communications tools were seized from the scene. It says the militants were in contact with their handlers in the Paktia province of Afghanistan.

Mohammad Khurasani, spokesman for Pakistani Taliban militants, claimed his group attacked the troops in South Waziristan.
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Nidalgazaui
‏ @Nidalgazaui
31 Jul 2016

US Airstrike Targeted today an ISIS Fighting Position near the Outskrits of #Manbij.
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more


Nidalgazaui
‏ @Nidalgazaui
4m4 minutes ago

Costa Rica #ISIS:

After spotting pro Islamic State messages on a wall in Costa Rica last week, this man has been spotted walking in the streets with an #ISIS flag yesterday
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more


Show this thread
Nidalgazaui
‏ @Nidalgazaui
11m11 minutes ago

#Kashmir: Pro #ISIS supporters climbed on Telecom Tower and played "Mawkab al-Noor" nasheed and raised the Islamic State flag after killing 4 #Indian soldiers In Srigufwara Anantnag, #India
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more


Nidalgazaui
‏ @Nidalgazaui
2h2 hours ago

#GERMANY #SYRIA

Photos of 2 foreign #German jihadis in the ranks of newly formed Tandim Hurras al-Deen (Al-Qaeda) in #Syria's #Idlib. One of the German Jihadis is wearing a suicide belt
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more


Nidalgazaui
‏ @Nidalgazaui
2h2 hours ago

#BREAKING: ISIS has kidnapped 3 Iraqi SWAT special unit soldiers from central #Tikrit city
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
parallel universe
‏ @ignis_fatum
1m1 minute ago

#BREAKING
Locals report loud explosions over Riyadh
#KSA #SaudiArabia
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
parallel universe
Retweeted
John Arterbury
‏Verified account @JohnArterbury
2m2 minutes ago

John Arterbury Retweeted Sundus Noor

Early reports of possible missile interception(s) over Riyadh
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
ELINT News
‏ @ELINTNews
1m1 minute ago

#BREAKING: Initial reports of multiple ballistic missiles fired at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, bright flashes in the sky and heavy explosions rock the city
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Brad
‏ @usafshortwave
44s44 seconds ago

Seems multiple ballistic missiles were fired at Riyadh, unclear if all are/were intercepted
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
The Intel Crab
‏ @IntelCrab
2m2 minutes ago

The Intel Crab Retweeted Terror Events

Multiple ballistic missile interceptions now underway above the capital of Saudi Arabia.

The Intel Crab added,
Terror Events
@TerrorEvents
#SaudiArabia #Riyadh - Loud explosions heard above Riyadh.

The Intel Crab Retweeted
Faris
‏ @Faris_mensa
7m7 minutes ago

@IntelCrab Heard more than one ballistic missile 2 min ago in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
 

mzkitty

I give up.
ELINT News
‏ @ELINTNews
3m3 minutes ago

ELINT News Retweeted Sundus Noor

#BREAKING: Locals report seeing at least 3 ballistic missiles in the skies over Riyadh, 2 reportedly intercepted and ‘burst into flames’, heavy explosions
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
The Israel Link
‏ @TheIsraelink
3m3 minutes ago

Saudi Arabia: Multiple ballistic missiles launched on Riadh.



Instant News Alerts
‏ @InstaNewsAlerts
8m8 minutes ago

#Breaking: Likely multiple ballistic missile interceptions in #Riyadh #SaudiArabia



LifeStylist
‏ @AbbyGuguBanda
6m6 minutes ago

LifeStylist Retweeted Instant News Alerts

Not likely, DEFINITELY.. I heard at least 6 blasts!

LifeStylist added,
Instant News Alerts
@InstaNewsAlerts
#Breaking: Likely multiple ballistic missile interceptions in #Riyadh #SaudiArabia
Show this thread
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Guy Elster
‏Verified account @guyelster
5m5 minutes ago

#BREAKING Saudi air defences intercepted a ballistic missile launched by #Yemen's Houthi militia above the capital #Riyadh: media
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Instant News Alerts
‏ @InstaNewsAlerts
5m5 minutes ago

Instant News Alerts Retweeted العربية السعودية

Video of an interception. #Riyadh #SaudiArabia #Breaking

Instant News Alerts added,
0:18
العربية السعودية
Verified account @AlArabiya_KSA
شاهد.. اعتراض صاروخ باليستي أطلقته ميليشيات الحوثي فوق الرياض #العربية_عاجل


video clip at link
https://twitter.com/kann_news/status/1010946080966627328
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-06/25/c_137278078.htm

Yemen's Houthis fire ballistic missiles at Saudi capital

Source: Xinhua| 2018-06-25 04:41:04|Editor: Mu Xuequan

SANAA, June 24 (Xinhua) -- Yemen's Houthi rebels said they fired several ballistic missiles toward the Saudi capital Riyadh on Sunday, while Saudi media reported the interception of one missile.

In a statement posted on the Houthi-controlled Saba news agency, the rebels said they fired several missiles aimed at an information center of the Saudi defense ministry and other royal targets in Riyadh.

The rebels did not specify an exact number of the missiles they fired or the name of the three other Saudi royal targets.

Meanwhile, Saudi-owned Al Arabiya television reported that the Saudi air defenses intercepted one missile over Riyadh and destroyed it.

The television did not report further details.

The Houthi missile attack was the latest in a series of frequent attacks against various areas in the kingdom, with the majority of the missiles reportedly intercepted.

The attack comes as fighting escalates between the Iranian-allied Houthi rebels and pro-government Yemeni troops, supported by the Saudi-led coalition in the Yemeni Red Sea port city of Hodeidah.

The coalition-backed troops have been advancing slowly into the center of the rebel-held city, in attempts to capture it after seizing control of the airport from the rebels last week.

The military action forced thousands of residents to flee their homes as humanitarian agencies have warned of the most anticipated humanitarian catastrophe in the modern history if the armies move ahead to storm the city with a population of 600,000.

The coalition aimed to deprive Houthi movement of their solo vital sea port. Saudi Arabia accuses Houthis of smuggling in Iranian missile technology and weapons through the port, which are denied by both Houthis and Iran.

Saudi Arabia has been leading an Arab coalition in the war against the Iranian-allied Shiite Houthis since March 2015 to support the Yemeni exiled government.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/xi-says-china-must-lead-way-reform-global-131025093.html

Xi says China must lead way in reform of global governance

Reuters
June 23, 2018

BEIJING (Reuters) - China must lead the way in reforming global governance, the foreign ministry on Saturday cited President Xi Jinping as saying, as Beijing looks to increase its world influence.

China has sought a greater say in global organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and United Nations, in line with its growing economic and diplomatic clout.

Since taking office in late 2012, Xi has taken a more muscular approach, setting up China's own global bodies like the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and launching his landmark Belt and Road project to build a new Silk Road.

Beijing has cast itself a responsible member of the international community, especially as President Donald Trump withdraws the United States from agreements on climate change and Iran, and as Europe wrestles with Brexit and other issues.

China must "uphold the protection of the country's sovereignty, security and development interests, proactively participate in and show the way in reform of the global governance system, creating an even better web of global partnership relationships", Xi said in comments reported at the end of a two-day high-level Communist Party meeting.

This would help create conditions for building a modern, strong socialist country, the ministry cited him as saying at the meeting attended by officials from the foreign and commerce ministries, the military, the propaganda department and the Chinese embassy in the United States.

While Xi did not provide details, the statement cited him as mentioning the importance of the Belt and Road, and other key diplomatic platforms like his "community of common destiny", a lofty concept meant to guide China's relations with the world.

This proposes a "new style" of international relations is proposed that is "win-win" and of "mutual benefit" for all, but many Western nations remain critical of China's behavior over issues such as the contested waters of the South China Sea.

Xi added that China must strengthen its relations with developing nations, who he described as natural allies, but also learn from all other nations.

He made no direct mention of issues like the trade dispute between China and the United States, North Korea, or self-ruled Taiwan, claimed by Beijing as its own and considered China's most sensitive territorial and diplomatic issue.

(Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Alexander Smith)

View Reactions (234)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/nigeria-apos-deeply-unfortunate-killings-214721256.html

Nigeria: 'Deeply unfortunate killings' as 86 reported dead

The Canadian Press
June 24, 2018
Comment

LAGOS, Nigeria — Nigeria's presidency late Sunday announced a "deeply unfortunate killings across a number of communities" in central Plateau State as one report cited police as saying 86 people were dead in clashes between mostly Muslim herders and Christian farmers.

President Muhammadu Buhari appealed for calm as the military and police tried to end the bloodshed, and said "no efforts will be spared" to find the attackers and prevent reprisal attacks.

Nigeria's government did not announce a death toll. But the independent Channels Television cited a Plateau State police spokesman, Mathias Tyopev, as saying 86 people had been killed, with at least 50 houses destroyed, in violence that appeared to have started overnight.

Deadly clashes between herders and farmers in central Nigeria are a growing security concern in Africa's most populous country, which is roughly split between Muslims in the north and Christians in the south.

The fighting between herders and farmers by some accounts has been deadlier than Nigeria's Boko Haram extremist insurgency, which continues to carry out attacks in the northeast.

That extremist threat has been cited as one cause of the growing tensions in central Nigeria as herders — also feeling the effects of climate change — are forced south into more populated farming communities in search of safe grazing.

The widespread security issues pose a major challenge to Buhari, a Muslim former military ruler who won office in a democratic transfer of power in 2015, as elections approach next year.

While few details emerged immediately of the latest killings, Nigerians for hours Sunday on social media shared a growing sense that something awful had occurred.

Earlier in the day the Plateau State governor, Simon Bako Lalong, announced a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew after saying had woken up to the "shocking news" of the attacks. In a series of message posted on Twitter he gave few details about "this horrible situation."

The governor said the curfew affects the communities of Jos South, Riyom and Barkin Ladi "and is in effect until further notice."

___

Follow Africa news at https://twitter.com/AP_Africa

The Associated Press
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
This was touched on and discussed on John Batchelor's broadcast of 20 June...I just don't see this with the current regime running the place....HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-united-states-needs-north-000800957.html

Why the United States Needs North Korea to Stay Nuclear

The National Interest
Hongyu Zhang, Kevin Wang, The National Interest • June 24, 2018

A nuclear North Korea is not a threat, but an ideal stabilizer.
Why the United States Needs North Korea to Stay Nuclear

Many are hopeful that the June 12 summit in Singapore between President Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will lead to denuclearization and peace on the Korean Peninsula. Others believe the historical record makes clear that such a hope is overly optimistic. But what if allowing North Korea to retain its nuclear arsenal could both lead to peace and benefit America’s long-term security interests in the region?

There are two reasons for this. First, possessing nuclear weapons is the best way to pacify North Korea and constrain its aggression. Second, a secure and independent North Korea (without the presence of Chinese or U.S. forces) would also provide a buffer against great power tensions. The long-term primary objective of U.S. strategy in East Asia should be to contain a rising China. To achieve this, the United States must minimize Chinese influence on its neighboring states—whether they are U.S. allies or not. A limited North Korean nuclear arsenal is the most effective way to make this happen.

The United States should, therefore, continue reaching out diplomatically to North Korea and even end some sanctions to seek long-term stability. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, a nuclear North Korea and a balanced peninsula are the best possible outcome for the region and the world.

The View From Pyongyang: A Need for Balance

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union’s backing of North Korea and U.S. backing of South Korea were roughly equal, resulting in a stable power balance on the Korean Peninsula. However, since the Soviet collapse, the balance of power has rapidly shifted against North Korea. The United States continues to lead the Republic of Korea (ROK)-U.S. Combined Forces Command and regularly renews its security commitments in the region. In contrast, Russia abolished its alliance treaty with North Korea in 1994. China also refused to replace the Soviet Union as North Korea’s patron when the matter was discussed between Deng Xiaoping and Kim Il-sung in 1991.

Without this balance, the peninsula has been in prolonged instability and frequently came close to military confrontation. As a sovereign state ruled by a totalitarian regime, North Korea has shown its willingness to guarantee its security at any cost. Intensifying military and economic pressure against the North has only made it more defiant and unpredictable. Therefore, any solution to the present crisis must take into account the security of this sovereign nation. Clearly, massive militarization and isolation are not a long-term solution for North Korea.

Security guarantees from China are not a solution, either. Until recently, China's North Korea policy has been passive and minimal in commitment. Per the terms of its “friendship treaty” with North Korea, China is obliged to “render military and other assistance by all means at its disposal” in the event North Korea comes under “armed attack by any state.” However, China is not bound by this obligation primarily due to the treaty. Its primary motivation for intervention in North Korea is due to its security concerns—not those of the regime in Pyongyang. Beijing will lose more defensive capabilities if North Korea falls into the hands of an adversary, whoever it may be.

Yet, China does not intend to do anything more than is necessary to meet this policy goal. China’s reluctant relationship with North Korea may help it deter a large-scale invasion by ROK-U.S. forces, but does little to assuage other security threats. The ROK-U.S. combined forces have a rich set of military options with which to threaten the North. These include limited operations for punitive or coercive purposes that target North Korea’s vital industrial or nuclear facilities. American and South Korea even have the capacity for decapitation strikes. Furthermore, China’s options in assisting North Korea to cope with these threats are limited since it must always balance the strategic importance of North Korea with the economic importance of South Korea and its need to avoid overt confrontation with the United States.

