WAR 07-04-2020-to-07-10-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

[Housecarl]

(424) 06-13-2020-to-06-19-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****



WAR - 06-13-2020-to-06-19-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
Sorry for the delay folks...... (421) 05-23-2020-to-05-29-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** WAR - 05-23-2020-to-05-29-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** (418) 05-02-2020-to-05-08-24-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** WAR -...

www.timebomb2000.com



(425) 06-20-2020-to-06-26-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****



WAR - 06-20-2020-to-06-26-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
(422) 05-30-2020-to-06-05-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** WAR -...

www.timebomb2000.com






(426) 06-27-2020-to-07-03-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

WAR - 06-27-2020-to-07-03-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(423) 06-06-2020-to-06-12-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** WAR - 06-06-2020-to-06-12-2020___****THE****WINDS****of****WAR**** (420)...

www.timebomb2000.com

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

Posted for fair use.....

America is rapidly pulling troops from Afghanistan

The future of the country they are leaving behind is more uncertain than ever

www.economist.com

Withdraw first, ask questions later
America is rapidly pulling troops from Afghanistan
The future of the country they are leaving behind is more uncertain than ever
Asia
Jul 4th 2020 edition

Jul 4th 2020
ISLAMABAD
FAIZA IBRAHIMI is too young to remember when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan as a theocracy. She can scarcely believe her parents’ stories about it. She is a radio presenter in the western city of Herat. The idea that gun-toting zealots from the countryside used to forbid women to leave home unless fully veiled and accompanied by a male relative seems almost inconceivable: “My mother was unable to work and find bread. I couldn’t imagine that time again.”

It was only in 2001 that American forces toppled the Taliban regime, when the mullahs who led the movement refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks. But nnearly two-thirds of the population is less than 25 years old, and so has little or no memory of the Taliban’s rule. They are having to brush up on their history, however, as they contemplate the prospect of the Taliban returning to power in some form. The American troops that have propped up the Afghan government and held the Taliban at bay for the past 19 years are on their way out. Over the past four months the number of American soldiers in the country has fallen by a third, from around 13,000 to 8,600. The administration of President Donald Trump has pledged to reduce their strength.....

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles Still Matter

On July 1st, the House Armed Services Committee derailed an effort to kill funding for the U.S. Air Force's intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) replacement, the Ground-based Strategic Deterrent

www.realcleardefense.com

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles Still Matter
By Adam Lowther, William Murphy & Gerald Goodfellow

July 04, 2020

On July 1st, the House Armed Services Committee derailed an effort to kill funding for the U.S. Air Force's intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) replacement, the Ground-based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD). This was a big win for the Air Force because the arms control community has set its sights on GBSD and its primary target. In a recent opinion piece for The Hill, arms control advocate William Hartung draws from his new Union of Concerned Scientists’ report to call for the termination of GBSD, but the elimination of ICBMs altogether.

The claims made by Hartung and the arms control community are another example of the misinformation, so often repeated in public concerning nuclear deterrence and the United States’ nuclear triad. Hartung’s argument, at the very least, mischaracterizes the nation’s nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) system, ICBM technology, and, most importantly, the role land-based missiles play in deterrence. Let us explain.

ICBMs and Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications

Hartung begins by arguing, “Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has rightly called these systems ‘some of the most dangerous weapons in the world’ because they could trigger an accidental nuclear war.” Most, including our adversaries, would agree ICBMs are “some of the most dangerous weapons in the world,” but this is key to deterrence. As a previous article notes, Perry’s argument about “accidental war” neither reflects the technical developments made in the nearly half-century since Perry’s 1970s “close call” experience nor discusses updates to NC3 technologies/procedures/processes and how our senior leaders would respond given today’s safeguards.

Currently, the United States possesses the most advanced space and terrestrial based integrated tactical warning and attack assessment systems in the world. It provides “dual phenomenology” in which multiple systems are required to vet and verify any indications and warning received by a system. China and Russia also possess capable systems that are improving to equal that of the United States. Thus, the insinuation ICBMs are somehow prone to accidental launch because of an error in the United States’ tactical warning system is far-fetched.