North Korea itself has a clear understanding of China’s unenthusiastic role in its security. In a commentary published by Korean Central News Agency during the peak of last year’s crisis, North Korea made it clear that it holds its nuclear weapons dearer than its friendship with China. In short, the quiet alliance between China and North Korea does not ensure security to the North Korean regime other than preventing a massive military attack.

Therefore, not only do nuclear weapons offer a level of security that Chinese assurances do not, but they also are the most cost-effective way for a resource-poor North Korea to achieve sustainable security. A nuclear North Korea is not a threat, but an ideal stabilizer. The balance of power on the Korean peninsula and that between the United States and China are interrelated. China's rise has the potential to shift the regional balance, making confrontation more likely in the future. If a limited nuclear capability guarantees North Korea's existence and independence, it can provide a buffer space to keep Chinese forces in China and U.S. troops stationed in South Korea separate. If U.S. and Chinese forces were to face each other on the Korean peninsula directly, there would be a higher chance for clash and escalation, especially given already tense standoff the United States and China face in the East and South China Seas. Restoring the power balance between the North and South will not only stabilize the peninsula but also help manage the power relationship between the United States and China.

Some common concerns about a nuclear North Korea include the damage to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)’s authority and the domino effect of proliferation. Other worries also are a politically unstable North Korea losing control of nuclear weapons or a more emboldened and aggressive North Korea. However, the problem on the Korean peninsula relates to long-standing and complicated geopolitical issues, that the NPT was not necessarily designed to address. There is also no evidence to suggest that a rapid wave of proliferation would sweep the region as long as the United States maintains the status quo and strengthens its commitments in the region.

There have been four instances of nuclear states facing instability: the French General’s Revolt, the Cultural Revolution in China, the unseating of Bhutto in Pakistan, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. The record shows that no matter which domestic group gains control of the state, all parties show great restraint with regards to the use of nuclear weapons. The stakes are simply too high. As Waltz once put it, “obtaining nuclear weapons is a sobering event.” States become more aware of the negative attention they receive from the international community after acquiring the bomb and actually act more cautiously, and North Korea will likely do the same going forward.

Another concern is that an emboldened North Korea will use these weapons to force reunification under its terms. At the very least it is assumed that they will be more likely to engage in cross-border attacks such as the shelling of islands and the sinking of the South Korean ship Cheonan in 2010. But, these arguments do not account for the evidence suggesting that nuclear weapons are not useful tools of conquest or coercion. The overwhelming U.S. responses with both conventional and nuclear forces are enough to deter North Korea from engaging in any act of nuclear blackmail.

Even though Pyongyang's nuclear capability can hit targets in South Korea and Japan, these two countries should not worry too much about this nuclear threat. As explained above, this nuclear force is meant to close a power gap, not to give North Korea an offensive advantage. Research shows that atomic weapons are perfect instruments of deterrence, but poor instruments of coercion. Furthermore, North Korea declared a no-first-use policy in May 2016 and recently renewed this pledge in its Third Plenary Meeting of the Seventh Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Korea. More importantly, the threat posed by North Korea can be alleviated if it is brought into a larger block, if even just a tacit one, to balance a rising China.

A Broader Benefit: Balancing China

China’s security commitment towards North Korea has historically been minimal since the Korean War. However, recent tensions between Beijing and Washington and interactions between Beijing and Pyongyang suggest that China is no longer able to afford this minimal policy. In the future, it may be China that would seek to project power into a non-nuclear North Korea. Offensive realism would predict that a China more confident in its conventional capabilities may seek to directly balance the U.S.-ROK alliance by subjugating North Korea and basing Chinese forces on the peninsula. Eventually, it would try to expel U.S. forces from the peninsula, implementing its version of the Monroe Doctrine. Were it not for its nuclear deterrent, North Korea would be the most logical space for China to project power into due to its weak conventional military but strategically valuable location. A Chinese military presence in North Korea would not only undermine U.S. interests but regional and global stability as well.

It is important for American policymakers to remember that a significant reason for the Sino-Soviet split was the Chinese fear of ever increasing Soviet influence and military presence on Chinese territory. North Korea likely fears China for the same reasons, especially given its history of colonization and foreign occupation. North Korea has not had foreign military forces on its territory since Mao pulled out all Chinese troops in 1958. This was due to North Korea’s nationalistic ideology and aversion to Soviet and Chinese influence in the wake of the August incident—which Kim Il-Sung believed was a plot to overthrow him. Kim Jong-un may also have perceived a similar threat shortly after taking power. The execution of Kim’s uncle Jang Song-thaek and the assassination of Kim Jong-nam, Kim’s half-brother, were likely due to their connections with China.

North Korea’s fear of Chinese control is one area where North Korean and American interests of containing China actually align. Moreover, North Korea would prefer to have the ability to hedge between two superpowers to get the best deal, which is only possible by reducing China’s monopoly on economic leverage over North Korea. In the same way that a nuclear China was useful in containing the USSR in the 1970s, North Korea may be helpful in containing China today. A tacit agreement to allow the DPRK to retain a minimal but credible nuclear deterrent is advantageous to U.S. interests in that it maintains a source of friction in Sino-North Korean relations. By possessing nukes, North Korea will be more independent from Chinese influence and can turn away from China. Thus, a nuclear North Korea would be a viable solution to the imbalance of power on the Korean peninsula after the end of the Cold War. Finally, North Korea would also benefit the long-term U.S. strategy of containing Chinese expansionism. This China containment policy can only be successful if the United States is willing to politically and economically engage with North Korea.

In a 1967 article in Foreign Affairs, Richard Nixon stated that “Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside the family of nations, there to nurture its fantasies, cherish its hates and threaten its neighbors.” If Nixon, along with Henry Kissinger’s support, could understand the strategic value of engaging a former adversary with newly acquired nuclear weapons, perhaps policymakers can see the strategic value of doing so with North Korea today.

Hongyu Zhang is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Government at the College of William & Mary, and can be reached at hzhang17@wm.edu. His research focuses on nuclear proliferation, East Asian security, and Chinese foreign policy.

Kevin Wang is a Research Assistant at the National Defense University’s College of International Security Affairs (CISA) for Nuclear Security and Nonproliferation Issues. He can be reached at kwang@email.wm.edu.

Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the authors. The article does not represent the positions of the institutions in which they work. All errors and oversights remain their own.
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
A while back (weeks? days?) I saw an article about Stormy Daniels going to be in Washington DC. I thought it had been posted on tb2k, but I can't find it, so guess I saw it on twitter.

I thought maybe what I had seen before might have something to do with this tweet I just saw.

I don't want to start a thread, so putting it here.


The Intel Crab Retweeted
NBC News
‏Verified account @NBCNews
21m21 minutes ago

JUST IN: Stormy Daniels' attorney Michael Avenatti says federal prosecutors have canceled a meeting scheduled for Monday after the existence of the meeting was was reported publicly.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm…..I wonder how Putin is going to pay for all of that?....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://militarywatchmagazine.com/read.php?my_data=70725

Russia to Expand its Carrier Fleet with Two Advanced New Assault Ship Classes; Vertical Takeoff Aircraft Could Follow

June 24-2018

Since the late 2000s the Russian military has planned to develop helicopter carrying amphibious assault ships domestically under a program similar to the South Korean Dokdo Class and French Mistral Class. In August 2009, Chief of the Russian General Staff General Nikolai Makarov suggested that Russia enter a joint project with France to develop these warships, first purchasing one carrier from French builders and constructing three more in Russia itself. Makarov stated that while Russia would be able to undertake such a program and build these warships to a similar standard domestically, doing so would require a ten year delay to develop the necessary technologies - hence why a joint program was preferable to provide the carriers at an earlier date. Seeking to support its flagging domestic shipbuilding industry, French President Nicolas Sarkozy pressed for the first two warships to be built in France and the second two in Russia - both of which would make extensive use of Russian components. Two more would then be built in Russia under a joint venture, providing Russia with a fleet of four of the light carriers. These warships were French Mistral Class vessels, and the joint program was set to considerably strengthen Russia’s military shipbuilding capabilities - which following the collapse of the Soviet Union and loss of shipyards in Ukraine had flagged considerably.

France would go on to cancel the contract to provide Mistral Class warships to Russia after their completion, which came as a response to heightened tensions between Moscow and the Western Bloc due to a clash of interests in Ukraine in 2014. Russia has since worked to develop the capabilities to built light carrier warships domestically, and according to Navy Deputy Commander in Chief Viktor Bursuk the country is scheduled to begin construction of the first warship in 2020. The official indicated that two amphibious assault ship variants were planned, which he referred to as a “universal amphibious assault ship” and “large amphibious assault ship.” According to Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov and a number of other Russian defence ministry sources, the first of the warships are set to enter service in the early 2020s. The decision to develop two carrier types in parallel closely mirrors the Japanese Navy’s approach, developing the Izumo Class and the lighter Hyuga Class and inducting two of each vessel into service.

Assuming a similar size to the Mistral Class vessels, Russia’s new carrier will be by far the largest surface warships the country’s navy has commissioned since the fragmentation of the Soviet Union. Russia has since focused heavily on expanding its attack and ballistic submarine fleets, and has yet to construct any surface vessels larger than a frigate for its fleet - relying heavily on modernising its large Soviet era destroyers. With only a limited number of destroyers available, Russia’s new carriers are likely to be heavily armed to reduce the need for a large escort fleet - much as the country’s Kuznetsov Class and the Soviet Kiev Class carriers were. It also remains a possibility, particularly for the ‘large amphibious assault ship’ referred to by the Deputy Commander in Chief, that Russia may well develop a new fixed wing aircraft to operate from its warships. With these ships potentially approaching the size of the Japanese Izumo Class or even the Untied States' own American Class carrier warships, this remains a considerable possibility. Much like the United States developed the F-35B with short takeoff vertical landing (STOVL) to operate from its own amphibious assault ships, so too did the Soviet Union before it develop Yak-38 Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) strike fighter to operate from its own Kiev Class vessels - which lacked runways entirely. These aircraft served until the year of the Soviet disintegration, when the more advanced Yakovlev 141 VTOL fighter was also cancelled with four prototypes built. The possibility of a resurrection of the Yak-141 program, or a derivative program making use of similar technologies, remains a considerable possibility for the Russian Navy to equip its new carriers - thus allowing it to field a larger force of fixed wing aircraft carrying warships without the costs of developing and operating a vessel the size of the Kuznetsov, Ulaynovsk or SHOTRM ships. Whether the development of new carriers for the Russian Navy will herald a renaissance in the country’s shipbuilding, and lead to the commissioning of destroyers and other large surface warships in future, remains to be seen.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm...Recall a few years ago the organized protests in Beijing by RIF'd PLA commissioned officers?....


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-veterans-protests.html

China’s Ex-Soldiers Join Its Legions of Protesters

By Chris Buckley
June 25, 2018

BEIJING — They converge from across China, marching in the hundreds, ungainly from lack of training but proudly waving red national flags and wearing green uniforms recalling years of military service. Then they line up in front of government buildings.

But they come to protest, not protect, the officials sheltered inside.

They are the latest discontented group to upset the Chinese Communist Party’s image of imperturbable dominance: People’s Liberation Army veterans who have held protests across several cities in recent weeks over what they say is mistreatment, poor job prospects and inadequate benefits.

Video

The latest erupted last week in Zhenjiang, a city in Jiangsu Province in eastern China. Hundreds of former soldiers — some online accounts claimed thousands — rushed there after rumors spread that at least one veteran had been beaten while seeking government help. The precise course of events is unclear, but for many protesters, the episode crystallized their broader anger with officialdom.

“The problem is that there’s too much corruption at the local level,” Chen Wuliang, a former soldier from eastern China who said he had gone to Zhenjiang, said by telephone. “Where the local corruption is bad is also where old veterans who fought in wars are worst oppressed.”

The recent burst of veteran-led protests does not present a dire threat to Communist Party rule, which remains broadly popular and backed by a daunting police apparatus. On Monday, the protests in Zhenjiang appeared to have dispersed.

But the demonstrations show how even under the sweeping dominance of President Xi Jinping discontent persists, taking forms that can catch the government by surprise. The veterans, coming from across the country and with tight bonds formed in military service, are a particularly stubborn headache.

“We’re comrades in arms and all keep in touch,” Mr. Chen said. “Generally, it’s through WeChat and sometimes the phone,” he said, referring to a vastly popular social media service.

Other Chinese cities have been struck by similar protests in recent months. In late May, many hundreds of veterans gathered for days in Luohe, a city in central China, after accounts spread that a former soldier’s wife had been detained by the police after she joined veterans who had gone to Beijing to demand better treatment.