When Hartung suggests nuclear war is little more than one computer error away, he deeply misrepresents the nation’s nuclear command, control, and communications system, specifically designed to prevent the very mistakes they suggest. NC3 is built to be redundant and relies on both human and technical means to prevent accidental launches.

ICBM Technology

When Hartung suggests the current Minuteman III system is perfectly capable and should remain in service for several more decades, until land-based ballistic missiles are eliminated, he shows a misunderstanding of adversary capabilities. Since the MMIII was fielded in the 1970s, technology has progressed in dramatic ways.

Russia and China recently completed modernizing their nuclear arsenals, and are developing defensive systems specifically designed to mitigate American ICBMs. They are also hardening and burying facilities the United States would likely target. It should come as no surprise GBSD, the replacement system for the Minuteman III, is designed to overcome adversary defensive systems. Ensuring our adversaries know we can successfully strike is central to maintaining stable deterrence.

Although the specific capabilities of GBSD are highly classified, the need to field a system with 2020s technology instead of 1970s technology is apparent. When you consider ICBMs are the least expensive to acquire and most cost effective to maintain and operate of the nation’s nuclear weapon systems, fielding a highly reliable and cost effective system is a smart move.

ICBMs in Nuclear Strategy

Most concerning in Hartung’s editorial and the report is the misstatement of American nuclear strategy and glossing over the risk an ICBM-free nuclear force creates.

First, ICBMs are specifically designed to create a large number of targets—approximately 500—on American soil that require an adversary to specifically strike with more than 1,000 nuclear missiles in order to destroy America's ability to strike back. By setting the bar for success so high, ICBMs have helped prevent nuclear war and conventional war between the great powers for more than sixty years. Remember, nuclear weapons make nuclear powers and their allies unwilling to fight each other in a conventional war because of the fear of escalation.

If Hartung and his co-authors have their way and ICBMs are eliminated, the number of targets it takes to destroy the United States’ nuclear arsenal shrinks from 500 to six—all of which can be destroyed or severely degraded with conventional weapons. Bomber and submarine bases are targets that, along with their aircraft and submarines, can be destroyed by low observable cruise missiles and conventional hypersonic weapons all before any response occurs.

These characteristics make ICBMs the most stabilizing leg of the nation's nuclear triad. More than any other leg of the triad, ICBMs reduce the temptation of nuclear armed adversaries from striking the U.S. first.

Hartung’s suggestion that submarines are invulnerable is simply untrue. During the Cold War, American Los Angeles class attack submarines would wait outside Soviet submarine pens and successfully track Soviet ballistic missile submarines. Space-based assets and hydroacoustic arrays are becoming increasingly more capable of tracking submarines and will only be aided by quantum computing and artificial intelligence in the years to come. Thus, to say submarines are “invulnerable” is just not accurate.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, ICBMs remain as important to the nation’s nuclear triad as they were when first fielded in 1959. If the desire of Americans is to maintain strategic stability, eliminating land-based ballistic missiles would have the exact opposite effect.

Don’t take our word for it. Just look at Russian and Chinese nuclear modernization. Both countries have focused their efforts on modernizing their own ICBM forces. If they are merely Cold War relics, why are our adversaries so focused on advancing their own ICBM forces?


Dr. Adam Lowther is a professor at the U.S. Army's School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) at Ft. Leavenworth, KS. He was the founding Director of the U.S. Air Force's School of Advanced Nuclear Deterrence Studies (SANDS).

William Murphy is the Director of Senior Leader Education for Nuclear Command, Control and Communications at the Louisiana Tech Research Institute. He is also an Air Force reserve general officer assigned to Air Force Global Strike Command.

Brig Gen Gerald Goodfellow (USAF, Ret.) is the Executive Director of the Louisiana Tech Research Institute. During his 30-year Air Force career, he flew B-1, KC-135, and E-6B aircraft in support of the nation's nuclear mission. In his current position, he is responsible for teaching all of the Nuclear Command, Control and Communications continuing military education courses within the USAF.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the United States Army, United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

 

[Housecarl]

Some form of explosion occurred near Tehran

Analysts: Fire at Iran nuke site hit new centrifuge facility

India - China border crisis (Main Thread)

REGIONAL CONFLICT BREWING IN THE Mediterranean

COVID: the Chinese regime, Sun Tzu and the art of war

Latin America and the Islands: Politics, Economics, and Military- July 2020

Africa: Politics, Economics, and Military- July 2020

Europe: Politics, Economics, and Military- July 2020

ROC Practices defending Taiwan

China ‘prepared against military provocation from Australia’

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm......