Video

In mid-June, veterans protested in Zhongjiang County, in southern China, after rumors spread that a disabled former soldier there had been beaten by the police. Websites dedicated to human rights issues in China record many more smaller assemblies by aggrieved veterans, often after they lose jobs or fail to win improved benefits.

Party leaders in Beijing were shocked in 2016 and early 2017 when about a thousand veterans twice entered the capital and sat in protest — the first time outside the People’s Liberation Army headquarters, and the second outside the party’s anticorruption agency.

Despite censors, Chinese internet chat rooms for veterans are still lively with talk of the various protests. After the latest one, a message warned that former soldiers were honing their skills in confrontation, just as they had once drilled on parade grounds.

“No matter whether it’s political brains, strategy and tactics, objectives and orientation, organizational means or operational efficiency, it’s all been very much like a successful war of encirclement,” a message said on a website for Chinese veterans. “The self-organized ‘rights self-defense’ by us ex-service personnel seems to have secured another victory.”

Demonstrations and petitions by aggrieved former service personnel go back many decades in China. In the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping retrenched one million troops, and from the 1990s, many found it hard to find secure work as market reforms eroded guaranteed government job assignments.

But the sizable protests this year are still striking because Mr. Xi has often praised Chinese soldiers, promised better treatment for veterans and this year established a Ministry of Veterans Affairs intended to end bureaucratic buck-passing over their needs.

“The ministry should provide better service and protect the legal rights and interests of veterans so that military service can be one of the most dignified careers,” Vice Premier Sun Chunlan said when the ministry began operations in April.

Despite such steps, many former soldiers feel a gulf between the rhetorical laurels from the government and the practical problems they face. The new ministry has already become a destination for veterans who feel that local officials have ignored their grievances.

Video

Many veterans seem “highly skeptical that the establishment of a new ministry will matter much, and interpret it as a symbolic concession,” Neil J. Diamant, a professor at Dickinson College in Pennsylvania who studies protests by Chinese veterans, said by email.

“A new ministry gives veterans an address, but no more power,” he said. “They remain supplicants for state largess — and this is exactly how the government wants it to remain.”

China has more serving military personnel than any other country, and by official estimate it has 57 million veterans, most of them recruited from villages and towns for a few years’ service. That makes for a large pool of potential discontent.

Often, protesting veterans are unhappy that they have been shunted into low-end work or lost their jobs in cutbacks. Other sources of complaint are poor medical care, and pensions and stipends smaller than they believe is their due. Many veterans, using a Chinese saying, liken themselves to donkeys slaughtered after they are too old to work a grindstone.

“The government increasingly proclaims its having ‘arrived’ in the rank of top nations,” Professor Diamant said. “Veterans have noticed this. Naturally, they wonder why should they struggle for medicine and pensions when the government they served is now rich.”

Not all the veterans contacted for this article supported the demonstrations or said that their living conditions were stagnant. Some said that more spending by local governments in recent years had helped. Those who spoke on the record did not want their precise whereabouts described.

“Our treatment here has improved,” said Gao Xiangxu, a veteran who lives in a northern Chinese city. “I’m not sure about other places.”

But apart from strained living conditions, discontented veterans said that they had not been afforded the dignity they expected from society after years of poorly paid service, and sometimes sacrifice in wars. Quite a number say they fought in China’s war against Vietnam in 1979, when the People’s Liberation Army forces declared victory but suffered ignominious setbacks.

“When we old soldiers were young and went to the front line, we were answering the call of the country and the party to fight Vietnam,” said Zheng Huizu, a veteran from eastern China. He said that he had wanted to protest in Zhenjiang but that local officials had stopped him.

“If we old soldiers hadn’t gone to fight against Vietnam, how could things have gone smoothly for our country?” he said by telephone. “Without heroes to fight a battle, how can a country be at peace?”

Under Mr. Xi, the Chinese police and security forces have already clamped down on protests and dissent, especially by liberal opponents of the party. Clamping down on veterans presents more delicate complications. They often declare their loyalty to the party and carry pictures of Mao and Mr. Xi as proof.

The government appears likely to tighten surveillance and perhaps offer concessions to veterans in an effort to douse protests. But some former soldiers warned that they would wait only so long to see if the new Ministry of Veteran Affairs improved their lives.

“If the ministry is just decoration, the same old medicine in a different broth,” a message on a veterans’ internet chat room this month said, “then no number of iron stallions of stability preservation will be able to stop the great army of rights defense.”

Follow Chris Buckley on Twitter: @ChuBailiang.
Zoe Mou contributed research.

Related Coverage

South China Sea Photos Suggest a Military Building Spree by Beijing
Feb. 8, 2018

Lasers and Missiles Heighten U.S.-China Military Tensions
May 4, 2018

A Chinese Empire Reborn
Jan. 5, 2018
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Intel Doge
‏ @IntelDoge
9m9 minutes ago

Defense Sec. Mattis is reportedly becoming more and more increasingly out of the loop regarding things happening in Iran, North Korea and other major issues. Current and former White House defense officials also say that the President isn't listening to him.
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
this was over two hours ago, but since AFP is finally picking it up


Intel Doge Retweeted
AFP news agency
‏Verified account @AFP
5m5 minutes ago

#BREAKING Israeli missiles hit targets near Damascus airport, according to Syrian state media
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
I always wonder if ISIS in Japan has finally decided to show itself. They have been there for years; a rather large number of supporters.



NHK WORLD News
‏Verified account @NHKWORLD_News
5m5 minutes ago

BREAKING: A suspect is in custody after stabbing a police officer and shooting a security guard with a stolen gun in Toyama prefecture.

Thoton Akimoto
‏ @Thoton
45s46 seconds ago

Man stabbed a cop with knife and snatched the gun at a police box, then opened fire at a security guard at elementary school in Toyama prefecture. Both victims suffer injuries. The attacker apprehended
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.themaven.net/warriormav...p-for-major-power-war-kUkkm4iIWk6gIICyO5bLxw/

Army Makes Massive Bradley Buy - Up to 473 Vehicles to Prep for Major Power War

by Warrior Maven
18 hrs-edited

The Army is massively revving up its fleet of Bradley Fighting Vehicles through a recent deal to add up to 473

By Kris Osborn - Warrior Maven

The Army is massively revving up its fleet of Bradley Fighting Vehicles through a recent deal to add up to 473 of the new infantry carriers, service officials said.

The move represents a key portion of a broader Army push to prepare its arsenal of armored combat vehicles for major power land war - and further pave the way toward a new generation of combat platforms for the 2030s and beyond.

While the Army of course has thousands of Bradleys in its inventory, the size of this buy is extremely significant because, among other things, it it acquires the newest generation of Bradley vehicles - something designed to lay key groundwork for longer-term high-priority ground vehicle modernization plans.

The service acquisition plan, advanced through a large-scale Army deal with BAE Systems, calls for the most modern Bradley M2A4 and M7A4 vehicles. These newest Bradleys are part of a strategic push to bring the Bradley platform into a new era with advanced computing, digital processors, long-range sensors and a range of new weapons applications.

“After a decade of modifications in response to threats in Iraq, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle is at or exceeds Space, Weight, and Power-Cooling limitations,” Ashley Givens, spokeswoman for Program Executive Office, Ground Combat Systems, told Warrior Maven.

Space, Weight and Power considerations, as Army developers describe it, are an indispensable element of the calculus informing Bradley modernization; this means managing things like weight, mobility, on board electrical power, ammunition storage space and electromagnetic signatures as they pertain to vehicle protection and firepower.

Essentially, some survivability enhancements needed to counter threats in Iraq wound up maxing the Bradley’s weight and on-power capacity. For instance, Army developers explain that equipping the Bradley with new suspension, reactive armor tiles and APS can increase the vehicle weight by as much as 3,000-pounds.

In order to address this, the Army decided to execute a series of Engineering Change Proposals for the Bradley, specific technical adjustments to the platform designed to bring a host of new capabilities and enable faster and more seamless integration of emerging systems and technologies.

Givens explained that the newest Bradley A4s include upgrades to the engine and transmission, cooling system modification, electrical system upgrades and introduction of vehicle diagnostics.

“These improvements buy-back lost mobility, as well as create margin to allow future technologies to be hosted on the platform. As an example, none of the Active Protection Systems currently being explored by the Army could be installed on the A3 Bradley due to its shortage of electrical power. The A4 corrects this shortcoming,” she added.

More on-board power can bring the technical means to greatly support advanced electronics, command and control systems, computing power, sensors, networks and even electronic warfare technologies.

The A4 configuration also upgrades the Bradley engine and transmission, Alicia Gray, BAE Systems Combat Vehicles spokeswoman, told Warrior Maven. ​

A5 Bradley

The Army is also working on a new future A5 Bradley Fighting Vehicle variant possibly armed with lasers, counter-drone missiles, active protection systems, vastly improved targeting sights and increased on-board power to accommodate next-generation weapons and technologies.

Designed to be lighter weight, more mobile and much better protected, emerging Bradley A5 lethality upgrades already underway as part of a plan to build upon improvements with the A4.

These improvements include integrating 3rd Generation Forward Looking Infrared sensors for Commanders and Gunners sights, spot trackers for dismounted soldiers to identify targets and an upgraded chassis with increased underbelly protections and a new ammunition storage configuration, Army developers tell Warrior.

Also, while Army Bradley developers did not specifically say they planned to arm Bradleys with laser weapons, such innovation is well within the realm of the possible. Working with industry, the Army has already shot down drone targets with Stryker-fired laser weapons, and the service currently has several laser weapons programs at various stages of development.

This includes ground-fired Forward Operating Base protection laser weapons as well as vehicle-mounted lasers. A key focus for this effort, which involves a move to engineer a much stronger 100-kilowatt vehicle-fired laser, is heavily reliant upon an ability to integrate substantial amounts of mobile electrical power into armored vehicles.

Land War vs. Russian & Chinese Armored Vehicles

The Army is accelerating these kinds of armored vehicle weapons systems and countermeasures, in part because of an unambiguous recognition that, whoever the US Army fights, it is quite likely to encounter Russian or Chinese-built armored vehicles and advanced weaponry, senior service leaders told Warrior.

As part of this equation, recognizing that Army warfighters are often understandably reluctant to articulate war plans or threat assessments, it is indeed reasonable and relevant to posit that service war planners are looking at the full-range of contingencies – to include ground war with Russian forces in Europe, Iranian armies in the Middle East or even Chinese armored vehicles on the Asian continent.

Citing Russian-built T-72 and T-90 tanks, Army senior officials seem acutely aware that the US will likely confront near-peer armored vehicles, weapons systems and technologies.

​“If the Army goes into ground combat in the Middle East, we will face equipment from Russia, Iran and in some cases China,” a senior Army official told Warrior. “The threat is not just combat vehicles but UAVs (drones), MANPADs and other weapons.”

Bradley upgrades are also serving as a component to early conceptual work on the Army’s Next-Generation Combat Vehicle, an entirely new platform or fleet of vehicles slated to emerge in the 2030s.

Next Generation vehicles, for the 2030s and beyond, Army developers say, will be necessary because there are limits to how far an existing armored vehicle can be upgraded. This requires a delicate balancing act between the short term operational merits of upgrades vs. a longer-term, multi-year developmental approach. Each has its place, Army acquisition leaders emphasize.

The emergence of these weapons, and the fast-changing threat calculus is also, quite naturally, impacting what Army developers call CONOPS, or Concepts of Operations. Longer range sensors and weaponry, of course, can translate into a more dispersed combat area – thus underscoring the importance of command and control systems and weapons with sufficient reach to outrange attacking forces. The idea of bringing more lethality to the Bradley is not only based upon needing to directly destroy enemy targets but also fundamental to the importance of laying down suppressive fire, enabling forces to maneuver in combat.

As part of these preparations for future ground warfare, Army concept developers and war veterans are quick to point out that armored vehicles, such as a Bradley or even an Abrams tank, have also been impactful in certain counterinsurgency engagements as well. Accordingly, the term “full-spectrum” often receives much attention among Army leaders, given that the service prides itself on “expecting the unexpected” or being properly suited in the event of any combat circumstance. The Army has now evolved to a new Doctrinal "Operations" approach which places an even greater premium upon winning major power land wars.

“We need to be ready to face near-peers or regional actors with nuclear weapons. It is the risk of not being ready that is too great,” a senior Army official said.

Bradley Fighting Vehicle Mini-Series

Part I - Army buys up to more than 400 new Bradleys

Part II - Bradley pursues new weapons - coming

Part III - Bradley informs and contributes to Next-Gen Combat Vehicle plan - coming

More Weapons and Technology - WARRIOR MAVEN (CLICK HERE)

--- Kris Osborn, Managing Editor of WARRIOR MAVEN (CLICK HERE) can be reached at krisosborn.ko@gmail.com --
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://news.usni.org/2018/06/25/na...o-supplement-future-surface-combatant-program

Navy to Field ‘Optionally Unmanned’ Vessels to Supplement Future Surface Combatant

By: Megan Eckstein
June 25, 2018 4:22 PM

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Navy’s Future Surface Combatant will likely include both an unmanned and an optionally unmanned surface vessel as part of a growing family of systems, as the Navy works through how manned/unmanned teaming can provide the biggest benefits at various phases of warfare.

Officials previously described the Future Surface Combatant program as having a large, small and unmanned variant – like a cruiser or destroyer, a Littoral Combat Ship or a frigate, and something akin to the Medium Displacement Unmanned Surface Vessel that the Office of Naval Research (ONR) is working on. Increasingly, though, officials have begun talking about unmanned and optionally unmanned vessels as separate platforms.

Cmdr. Kyle Gantt, branch head for destroyers and future ships, said last week at the American Society of Naval Engineers’ annual Technology, Systems and Ships conference that several big-picture questions drove the separation of unmanned and optionally unmanned vessels.

First, if an unmanned system is weaponized, how does the Navy assure it maintains command and control in a contested and possibly communications-denied environment, to stay within the rules of engagement? And what would the role of an unmanned vessel be in Phase 0 operations, where the Navy’s primary mission is presence – which requires people to be there?

“How do I employ these systems in a way that I get the sea control, the deterrent, the traditional Navy missions that I’m there to execute?” Gantt said, saying that optionally unmanned vessels appeared to be the solution. During Phase 0 presence missions, the vessels would be fully crewed and would have all the berthing, mess halls and other facilities to support a crew.
“The optionally unmanned part gets to, now I’m into Phase 2 and the conditions aren’t set in the environment to put manned platforms, but I have a mission that is worth the risk, worth the risk of the asset – I can remove the people and sail it and use that vessel in an unmanned capacity for lethal effects in a place where I would be unprepared to do that with a manned vessel. So that’s how we came to optionally unmanned. It plays very well in our wargames, having an armed system that can serve as an adjunct magazine to a manned (ship).”

Gantt said unmanned surface vessels may be more susceptible to being captured or boarded than an unmanned underwater vehicle or an unmanned aerial vehicle, and that vulnerability puts some limitations on what the Navy would want purely unmanned USVs to do – primarily relegating them to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions and counter-ISR missions that require the persistence of an unmanned vessel.

“What are you willing to put at risk?” Gantt said of the systems on an unmanned vessel.

“The aerial system, it’s moving pretty fast, it’s pretty hard to capture. The UUV is pretty hard to find. So you get a lot of benefit from those,” whereas the Navy will have to balance what systems it would want to field on strictly unmanned USVs.

The Navy has already seen vulnerability in its slow-moving unmanned systems, such as the glider captured by Chinese forces in December 2016 and a UUV captured by Houthi forces off the coast of Yemen in January. Neither are the type of USV Gantt was discussing, but the incidents do prove the need to ensure the systems can either protect themselves from capture or can protect the data they’ve collected in the event they are captured by enemy forces.

Despite that vulnerability, Gantt said the Navy is sure that unmanned and optionally unmanned surface vessels will be a force-multiplier for the Navy fleet.

“We’ve started to build out these capabilities that we’ve deployed on either optionally unmanned or unmanned; really talk about unmanned in the context of being a distributed sensing capability, or being a counter-ISR capability [with persistence and] the ability to expand your ability to operate in a contested environment.”

Gantt noted that unmanned vessels outfitted with sensors make perfect sense to support distributed lethality, where the USVs can either spread Navy capabilities to a greater geography at a lower cost than sending manned vessels, or spread Navy capability to a greater geography with lower risk to sailors.

In the same panel discussion, Howard Berkof, the deputy unmanned maritime systems program manager within the Program Executive Office for Unmanned and Small Combatants (formerly PEO LCS), said his office is now considering purpose-built unmanned vessels and optionally unmanned vessels as part of a “family of Future Surface Combatant USVs.”

Two ongoing research and development efforts will inform requirements for the Future Surface Combatant family of USVs: the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office’s Ghost Fleet effort, and the SeaHunter MDUSV effort that was created by DARPA and now transitioned to ONR.

Also during his presentation, Berkof said testing continues in South Florida on the unmanned influence sweep system, which will be towed by the Textron Common Unmanned Surface Vehicle (CUSV). Textron has completed the company-led builder’s trials and is in the middle of pre-delivery inspection and trials, ahead of Navy developmental testing and operational assessment. Berkof said the Navy would make a milestone C acquisition decision in August, if all continued on schedule, to begin production.

The same CUSV vehicle will also undergo “minor” modifications so it can accommodate the AQS-20 and AQS-24 minehunting sonars and the Barracuda mine neutralization system. Barracuda integration efforts and sonar integration testing will begin in Fiscal Year 2019, he said. The Navy is also considering that the CUSV could host other systems to support surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare or other mission areas as needed.

On the UUV side, the Knifefish UUV completed contractor testing and transitioned into Navy developmental testing, which is ongoing. The Large Displacement UUV (LDUUV) that will be employed from an attack submarine has finished its preliminary design review and is currently in critical design. After lawmakers trimmed the program budget in the current fiscal year, Berkof said LDUUV is now looking at having its critical design review in mid-FY 2019 and would begin fabrication to support in-water testing in FY 2021, compared to previous plans to begin in-water testing in FY 2019.
 

Shacknasty Shagrat

Has No Life - Lives on TB
President Trump at his wittiest and sharpest.
The article reference is in the Fake News Washington Post and in a story about Hair plugs and plagarist Biden.


SS

'
Josh Rogin
‏Verified account @joshrogin

In a private meeting, Swedish PM Stefan Lofven explained to Trump Sweden is not a member of NATO, but sometimes partners with the alliance. Trump responded that the U.S. should consider the same approach.

https://twitter.com/joshrogin/status/1011675772568965122
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.realcleardefense.com/ar...erests_or_vital_combat_experience_113556.html

Syria: Russian Vital Interests or Vital Combat Experience

By Dave Majumdar
June 26, 2018

Russia is willing to keep its forces in Syria despite the potential losses incurred because the Kremlin believes that the benefits outweigh the costs. From the Russian perspective, Moscow’s campaign in Syria affords the Kremlin invaluable combat experience that is helping it to refine the capabilities of its military forces.

“The use of our armed forces in combat conditions is a unique experience and a unique tool to improve our armed forces,” Russian president Vladimir Putin said during a televised public question and answer session on June 7. “No exercises can compare with actually using the armed forces in combat conditions.”

Gaining Combat Experience
In the Kremlin’s view, one of the most important reasons for Russia to continue its campaign in Syria is to further refine its newly developed precision-guided strike capability. “Syria is not a shooting range for Russian weapons, but we are still using them there, our new weapons,” Putin said. “This has led to the improvement of modern strike systems, including missile systems. It is one thing to have them, and quite another thing to see how they fare in combat conditions.”

Putin noted that Syria has also proven to be important for Russia’s defense industry—which has gained valuable insights into how the Kremlin’s forces use their hardware in combat. “When we started to use these modern weapons, including missiles, whole teams from our defense industry companies went to Syria, and worked there on-site—it is extremely important for us—to finalize them and figure out what we can count on when using them in combat conditions,” Putin said.

Russia’s Syrian Proving Ground
But Syria has proven to be more than just a proving ground for Russia’s military technology. The Syria campaign has helped Russia to further develop its military leaders and provided its officer corps with actual combat experience. That, in turn, has allowed Russian forces to vastly improve their tactics, techniques and procedures.

“Our commanders – we had a large number of officers and generals go in Syria and take part in these hostilities – began to understand what a modern armed conflict is, how important communication, intelligence, interaction between all-arms units and formations is, how important it is to ensure the effective operation of the aerospace group, aviation, ground forces, including special operations forces,” Putin said. “This has enabled us to take another major step in improving our armed forces.”

Michael Kofman, a senior research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses specializing in Russian military affairs, noted that the Kremlin’s war in Syria has proven to be invaluable to Moscow as a de facto live-fire training range. “Much of the senior military staff has rotated through Syria, and so has a substantial percentage of the air force,” Kofman said. “Most of the district commanders and combined arms army commanders have spent time on staff in Syria. Syria is now the good war, designed to bloody the Russian armed forces and a sustainable training pipeline for senior officers.”

Indeed, much of the funding for the Kremlin’s Syria campaign is drawn from the Russian military’s training budget. “Money for the war is taken from the combat training part of the military budget,” Vasily Kashin, a senior fellow at the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies at Moscow's Higher School of Economics, said. “All of the new equipment was combat tested there—even the types not yet approved for serial production, tens of thousands of officers got real combat experience. Spending the same amount of money on training would not get the same results.”

Regarding training and lessons learned, the Russians believe that the war is essentially cost neutral. “Of course, it is extremely important and, in a sense, it is paying for itself,” Kashin said.

Lessons Learned
The most important lesson the Russian military has learned in Syria is the need for airpower to coordinate closely with ground forces. “In Syria, first, the Russian Aerospace Forces learned how to fight, and then increasingly began to learn how to fight in support of ground forces,” Kofman said. “Here special forces units and advisers fought a separate battle, but increasingly they began to integrate air power with ground operations in real time.”

The Russian military also quickly learned the limitations of its sensors and weapons systems. “The Russians quickly figured out that while they had the platforms, their weapons and systems were still inadequate for precision employment,” Kofman said. “The SVP-24 [computerized bomb-sights] added considerable accuracy, but they had to fly too high, and ultimately Russian munitions are far too big for the job. Eventually, the helicopter force came in as one of the few components that has the ability to deliver PGMs [precision-guided munitions] against moving targets.”

While the Syria campaign has exposed weaknesses in Russia’s weapons, sensors, tactics and training, it has also afforded Moscow an opportunity to address those deficiencies. The Russians have made enormous gains in capability since the beginning of their campaign in Syria in 2015. “Over time they refined the recon strike complex, working out the ability to engage targets in near real time,” Kofman said.

The Cost of War
But Russia’s gains in Syria have not come without a price—Moscow has lost both men and material during its intervention in that war-torn nation. Putin acknowledged that Russian forces had lost both troops and equipment during the Kremlin’s intervention in Syria to prop up the Assad regime. “We know that the use of the armed forces in combat conditions means losses,” Putin said. “We will never forget about those losses and will never leave the families of our comrades, who have not returned home from Syria, in trouble.”

Despite the losses, Putin insists that Russian military operations in Syria are needed to secure Moscow’s vital interests in the region. Moreover, while Putin insists that Russia has ceased major combat operations inside Syria, Moscow will not withdraw its forces from the region anytime soon. “Our military is there in order to secure Russia's interests in this vitally important region of the world, which is very close to us, and they will be there as long as it benefits Russia and in pursuance of our international commitments,” Putin said.

Domestic Support for Russia’s Syrian Campaign
Nonetheless, Putin—perhaps cognizant that the Russian population is not onboard with an open-ended commitment in the Middle East—said that Moscow does not intend to remain in Syria permanently. “We are not planning to withdraw those units, but I am drawing your attention to the fact that I did not call these sites bases,” Putin said. “We are not building long-term structures there and can withdraw all of our service members quickly without material loss. So far, they are necessary, they are fulfilling important tasks, including ensuring Russia's security in that region and ensuring our interests in the economic sphere.”

Putin took pains to squarely frame Moscow’s intervention in Syria in terms of direct threats to the Russian homeland. Putin made the case to his people that it is better to fight Islamic extremists from the former Soviet Union’s Central Asian republics in Syria rather than at home in Russia itself. “Let me remind you that thousands of militants, natives of Central Asian countries, with which we have no controlled borders, are massing on Syrian territory,” Putin said. “It was better to deal with them and destroy them over there than confront them with lethal force here.”

Kashin notes that polls show that the Russian population supports the Kremlin’s war in Syria. “In general, a majority of the people support the Syrian campaign,” Kashin said. “But only a minority of people really care about the Syrian campaign.”

Indeed, the percentage of the Russian public that actively takes an interest in the campaign in Syria generally hovers around a fifth of the population. “When something really happens there, there would be some 30 percent of people who are really looking into it,” Kashin said. ”When nothing major happens, it would be only some 20 percent really taking any interest. But among the people who really care about the campaign—which means they spend time reading and watching—support for the war is overwhelming.”

The reason for that support is that those Russians who are paying attention to the campaign believe that it is better for Moscow to fight extremist elements in Syria rather than inside Russia itself. “The explanation that we are killing people who otherwise would come to the former Soviet territories sounds logical,” Kashin said.

Is Syria Really One of Russia’s Vital Interests?
While the Kremlin might claim that its campaign in Syria is of vital interest to Russia, there is room for considerable skepticism. “On balance, the Russian leadership sees Syria as an important campaign, and of strategic value in terms of interaction with the United States,” Kofman said. “However, it is not a vital interest. If it was, Putin would not be emphasizing how quickly they're positioned to leave. On the contrary, Moscow is keeping a close eye on how much they're leveraged into this conflict, and making sure there is nothing there that cannot be withdrawn on short notice.”

Ultimately, Russia is willing to stay the course in Syria so long as the Kremlin reaps more benefits than it incurs costs. For now, the Kremlin’s campaign in Syria is reaping Moscow impressive benefits as a live-fire training ground where Russian forces can test their men and material in a real war while incurring minimal risks. Thus, it is an opportunity for Russia to refine not only its military technology but also its tactics, techniques and procedures under real operational conditions. And as such, Syria is invaluable for the Russian military to gain combat experience while the Kremlin struggles to rebuild Russia as a great power capable of competing head-to-head with the United States.

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/12571/nuclear-deterrence-reagan

Nuclear Deterrence: Adopting the Reagan Approach

by Mark B. Schneider and Peter Huessy
June 25, 2018 at 4:00 am

  • President Reagan's successful policies involved not the elimination of all nuclear weapons, but the simultaneous modernization of all legs of America's nuclear Triad, while significantly reducing the size of the strategic nuclear arsenals of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union.
  • The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review confirms reports going back to 2004 that, "Russia is in violation of its... political commitments that directly affect the security of others, including... the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives." These eliminated America's battlefield nuclear weapons and many other nuclear capabilities, while Russia violated its reciprocal pledge to do the same.
  • Today, Russia and China not only have massive nuclear modernization programs, but also precision nuclear missiles, while the U.S. does not. Let it be a cautionary tale for the current administration in Washington.

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

Ronald Reagan, one of the most important presidents in American history, advanced a defense policy based on "peace through strength," and "reducing nuclear dangers." In so doing, he dramatically altered the United States' approach to dealing with the Soviet nuclear threat.

President Reagan's successful policies involved not the elimination of all nuclear weapons, but the simultaneous modernization of all legs of America's nuclear Triad in a manner that enhanced national security and strategic stability, while significantly reducing the size of the strategic nuclear arsenals of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. He further enhanced America's deterrent by deploying nuclear cruise missiles (SLCMs) on naval ships, and medium-range nuclear missiles and new nuclear artillery in Europe.

Reagan also fundamentally changed the way in which the U.S. negotiates and enforces arms-control agreements. In 1988, his Department of Defense (DoD) submitted a "Report to the Congress on the Analysis of Alternative Nuclear Force Postures for the United States (Unclassified Version)," which contained four possible START treaty force postures, all of which involved having 4,900 ballistic missile warheads and 1,099 accountable bomber weapons. This number of warheads was roughly half of the amount deployed by the U.S. at the time, and those stabilizing reductions were at the heart of the Reagan arms-control revolution. [This report is not available online, but is available from the authors upon request.]

This arms posture vastly differed from that of the SALT agreement process, which had begun in 1972 between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., and was scheduled to allow the number of deployed warheads to reach at least 12,000. Of course, the START postures were totally antithetical to the Soviets' proposed nuclear freeze, which would have left a completely modernized Soviet nuclear force in place while the United States nuclear force was "rusting to obsolescence."

Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative also revived the moribund U.S. missile defense program of the Carter-era, and began the development of the technologies that today protect the United States against a North Korean nuclear missile attack and defend its forward-based forces and allies against considerable and growing theater missile threats. The U.S. still has a long way to go before achieving a fully capable defense, but it would have none at all if it had remained stuck in the ABM Treaty of 1972, which prohibited a defense of the country – with the exception of a single program to develop no more than 100 short-range interceptors to defend a military base of Minuteman ICBMs.

The 1988 DoD reported cited above stated the following with regard to the Strategic Defense Initiative:

"...if effective defenses prove feasible, the United States intends to alter the strategic relationship with the Soviet Union with a relationship based on a greater reliance on defenses and on less reliance on offensive retaliation.... Furthermore, initial strategic defenses would offer the United States and its allies some protection should deterrence fail, or in the event of an accidental launch.... Finally, given the Soviet Union's record of treaty violations... Defenses will make U.S. security more robust against possible Soviet Union violations of START."

Remember, the world that President Reagan inherited in 1981 was bipolar and very dangerous. Many of the new threats America faces today were already developing then, but they were not considered by most observers at the time as serious threats. The Soviet Union was an ideologically hostile Communist dictatorship in the process of spending itself into oblivion in war preparations made worse by the debilitating effects of socialism.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, then-Russian Defense Minister Colonel General Sergei Ivanov stated that the Soviet military budget in the 1980s reached 40% of its GNP. To compare, peak U.S. military spending in World War II reached 43% of the GNP in one year; it was 10% in the 1950s and declined to 5% under President Jimmy Carter, who created what was called the "hollow army."

Reagan reversed this decline. During his presidency, defense spending peaked at 7% percent of America's GNP. The U.S. used technology to compensate for a massive disparity in the level of effort underway in the Soviet Union. At a critical point in human history, Reagan presented the Soviets with a military challenge that convinced them they could not win, although they never gave up trying. Reagan did not "end history," but he did create the circumstances that ended Communism in Russia and the Soviet empire as a major force in the world.

Faced with a massive Soviet nuclear buildup, Reagan engaged in the most comprehensive U.S. nuclear modernization program since the 1950s. This included programs such as the MX ICBM (later called Peacekeeper), the AGM-86B nuclear ALCM, the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines and the Trident II missile.

The Reagan administration added the B-2 stealth bomber, SRAM II defense suppression weapons for bombers and tactical aircraft, and the single warhead Midgetman ICBM. While limited compared to those of the Soviets, these programs formed the core of a very effective deterrent.

Reagan's planned U.S. strategic nuclear force was eventually reduced by 85% in terms of warhead numbers under the Moscow Treaty and the New START Treaty between the United States and Russia. But while a fully modernized strategic deterrent could have been built even at these lower warhead numbers, many systems -- such as the Peacekeeper, the Advanced Cruise Missile, the nuclear capability of the B-1 bomber, the B-2 bomber (stopped at 20 planes rather than 120) and the SRAM II program -- were terminated by subsequent administrations.

We believe that while Reagan would have adjusted our nuclear deterrence requirements downward at the end of the Cold War, he never would have allowed a more than 20-year gap in U.S. deterrent modernization or never would have allowed Russia to get a 10-fold advantage in non-strategic nuclear weapons.

The current dangerous Russian 10-to-1 advantage in non-strategic nuclear weapons is largely the result of the unilateral Presidential Nuclear Initiatives (PNIs) of 1991-1992. According to General (ret.) Colin Powell, in his autobiography My American Journey, when he proposed the unilateral elimination of U.S. nuclear artillery, all four service chiefs of staff of the armed forces opposed it. Powell also said that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) policy staff, from "Wolfowitz all the way down," as well as then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, "rejected my proposal." According to Powell, President George H.W. Bush "began pushing us for more fresh thinking on arms control." The "fresh thinking" involved important but unilateral nuclear weapons reductions without: (1) legal obligations to secure complimentary Russian cuts; (2) verification measures; or (3) Congressional approval of the cut in American nuclear forces.

Indeed, most of the weapons that were pulled out of Europe and dismantled as a result of the PNIs -- including ship-launched cruise missiles -- had been built and put there by the Reagan administration. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review confirms reports going back to 2004 that, "Russia is in violation of its...political commitments that directly affect the security of others, including... the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives." These eliminated America's battlefield nuclear weapons and many other nuclear capabilities, while Russia violated its reciprocal pledge to do the same.

The PNIs have contributed to the current security crisis in Europe, as well. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea 2014, NATO Deputy Commander Lt. General Sir Adrian Bradshaw stated that the NATO rapid deployment force must be armed not only with conventional weapons, but also with the same weapons that Russia has. Thanks to the PNIs, tactical nuclear weapons exist in the Russian Army but not in that of the U.S. Perhaps, if the Reagan non-strategic nuclear deterrent existed in Europe today, even in much smaller numbers, Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have said in 2014, "If I wanted, Russian troops could not only be in Kiev in two days, but in Riga, Vilnius, Tallinn, Warsaw or Bucharest, too."

Reagan took deterrence of nuclear war very seriously. He saw both nuclear weapons and missile defense as part of America's deterrent strategy and as a hedge against arms control violations. His nuclear modernization programs were not created to finance the military industrial complex, as some have alleged; the modernization effort was undertaken for deterrence purposes. The Soviet nuclear threat was very real. In fact, it was even worse than we thought at the time. Since the end of the Cold War, significant portions of the Warsaw Pact war plan have become available online, and as a result, we know that the Soviets planned on a large-scale first use of nuclear weapons against NATO in support of a ground offensive designed to win and conquer Western Europe. It exercised this capability in its war games. In 2005, Polish Defense Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said, "The objective of the exercise on this map is to take over most of western Europe -- all of Germany, Belgium and Denmark."

In January 1983, in his annual report to the Congress for Fiscal Year 1984, then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger stated, "If we are to maintain a responsible nuclear deterrent against attacks on our allies, as well as against nuclear attacks on the United States, we will need to continue to exploit our comparative advantage in technology." Since that time, however, the United States has allowed the deployed technology to regress through program terminations, the retirement of some of the most of advanced of the Reagan-era nuclear deterrent systems and the complete lack of modernization. Due to the underfunding of the Defense Department during the presidency of Barack Obama, the Pentagon warned that the U.S. was losing its lead in technology -- and not merely nuclear technology. The Obama administration left office with a military in a condition of degraded combat readiness. In contrast, the Reagan administration left office with a military that in 1991 demolished Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's army in four days of ground-fighting and a subsequent decade of relative peace.

Today, Russia and China not only have massive nuclear modernization programs, but also precision nuclear missiles, while the U.S. does not. Russian deployment of low-yield nuclear weapons on its strategic missiles was reported in the Russian state media as early as 2008. In 2016, the Obama administration told Congress that the Chinese had announced the existence of a nuclear version of the DF-26 IRBM, which would give China "...nuclear precision strike capability against theater targets."

Who would have believed in the 1980s that this was going to happen? Who would have believed that the U.S. government, in 2010, would list the deterrence of nuclear attack as the third of five nuclear weapons-related objectives? The answer is: anyone who understood the significance of America's foolishly abandoning Reagan's sensible and realistic policies on nuclear deterrence.

Let it be a cautionary tale for the current administration in Washington.

Dr. Mark B. Schneider is a Senior Analyst with the National Institute for Public Policy. Dr. Peter Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a defense consulting firm he founded in 1981, as well as Director of Strategic Deterrent Studies at the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Related Topics: National Defense

Recent Articles by Mark B. Schneider
Russia's Noncompliance with Arms Control Obligations, 2013-07-31
Future Russian Strategic Challenges, 2013-05-20
Russian Deployment of Missile Defenses, 2013-02-18

Recent Articles by Peter Huessy
America's Missile Defense Programs - Part II: Now What?, 2018-06-04
America's Missile Defense Programs - Part I, 2018-05-18
Is Saudi Arabia Key to America's Mideast Strategy?, 2017-12-06
U.S. Military: More Fake News from the New York Times, 2017-11-13
Win-Win: How Tax Reform Will Help Defense Spending and the Economy, 2017-10-18
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/deterring-russia/

Deterring Russia

26 Jun 2018 | Hugh White

If you wanted to sum up America’s (and its allies’) military-strategic posture towards China in Asia today in a sentence, you’d say that we aim to deter China from using force in situations like Taiwan by the threat of a full-scale military response. So it’s worth asking whether we’re really doing enough to deter China.

We can illuminate this a little by looking at Europe. In 2016, after Russia annexed Crimea and invaded other parts of Ukraine, NATO feared that some of its members—the Baltic states or even Poland—might be next. It responded by deploying multinational combat formations to these frontline member states. This ‘enhanced forward presence’ (EFP) consists of four battalion-sized ‘battle groups’, one in each of the Baltic states and Poland, composed of contingents from a total of 20 different NATO member states.

In NATO circles the EFP is seen as a big deal, because it is believed to show the alliance’s resolve to resist with armed force any Russian military move against these new member states. This is thought to be an effective deterrent.

Of course, these tiny forces are not expected to stop or even slow a Russian advance. Though NATO is reluctant to use the term, they are a classic tripwire. Ensuring that allied forces are engaged by the Russians at the start of any incursion is supposed to make a full-scale NATO military response inevitable. Moscow is expected to calculate that no NATO member could stand back once its own forces had been attacked. That is why so many member states are represented.

But is that right? Does the EFP tripwire do much to strengthen Moscow’s expectations that an attack on Latvia, for example, would mean war with NATO? It’s easy to assume that any NATO member would find it hard to refrain from contributing to a full-scale military response once its own forces had been engaged, and soldiers killed. Both domestic and international pressures would be intense.

However, things might not play out that way. Much depends on what happens on the battlefield. The pressure on NATO to escalate would indeed be intense if an EFP battalion was rolled over and crushed with many casualties. But things would be different if the Russians were smart enough to encircle the NATO units without doing much damage to them, and then invite them to surrender, offering to send them home with their tails between their legs.

This is not an unlikely outcome, when a single battalion faces multiple divisions. Would NATO member governments then order their forces to fight on against hopeless odds, or would they meekly accept Moscow’s offer? And how much resolve for an escalating fight would they have then? So here is one problem with the EFP: the forces are too small to guarantee the kind of fight that would compel NATO to escalate.

But there’s a bigger problem too. Imagine that an EFP battalion does get into a serious fight with Russian forces, and takes many casualties. Everyone in NATO agrees that a major military response is required. What would they do?

There seems little doubt that Russian forces could quickly seize control of one of the Baltic states or a sizable chunk of its territory, so the only meaningful NATO response would be a major military operation to expel them. That would be a huge and costly business—by far the largest land operations undertaken anywhere in Europe since World War II.

Massive forces would need to be deployed long distances—including, presumably, large US forces across the Atlantic—and would need to be protected as they did so. Russian airpower would have to be neutralised with a sustained campaign of strikes on targets within Russian territory, to which Russia would be sure to retaliate. And then a major land campaign would need to be undertaken. In all this, the risk of nuclear escalation would be very real.

How credible is it that NATO would take this on, at massive cost and risk, to push the Russians out of Latvia, for example? That’s the key question, because what will deter Moscow, if anything does, isn’t the presence of the EFP tripwire itself, but the military campaign that it believes NATO would launch if the tripwire were crossed.

Therefore, in addition to the tripwire, NATO needs to conceive, plan and exercise a credible full-scale campaign to expel Russian forces from frontline NATO member states. Unless Russia can see that NATO has a credible plan for such a campaign, it is unlikely to be deterred. It is more likely to conclude that, faced with a Russian fait accompli, NATO would talk tough but do little.

Moreover, Moscow would need to be persuaded not just that NATO had a plan, but that its members were willing to implement it. There would need to be a clear and evident consensus among NATO members and their voters that they would be willing to bear the costs and risks of a major war to rescue Latvia from the Russians.

Building that consensus will not be easy. It won’t be enough to appeal to abstract principles of international law or the sanctity of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. It will be necessary to explain why other NATO members’ security depends on recovering Latvia, rather than stopping Russia from advancing further west and south. It’s not clear how that argument could be made.

Without this, the EFP tripwire looks a very feeble deterrent. Indeed, it risks becoming the opposite of a deterrent. Instead of displaying NATO’s strength and resolve, it demonstrates just how far the alliance was weakened when it was extended into the territory of the former Soviet Union itself.

This brings us back to Asia. We readily assume that the US and its Asian allies can deter China from attacking Taiwan, for example. But there’s no credible campaign plan which would convince Beijing that Washington and its partners could intervene effectively, or that they would be willing to pay the costs of such a campaign even if they had a plan. Without those, China doesn’t face much of a deterrent.

AUTHOR
Hugh White is professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University. Image courtesy of Flickr user NATO.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-political-decline-of-religion-in-the-middle-east/

The political decline of religion in the Middle East

25 Jun 2018 | Shlomo Ben-Ami

When one thinks of conflict in the Middle East, religious factors are probably among the first that come to mind. But, nowadays, competing strategic interests and imperial ambitions play a much larger role than religious or sectarian cleavages in defining regional politics. This is potentially a positive development.

Consider the struggle for regional influence between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Despite having long been viewed as a result of the Sunni-Shia divide, the competition is really between two opposing political systems: Iran’s revolutionary regime, bent on changing the regional balance of power, versus Saudi Arabia’s conservative monarchy, which seeks to uphold the old regional order.

In this context, Iran’s support of the Arab Spring uprisings makes sense. In an Arab-dominated Middle East, non-Arab Iran is the natural enemy; but in a Muslim Middle East, the Islamic Republic of Iran is a potential hegemon. So Iran was quick to back free elections, predicting that voters would bring Islamists to power.

The ultra-conservative House of Saud, by contrast, abhors such political upheaval and naturally views Arab democracy as a fundamental threat. So, while maintaining its close alliance with the United States, the Western imperial power that Iran fears most, Saudi Arabia opposed the uprisings, whether the protagonists were Shia (as in Bahrain), or Sunni (as in Egypt). In this sense, the Arab Spring was a story of the growth and suppression of political Islam.

Moreover, alliances no longer fit within Sunni-Shia borders, further underscoring the primacy of politics, rather than religion, in fuelling regional conflicts. For example, Hamas, the Sunni fundamentalist group that rules the Gaza Strip, has survived largely as a result of financing from Iran.

Similarly, Oman, dominated by Ibhadis and Sunnis, has a closer relationship with Iran, with which it shares control of the vital oil-shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz, than it does with Saudi Arabia. In fact, Oman is now being accused of helping Iran to smuggle weapons to the Houthi rebels in Yemen, where Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting a proxy war.

Likewise, Qatar maintains a relationship with Iran, with which it shares colossal gas fields, that is too close for Saudi Arabia’s comfort. Last year, the Saudis led a coalition of Arab countries—including the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Bahrain—in isolating Qatar diplomatically and imposing sanctions.

And yet Turkey, another Sunni power, maintains a military base in Qatar. And this is not the only source of tension between Saudi Arabia and Turkey; they also disagree about the Muslim Brotherhood. Whereas the Saudis view the Brotherhood as an existential threat, Turkey considers it a model of Islamist politics worth defending and a means of expanding Turkish influence in the Arab world.

But Turkey’s support for the Muslim Brotherhood has put it at odds with yet another Sunni power: Egypt. Indeed, the Brotherhood is Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s nemesis. Together with its regional ambitions and efforts to position itself as the main champion of the Palestinian cause, Turkey appears to be directly challenging Egypt’s vital interests.

Perhaps the best illustration of how security and strategic concerns have superseded religious conflict is the shift in relations between Arab Sunni states—including the Gulf monarchies and Egypt—and Israel. The economic and military achievements of Israel, once the Arab world’s ultimate enemy and infidel, were long viewed as a measure of Arab failure—a source of endemic hatred alloyed with grudging admiration.

Yet, today, as Iran’s influence grows and Islamist terrorism continues to proliferate, Palestine is the last of Saudi Arabia’s worries. So fundamental are the changes to the Kingdom’s strategic interests that, despite being the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites, it said nothing when US President Donald Trump recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s ‘eternal capital’. Other Sunni Gulf monarchies, as well as Egypt, have gone further, engaging in security cooperation with Israel.

Politics is also superseding religion within Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s expansionist drive in the West Bank is about political power, not Judaism. After all, the creation of a majority-Palestinian bi-national state would mean severely diluting the country’s ‘Jewishness’.

In fact, to maintain its grip on the occupied territories, Israel’s religious-nationalist coalition has sold its soul to Christian anti-Semites: American evangelists. Netanyahu’s alliance with this group—ardent supporters of the colonisation of Judea and Samaria—is an affront to both the overwhelmingly liberal Jewish-American community and the powerful rabbinical establishment in Israel.

A final example of a Middle Eastern country choosing politics over religion is Iraq. Muqtada al-Sadr, the fiery Shia cleric who previously led deadly attacks against US troops, is now emerging as America’s best hope of containing Iran’s expanding influence in Iraq.

The head of an unlikely alliance of reformist Islamists, secular civil-society groups and Iraq’s communist party, Sadr won the recent parliamentary election by promising a nationalist drive to oust Iran from Iraq. Earlier this year, Sadr visited the fiercely anti-Iranian crown princes in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and is now the key obstacle between Iran and the strategic depth it seeks in Iraq.

Today’s chaos in the Middle East is rooted largely in historical legacies—arbitrarily drawn borders being a major one—and a lack of visionary leadership. But religious and sectarian divisions haven’t helped, either. While the situation undoubtedly remains tense and unwieldy, religion’s waning political role may create an opening for progress, much as, say, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman’s willingness to discard fundamentalist imperatives favours modernisation. After all, strategic and security interests are always more amenable than religious conviction to reason and diplomacy.

AUTHOR
Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, is vice president of the Toledo International Center for Peace. He is the author of Scars of war, wounds of peace: the Israeli–Arab tragedy. This article is presented in partnership with Project
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Tom Looby
‏ @mapocoloco
4m4 minutes ago

Russia Military Says U.S. Ceasefire Is Over in Syria As Israel Reportedly Attacks Iran Weapons in Damascus



posted for fair use and discussion
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-milit...amascus-996257

Russia Military Says U.S. Ceasefire Is Over in Syria As Israel Reportedly Attacks Iran Weapons in Damascus
By Tom O'Connor On 6/26/18 at 2:00 PM

The Russian military's main air force base in Syria announced on Tuesday an end to a ceasefire agreement reached with the U.S. and Jordan in southwest Syria, citing breaches by insurgent groups. The decision comes at a time when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stages a new offensive to retake one of the last rebel-held regions in the country.

The Hmeymim base, an airfield located in the west coast province of Latakia, is one of two major Russian-leased military installations in Syria, the other being a naval base about 40 miles down the coast in Tartous. Russian warplanes—likely based in Hmeymim—reportedly struck targets Monday in the southwestern province of Daraa, where Russia and Syria had agreed last year to a ceasefire with rebel groups attempting to overthrow Assad since a 2011 uprising backed by the U.S., Turkey and Gulf Arab states.

"The end of the period of reduced escalation in southern Syria can be confirmed after it was breached by extremist groups and illegitimate armed groups operating against Syrian government forces, while the agreement remains in the Syrian province of Idlib," the Central Channel for the Hmeymim Military Base wrote on Facebook.

The base also denied reports of civilian casualties in a later message, maintaining that "Russian bombers do not target civilian sites by any means. Our missions are limited to the destruction of the terrorist bases belonging to the Nusra Front and ISIS [Islamic State militant group] terrorists, in order to support friendly land forces advancing on the ground."

GettyImages-984308400 Smoke rises above opposition-held areas of Daraa during airstrikes conducted by the Syrian military, June 26, 2018. Russia-backed Syrian troops have for weeks been preparing an offensive to retake Syria's south, a strategic zone that borders both Jordan and the Israel-occupied Golan Heights. MOHAMAD ABAZEED/AFP/Getty Images
http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.news...-984308400.jpg

The news, which was also reported by Saudi Arabian newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, came as elite Syrian troops stormed through southern towns and villages held by various rebel groups, including elements of the Free Syrian Army and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a jihadi coalition recently added to the list of U.S.-recognized terrorist organizations due to its Al-Qaeda ties. Quick government gains have prompted Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to issue a series of statements calling on rebel factions to unite against the military and condemned those currently attempting to broker reconciliation deals with Damascus.

The ceasefire collapse also occurred as airstrikes reportedly struck Damascus International Airport on Tuesday. While the attack remains unclaimed, it has been widely blamed on Israel, who rarely takes responsibility for strikes against Iranian and pro-Iran targets in neighboring Syria. The U.K.-based, pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that Israeli warplanes struck "a shipment of Iranian weapons" that had arrived at the airport, while Russia's state-run Sputnik News highlighted reports claiming an Iranian cargo plane may have been the target.

The official Syrian Arab News Agency said that two Israeli missiles fell near the country's main airport, without specifying the target. The channel connected the suspected Israeli attack to the Syrian military's retaking of large swathes of territory in the Al-Lajat region in Daraa, where international powers have rushed to prevent an even larger escalation between Iran and Israel.

Anticipating last year's ceasefire agreement to unravel as the Syrian military retook rebel enclaves outside the capital, the U.S. and Russia entered quiet negotiations with Jordan aimed at excluding Iranian and pro-Iran forces from taking part in the Syrian campaign. Israel considers their presence a provocation and has for years bombed military assets allegedly associated with Iran. When these forces reportedly responded to a deadly pre-emptive Israeli attack last month by launching rockets at the Israel-occupied Golan Heights, Israel retaliated with its largest aerial assault on Syria since the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

GettyImages-890107316 Russian President Vladimir Putin (3r-L), his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad (4th-R), and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (L) pose with Russian air force pilots during their visit to the Russian air base in Hmeymim in the northwestern Syrian province of Latakia, December 11, 2017. Russian air support has been vital in helping the Syrian military and its allies defeat insurgents and jihadis. MIKHAIL KLIMENTYEV/AFP/Getty Images

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.news...-890107316.jpg


Despite their opposition to Assad, the U.S. and Jordan have stepped back their support for rebel groups as they became increasingly saturated with jihadi movements. Washington told Free Syrian Army commanders that "you should not base your decisions on the assumption or expectation of a military intervention by us" in a stern message published Saturday by Reuters. Jordan has repeatedly stated that it would not grant entry to any fighters or civilians fleeing to Syria's southern border with the kingdom, with Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi asserting "our borders will remain closed" in a tweet Tuesday.

Iran-backed groups, such as the Lebanese Shiite Muslim Hezbollah movement, have reportedly pulled back from southwestern Syria as part of a recent agreement, but Iran has maintained that it would not leave Syria unless asked to do so by the local government. The latest airstrikes in Damascus, however, may indicate that the deal has fallen apart or did not preclude Israeli attacks elsewhere in the country. Last week, unclaimed airstrikes blamed on both the U.S. and Israel reportedly killed dozens—including Iraqi militias—in Syra's far eastern province of Deir Ezzor.

Assad has welcomed both Russia and Iran as partners in the battle against insurgents and jihadis, but he has called the U.S. and Turkey to withdraw their forces immediately. Iraq, while deeply critical of U.S. and Israeli targeting of pro-Syrian government forces, has managed to maintain close relations with both the Syria-Russia-Iran axis as well as the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...end-violence-in-central-nigeria-idUSKBN1JN158

World News June 27, 2018 / 2:55 AM / Updated 42 minutes ago

More than 200 people killed in weekend violence in central Nigeria

Joshua Inuwa
2 Min Read

JOS, Nigeria (Reuters) - More than 200 people were killed last weekend in violence in central Nigeria’s Plateau state, the state governor said late on Tuesday.

The latest death toll, up from the police’s previous figure of 86 killed, makes the violence one of the bloodiest incidents this year in a series of escalating communal clashes across much of Nigeria’s hinterland states.

The attack “is very disturbing and alarming because it has left behind a painful loss of over 200 people,” Simon Lalong, governor of Plateau state, said at a press conference with Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari.

The governor also noted the humanitarian challenge “confronting thousands of displaced persons, whose houses and crops have burnt and completely destroyed.”

Attacks like that at the weekend are broadly attributed to a decades-old cycle of conflict between farmers and semi-nomadic herders that is partly due to competition for arable land.

That has taken on ethnoreligious tones, with violence often attributed to herders from the Fulani ethnic group, most of whom are Muslim, and Christian farmers from other tribes.

The violence in Nigeria’s diverse Middle Belt states has now killed more people this year than the Islamist insurgency in Nigeria’s northeast, according to Reuters calculations.

Insecurity has become a major electoral problem for President Muhammadu Buhari, who plans to seek re-election in February and who won power on pledges to deliver peace and stability.

Reporting by Joshua Inuwa; Writing by Paul Carsten; Editing by Toby Chopra
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/china-increases-defence-ties-with-africa.html


China says it will increase its military presence in Africa


  • [*]China is looking to strengthen defense engagement with African countries, adding to its economic and commercial profile on the continent.
    [*]That would compliment existing Chinese ventures, such as peacekeeping activities and weapons sales, as well as protecting Chinese assets, experts say.

Nyshka Chandran | @nyshkac
Published 6 Hours Ago Updated 5 Hours Ago

For decades, China's presence in Africa has largely focused on economic, commercial and peacekeeping activities. Now, Beijing is building on that by establishing greater military links to protect its national assets on the continent and gain greater geopolitical influence.

The People's Liberation Army conducts regular joint training exercises across the region and, in certain countries that are home to major Chinese infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road initiative, the communist state has been especially active.

In Djibouti, where Chinese companies have constructed strategic ports and Africa's first electric transnational railway, Beijing last year formally launched its first overseas military base, which also operates as a logistics and intelligence facility. Many experts now anticipate more Chinese bases in the years to come, with Namibia rumored as a potential location.

Meanwhile in Tanzania, where the state-run conglomerate China Merchants Holdings International is hoping to invest in the Bagamoyo mega port, China built a complex designed to train local armed forces earlier this year. And, at the first-ever China-Africa Defense and Security Forum in Beijing on Tuesday, the communist state announced it will provide African countries with "comprehensive support" on matters such as piracy and counter-terrorism. That includes providing technologies, equipment, personnel and strategic advice, local media reported.

All that comes amid expectations for the U.S. to reduce troops in Africa under President Donald Trump's "America First" policy, which is set to boost Chinese President Xi Jinping's government as the dominant foreign power on the continent.

The strengthened defense ties compliment China's existing ventures, particularly weapons sales, according to specialists.

"In recent years, Chinese arms sales to Africa have surpassed the United States," said Luke Patey, senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies: "In particular, Chinese small arms and light weapons have spread rapidly since China is less inhibited by selling arms to countries in the midst of conflict than Western providers." That goes hand in hand with Beijing's expanding military cooperation, he continued.

A desire to safeguard Chinese workers and Chinese-funded projects on the continent is likely behind the government's efforts.

"China’s security concerns are actually aimed at its own nationals, and military diplomacy is skillfully used to protect them and their interests," the Netherlands Institute of International Relations, or Clingendael, said in a recent report.

"The evacuation of hundreds of Chinese and foreign nationals from Yemen in 2015 — on a People’s Liberation Army frigate that sailed from the coasts of Somalia — proves just how crucial the presence of a military logistics base on the eastern coast of Africa is for China," it continued.

The world's second-largest economy has long described Sino-Africa cooperation as a "win-win" arrangement — one that provides China with natural resources and African economies with badly-needed infrastructure. But while the flood of Chinese resources may be welcomed by the region's cash-strapped governments, the fear is that increased capital could translate into political leverage.

In fact, many speculate that it was Beijing's concerns over its investments that resulted in the 2017 coup that ousted Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe — a charge that Xi's administration has denied.

"The concern from a lot of partners is exactly what role China is going to be playing in the region and how it's going to fit with existing military organizations and security forums," said Duncan Innes-Ker, Asia regional director at The Economist Intelligence Unit. "It's really an unsettling element of something new coming into the equation that's got a lot of people concerned."

"African countries should be clear-eyed that the days of China’s strict adherence to its longstanding noninterference policy are over," Patey added.

Nyshka Chandran
Reporter, CNBC Asia-Pacific
 

Lilbitsnana

On TB every waking moment
Only time will tell. (so far, it doesn't seem like it)


Danny Makki
‏ @Dannymakkisyria
7m7 minutes ago

60. #Russia MOD denies rumours of Moscow withdrawing from the agreement to reduce escalation in southern #Syria





Tom Looby
‏ @mapocoloco
4m4 minutes ago

Russia Military Says U.S. Ceasefire Is Over in Syria As Israel Reportedly Attacks Iran Weapons in Damascus



posted for fair use and discussion
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-milit...amascus-996257

Russia Military Says U.S. Ceasefire Is Over in Syria As Israel Reportedly Attacks Iran Weapons in Damascus
By Tom O'Connor On 6/26/18 at 2:00 PM

The Russian military's main air force base in Syria announced on Tuesday an end to a ceasefire agreement reached with the U.S. and Jordan in southwest Syria, citing breaches by insurgent groups. The decision comes at a time when Syrian President Bashar al-Assad stages a new offensive to retake one of the last rebel-held regions in the country.

The Hmeymim base, an airfield located in the west coast province of Latakia, is one of two major Russian-leased military installations in Syria, the other being a naval base about 40 miles down the coast in Tartous. Russian warplanes—likely based in Hmeymim—reportedly struck targets Monday in the southwestern province of Daraa, where Russia and Syria had agreed last year to a ceasefire with rebel groups attempting to overthrow Assad since a 2011 uprising backed by the U.S., Turkey and Gulf Arab states.

"The end of the period of reduced escalation in southern Syria can be confirmed after it was breached by extremist groups and illegitimate armed groups operating against Syrian government forces, while the agreement remains in the Syrian province of Idlib," the Central Channel for the Hmeymim Military Base wrote on Facebook.

The base also denied reports of civilian casualties in a later message, maintaining that "Russian bombers do not target civilian sites by any means. Our missions are limited to the destruction of the terrorist bases belonging to the Nusra Front and ISIS [Islamic State militant group] terrorists, in order to support friendly land forces advancing on the ground."

GettyImages-984308400 Smoke rises above opposition-held areas of Daraa during airstrikes conducted by the Syrian military, June 26, 2018. Russia-backed Syrian troops have for weeks been preparing an offensive to retake Syria's south, a strategic zone that borders both Jordan and the Israel-occupied Golan Heights. MOHAMAD ABAZEED/AFP/Getty Images
http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.news...-984308400.jpg

The news, which was also reported by Saudi Arabian newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, came as elite Syrian troops stormed through southern towns and villages held by various rebel groups, including elements of the Free Syrian Army and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, a jihadi coalition recently added to the list of U.S.-recognized terrorist organizations due to its Al-Qaeda ties. Quick government gains have prompted Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to issue a series of statements calling on rebel factions to unite against the military and condemned those currently attempting to broker reconciliation deals with Damascus.

The ceasefire collapse also occurred as airstrikes reportedly struck Damascus International Airport on Tuesday. While the attack remains unclaimed, it has been widely blamed on Israel, who rarely takes responsibility for strikes against Iranian and pro-Iran targets in neighboring Syria. The U.K.-based, pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that Israeli warplanes struck "a shipment of Iranian weapons" that had arrived at the airport, while Russia's state-run Sputnik News highlighted reports claiming an Iranian cargo plane may have been the target.

The official Syrian Arab News Agency said that two Israeli missiles fell near the country's main airport, without specifying the target. The channel connected the suspected Israeli attack to the Syrian military's retaking of large swathes of territory in the Al-Lajat region in Daraa, where international powers have rushed to prevent an even larger escalation between Iran and Israel.

Anticipating last year's ceasefire agreement to unravel as the Syrian military retook rebel enclaves outside the capital, the U.S. and Russia entered quiet negotiations with Jordan aimed at excluding Iranian and pro-Iran forces from taking part in the Syrian campaign. Israel considers their presence a provocation and has for years bombed military assets allegedly associated with Iran. When these forces reportedly responded to a deadly pre-emptive Israeli attack last month by launching rockets at the Israel-occupied Golan Heights, Israel retaliated with its largest aerial assault on Syria since the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

GettyImages-890107316 Russian President Vladimir Putin (3r-L), his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad (4th-R), and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (L) pose with Russian air force pilots during their visit to the Russian air base in Hmeymim in the northwestern Syrian province of Latakia, December 11, 2017. Russian air support has been vital in helping the Syrian military and its allies defeat insurgents and jihadis. MIKHAIL KLIMENTYEV/AFP/Getty Images

http://s.newsweek.com/sites/www.news...-890107316.jpg


Despite their opposition to Assad, the U.S. and Jordan have stepped back their support for rebel groups as they became increasingly saturated with jihadi movements. Washington told Free Syrian Army commanders that "you should not base your decisions on the assumption or expectation of a military intervention by us" in a stern message published Saturday by Reuters. Jordan has repeatedly stated that it would not grant entry to any fighters or civilians fleeing to Syria's southern border with the kingdom, with Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi asserting "our borders will remain closed" in a tweet Tuesday.

Iran-backed groups, such as the Lebanese Shiite Muslim Hezbollah movement, have reportedly pulled back from southwestern Syria as part of a recent agreement, but Iran has maintained that it would not leave Syria unless asked to do so by the local government. The latest airstrikes in Damascus, however, may indicate that the deal has fallen apart or did not preclude Israeli attacks elsewhere in the country. Last week, unclaimed airstrikes blamed on both the U.S. and Israel reportedly killed dozens—including Iraqi militias—in Syra's far eastern province of Deir Ezzor.

Assad has welcomed both Russia and Iran as partners in the battle against insurgents and jihadis, but he has called the U.S. and Turkey to withdraw their forces immediately. Iraq, while deeply critical of U.S. and Israeli targeting of pro-Syrian government forces, has managed to maintain close relations with both the Syria-Russia-Iran axis as well as the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm…..

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight...ontent&utm_campaign=GME-I-northkorea-Jun18_US

Column by Michael Heng

If the US military withdraws from Korea, China will be a big loser

Michael Heng says while Beijing has good reason to be wary of American hegemony in the region, it must realise that a US military withdrawal would encourage unwanted developments – nuclear-armed neighbours in a unified Korea and Japan

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 20 June, 2018, 4:00pm
UPDATED : Wednesday, 20 June, 2018, 6:35pm
Comments: 49

The Kim-Trump summit in Singapore has reduced the danger of armed conflict on the Korean peninsula. It is good for peace in the near future and it calms stock markets.

At the same time, it is a big media event for Kim Jong-un. It will no doubt boost his international standing and strengthen his position at home. North Korea is the biggest winner, thanks to the calculating Kim and the disappointing Donald Trump. The immediate gain is the likely relaxation of economic sanctions against the country.

Other than these two points, one has to fall back on faith in Trump’s instinct that North Korea is earnest in denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula. He seems to have taken a sudden liking to Kim, someone he described as a “madman” after the death of American student Otto Warmbier, who was imprisoned during a visit to North Korea.

Somehow, Trump has forgotten that, in politics, interests are more decisive than personal relationships. But that is understandable as he is more a showman than a politician.

The joint declaration merely reaffirms the same commitment to denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula that North Korea has repeatedly made since 1992.

Watch: What’s in the Trump-Kim agreement
Video

As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has observed, there was “nothing about North Korea freezing plutonium and uranium programmes, nothing about destroying intercontinental ballistic missiles, nothing about allowing inspectors to return to nuclear sites, nothing about North Korea making a full declaration of its nuclear programme, nothing about a timetable, nothing about verification, not even any clear pledge to permanently halt testing of nuclear weapons or long-range missiles”.

00:22 / 00:30

If this is not disturbing enough, Trump announced after the summit that he wants to remove all US troops from South Korea, a major strategic move which the Pentagon had rejected outright for years despite Pyongyang’s repeated demands. Trump’s seemingly offhand announcement has perplexed American allies, particularly South Korea and Japan, and confused its own military establishment.

Why is the announcement so disturbing? Consider the following scenario. Supreme Leader Kim, aware that Trump’s current term of office would end in 2½ years, could embark on a cosmetic programme of denuclearisation, obliging Trump to respond by withdrawing the US military presence in South Korea.

Meanwhile, Trump’s successor could be boxed in by his vague agreement with Kim.

Watch: US and South Korea conduct joint military drills in September last year
Video

The retreat of US military forces would set alarm bells ringing in Japan. Political realities are more important than promises and treaties. If Japan were threatened, what should Tokyo do? The responsible thing would be to rely on itself, to build up its military and create a home-grown nuclear umbrella.

Can Abe get Japan back into the North Korea diplomatic game?

The biggest loser in the new situation would be South Korea. A nuclear-armed North Korea would easily impose demands on a South Korea without American military protection. The demands could range from reunification on Pyongyang’s terms to generous economic assistance from Seoul.

A US departure from South Korea would weaken South Korea to the extent that it may have to give in to the terms dictated by North Korea on reunification. A reunified Korea may well turn out to be a second reunified Vietnam, but with nuclear warheads. Taking either a short or long view of history, there is very little reason to believe that such a Korea would prove to be a friendly neighbour to China.

Even if Trump-Kim summit clicks, Koreans might never

Therefore, another big loser would be China, North Korea’s supposedly good friend. If Kim Il-sung, the grandfather of Kim Jong-un, could at times prove unpredictable for Beijing, the current supreme leader has exhibited features of a 21st-century Frankenstein. His modus operandi has often proved to be beyond the understanding of Chinese President Xi Jinping, a seasoned world-class political player.

It is an open secret that there has been no real fraternal relationship between the Chinese Communist Party and the Workers’ Party of Korea, as evidenced by the years of estrangement.

The recent summit in Singapore has not produced any substantive conditions to inspire real confidence that the North Korean leader will follow through on his claimed denuclearisation programme. North Korea’s failure to dismantle its nuclear weapons would represent a persistent nuclear threat on China’s doorstep. However, this is contrary to the view expressed by retired US Navy admiral James Stavridis, in a Bloomberg article: “For Beijing, the best outcome would be an agreed framework that puts off any actual relinquishment of North Korea’s nuclear weapons into the distant future. This will ensure the long-term survival of the Kim regime and the continuation of a divided peninsula.”

Added to this is the possibility of the emergence of Japan as a nuclear power in the wake of a US military withdrawal from South Korea. Japan, with its remarkable technological base, can rebuild its military to beyond its proclaimed self-defence needs and produce more deadly warheads and powerful delivery systems than North Korea within a short period.

Beijing is right to be wary of the hegemonic schemes of Uncle Sam, especially in view of the latter’s track record during the cold war period. But that does not mean a total US military withdrawal from South Korea and Japan would always be in China’s best interests.

The fact of the matter is that US hegemony has produced two benign by-products for China. Number one is that Japan has stuck very close to Article 9 of its constitution and remains non-nuclear. Number two is that the US foiled attempts by Chiang Kai-shek to build nuclear bombs in Taiwan.

The Chinese have a wise saying, ju an si wei, which means to be on guard against possible dangers in times of peace. A series of missteps in the wake of the Singapore summit could lead to northeast Asia degenerating into a powder keg. That is certainly not in the interests of China and the rest of Asia, or, for that matter, in the interests of world peace.

Michael Heng is a retired professor who held academic appointments in Australia, the Netherlands, and at six universities in Asia

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: China may pay price if US military leaves South Korea
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well I guess we know where this is going....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...t-give-up-one-inch-of-territory-idUSKBN1JN03T

World News June 26, 2018 / 5:54 PM / Updated 27 minutes ago

Xi tells Mattis China won't give up 'one inch' of territory

Phil Stewart, Ben Blanchard
5 Min Read

BEIJING (Reuters) - China is committed to peace and won’t cause “chaos” in the world, but cannot give up even an inch of territory that the country’s ancestors have left behind, Chinese President Xi Jinping told U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Wednesday.

Mattis, a former Marine general, has been highly critical of China’s muscular military moves in the disputed South China Sea. The U.S. military even withdrew an invitation to China to join a multinational naval exercise that will start during Mattis’ visit, upsetting Beijing.

Mattis is visiting against a backdrop of spiraling tension between Beijing and Washington over trade.

Beijing is also deeply suspicious of U.S. intentions toward self-governing and democratic Taiwan, which is armed by the United States. China views the island as a sacred part of its territory.

Meeting in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People, Xi told Mattis Xi that China had only peaceful intentions and would not “cause chaos”, state television reported.

Both countries’ common interests far outweigh their differences, but on territorial issues there can be no concessions, Xi added, without referring to specific areas.

“We cannot loose even one inch of the territory left behind by our ancestors. What is other people’s, we do not want at all,” state television cited Xi as saying.

Mattis, in comments in front of reporters, told Xi his talks had been “very, very” good.

“I am happy to be in China and we are assigning the same high degree of importance to the military to military relationship,” Mattis said.

Meeting earlier in the day, China’s defense minister told Mattis that only with mutual respect and by avoiding confrontation can China and the United States develop together.

“China upholds peaceful development, and China’s military unswervingly protects the country’s sovereignty, security and development interests,” Chinese Defence Minister Wei Fenghe said, according to his ministry.

“China and the United States can only develop together if we maintain no conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation,” Wei added.

“China and the United States two militaries must implement the consensus of the two countries’ leaders, increase mutual trust, strengthen cooperation and manage risks to turn ties between the two militaries into a factor for stability in the bilateral relationship.”

Mattis, the first Pentagon chief to visit China since 2014, told Wei he expected all of his conversations in Beijing would be characterized by an “open and honest” dialogue, like the one he had with Wei.

“The military-to-military relationship is critical to the broader relationship between our two countries,” Mattis added, in comments also in front of reporters.
Mattis invited Wei to visit him at the Pentagon.

Wei was similarly upbeat in his public remarks.

“Your visit to China this time is ... a new positive factor to the military-to-military and state-to-state relationship,” said Wei, who only assumed his position in March.


Slideshow (8 Images)

TAIWAN TENSION
The Chinese defense ministry statement made only passing mention of the South China Sea, Taiwan and North Korea, citing Wei as telling Mattis what China’s positions were on those issues.

As Mattis arrived, Chinese state media said a formation of Chinese warships has been holding daily combat drills for more than a week in waters near Taiwan, and there have been frequent Chinese air force exercises near the island.

While China and the United States have tried hard to keep lines of communication between their militaries open, especially at the senior level, they are deeply suspicious of each other.

The United States accuses China of militarizing the South China Sea with its island-building work there, while China has been angered by U.S. naval patrols through the strategic waterway.

In May, the United States withdrew an invitation to China to attend a major U.S.-hosted naval drill, the Rim of the Pacific exercise, known as RIMPAC and previously attended by China, in response to what Washington sees as Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea.

Still, the two have broad strategic common interests, such as ensuring peace and stability on the Korean peninsula.

China welcomed this month’s historic summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in Singapore, where Kim reaffirmed a commitment to work toward complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, while Trump said he would halt joint U.S.-South Korean “war games”.

Reporting by Phil Stewart and Ben Blanchard; Additional reporting by Christian Shepherd and Michael Martina; Editing by Michael Perry, Robert Birsel
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm…..

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/sharpening-our-military-edge-nds-and-full-continuum-conflict

Sharpening Our Military Edge: The NDS and the Full Continuum of Conflict

by Frank Hoffman | Wed, 06/27/2018 - 12:16am | 0 comments

The new National Defense Strategy (NDS) identifies China and Russia as our primary competitors.[1] Some members of the defense community misread the NDS as embracing great power wars and perceive these as purely conventional wars. Some even suggest that the Pentagon reflexively yearns for a large conventional threat, so it can get back to what it wants to, fighting peers and justifying its technologically oriented hardware programs. This oversimplifies the underlying assessment of the future environment in the strategy and misreads the strategy’s explicit appreciation of the various dimensions of great power competition. Concerns about the future of small wars should not be dismissed, but proponents of the study of irregular wars should also accept the need to prioritize threats and risk in any strategy. The NDS does reflect a mindset shift and shift in modernization given the scale of the two major competitors.

But there is more to the strategy than a repeat of our “big war” syndrome. As a member of the NDS Core Task Force and very familiar with the debates involved in the NDS, I understand how the distinctive shift in priorities and the resulting shift in force design and modernization can be interpreted as a reflex action against 17 years of counterinsurgency, counter-terrorism and stabilization operations. But there is no blind lust for Great Power War amongst the leadership of the Pentagon, just a clear recognition that geopolitical competition poses severe threats to our way of life and economic prosperity. Thus, the strategy does not overlook the various forms that warfare may take in the future. Peacetime competition, “gray zone” tactics, Small War or hybrid combinations are not dismissed. Granted, there is a need to reinvest in atrophied skill sets and domains to sharpen the U.S. military’s competitive edge for the coming decade. This is a clear-eyed evaluation of the near to mid-range security environment, coupled with an appreciation of how much our education and training and readiness has been altered to support Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other missions for so long. It also reflects a well-founded assessment of the ambitions and investments made over the last decade by two geopolitical challengers.

Nor does the strategy lack of appreciation for both Chinese and Russian strategic culture which both recognize unconventional methods and non-military conflict. The Secretary of Defense and his NDS explicitly recognizes a full spectrum of conflict and warns against over-investing in a single and preclusive form of warfare, which an adversary will surely exploit.[2] The Secretary has stressed that “a paradox of war is that an enemy will attack a perceived weakness, so we cannot adopt a single preclusive form of warfare.” The strategy also explicitly states that Irregular Warfare will be retained as a core competency.

The Joint Force must be ready and able to respond to numerous challenges across the full range of conflict including complex operations in peace and during war. This is not an easy task given the complexity of the projected operating environment. Partially because of this conceptual challenge, we are falling behind in our readiness for the future. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, concluded “We’re already behind in adapting to the changed character of war today in so many ways.”[3] The U.S. defense community faces global challengers, and must devote sufficient attention to the breadth of adversaries facing it. The first step is understanding the range of conflicts we may face and the relative risks of each. Some threats pose existential challenges, but these will be quite rare. Other adversaries can generate more frequent but less consequential risks. We need to be able to assess these risks and prioritize accordingly.

If the defense strategy released by Secretary of Defense Mattis this past January was myopically oriented entirely on high-intensity and conventional warfighting, some clear force structure and budget shifts would be evident. For example, Security Force Assistance Brigades would have been still born, and the resources for Special Operations Command would have been curtailed. But, as clear evidence of the Department’s embrace of the full continuum of conflict, the opposite happened. The SFABs are being deployed and SOCOM received budget increases and its FY19 budget adds 1,700 military and civilian personnel .[4] The NDS calls for the SOF community to take on more tasks beyond its current counter-terrorism tasks, and broaden its consideration of and application of Unconventional Warfare to major powers. This would not be happening if DoD thought it was walking away from irregular warfare or conflict short of conventional wars. To be clear, the strategy recognizes that we face an array of different threats and require a comprehensive suite of skills and competencies to address the full range, and the strategy matches goals to resources in accordance with clear priorities. We have some catching up to do in some key warfighting domains.

Understanding future security challenges requires that policy makers interpret the past, understand the present, and think rigorously about what lies over the horizon in order to adapt to the changing character of conflict.[5] This requires keeping an open and informed mind about the breadth of the various modes of conflict that exist. The wars of the twenty-first century may take many forms. As conflict reflects a greater degree of convergence and complexity, so should our mental models and frameworks. But our strategies must also be driven by our national interests and the assigned national security and defense objectives. The Pentagon’s leadership and its strategy, Sharpening the U.S. Military Competitive Edge, reflects those interests and an acute appreciation for tradeoffs and priorities. The essence of strategy is to wrestle with the choices presented with the risk/resource balance and the tradeoffs required. In my view, the Pentagon has done that.

Readers of this journal and its community of interest should not be worried that the National Defense Strategy ignores the more frequent and the more likely forms of conflict. It embraces a full continuum from competition, to conflict, and to various forms of war. However, we should be vigilant about the sine wave of U.S. policy interest in complex conflicts into the future. The United States has made that mistake before and paid for it.

End Notes
[1] James N. Mattis, Summary of the National Defense Strategy, Sharpening the U.S. Military’s Competitive Edge, Washington, DC: Department of Defense, January 2018.
[2] James N. Mattis, transcript, Roll Out Speech for National Defense Strategy, School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, January 19, 2018.
[3] General Joseph Dunford, USMC, Remarks at National Defense University Graduation Ceremony, Ft. McNair, DC, June 10, 2016. Available at http://www.jcs.mil/Media/Speeches/A...t-the-national-defense-university-graduation/ .
[4] See the FY19 Defense Department detailed defense of the budget submission, which is explicitly tied to the National Defense Strategy, at https://comptroller.defense.gov/Por...y2019/FY2019_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
[5] Brian McAllister Lynn, “The U.S. Armed Forces’ View of War,” Vol. 140, no. 3, Daedalus (Summer 2011), 34.

About the Author(s)

Frank Hoffman is a retired Marine infantryman and veteran Pentagon policy and program analyst. The comments in his articles reflect his own positions and not those of the Department of Defense.
 
Top