Posted for fair use.....

Pak hoping to topple Ghani, install puppet in Kabul - The Sunday Guardian Live

New Delhi: The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs has asked the Pakistan naval headquarters not to push for the conclusion of a water-sharing agreement

www.sundayguardianlive.com

Pak hoping to topple Ghani, install puppet in Kabul


Abhinandan Mishra

• Published
• :
• July 4, 2020,
• 10:22 pm
• |
• Updated
• :
• July 4, 2020,
• 10:22 PM

New Delhi: The Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs has asked the Pakistan naval headquarters not to push for the conclusion of a water-sharing agreement with Afghanistan at present as a dialogue on the topic with the present Afghan government led by President Ashraf Ghani would be “detrimental to Islamabad’s interests” as it would open up “contentious issues”. The ministry has advised the naval headquarters to “withhold the matter till the formation of a new political dispensation in Afghanistan”.

The foreign ministry’s recommendation has also mentioned that the “topic” (of water sharing) should be avoided as “Pakistan is already receiving double the share of its water from Kabul river that originally flows from the Chitral river”.

These recommendations, sent to the Pakistan naval headquarters last month, and accessed by The Sunday Guardian, have not identified the “new political dispensation” that the Pakistan Foreign Ministry is so sure of siding with Pakistan’s cause in the near future, but it is not rocket science that the Foreign Office is most likely alluding to a Taliban-led government in Afghanistan, which ISI has been pushing for even since the US-Taliban peace deal was signed.

On 7 March, The Sunday Guardian had written that the Taliban, in collaboration with Pakistan’s ISI, was working on the ground with an objective to remove the present political dispensation (Taliban eye replacing ‘pro-India’ Ghani in Kabul).

The Foreign Office of Pakistan has also asked the naval office to reconvene the inter-ministerial group, which was constituted in March 2017 to strategize Pakistan’s national interest in light of Indian projects in Afghanistan, at the earliest to deliberate on the developments.

Strategic observers, who are following the issues, believe that these developments are possible signs of ISI and Taliban making a move to remove the present Afghanistan government in the near future, as India, one of closest allies of Afghanistan, both figuratively and literally, is facing challenges of its own with regards to China.

PAKISTAN COPYING CHINA’S SALAMI-SLICING
Pakistan has also resorted to encroaching on territory belonging to Afghanistan along the Durand Line, leading to a “war-like” situation among the two countries.

The Foreign Ministry of Afghanistan recently lodged a strong protest with Pakistan after it found that 600 square metres of its territory, including a cemetery, has been encroached upon by the Pakistan army, which has now installed barbed wires there to stop Afghans from reclaiming it. This technique of clipping away small pieces of land and announcing it as its own is what China too has been doing for long now.

The Afghanistan government recently found that Pakistan military personnel have encroached on about 500 to 600 square metres of Afghan territory in the area of Sonzi and Warzhala in Tani district of Khost province and have installed barbed wire fencing around the encroached upon area.

With the installation of the barbed wire in the Sonzi area, even the cemetery belonging to the village of Sonzi and the tribes of Tani district of Khost province, has now gone to the other side (Pakistan side) of the Durand Line, The Sunday Guardian has learnt through official documents.

This encroachment, according to official reports, has caused a lot of anger amongst the locals. There was a fear that a conflict would break out in these areas, but this has now been “disputed”.

MORE TROUBLES FOR KABUL
Signs that troubling times lie ahead for Afghanistan can be gauged from the statement issued by Ambassadors of the European Union in Kabul last week on the escalating violence in the country.
“The EU Delegation in agreement with EU Heads of Mission based in Kabul believe the situation has further deteriorated since 29 May when the EU Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers declared the level of violence as ‘unacceptable’,” the statement reads.

“The attacks by the Taliban against Afghan National Defence and Security Forces are undermining the prospect for intra-Afghan negotiations; this must end and a full-fledged ceasefire enter into force. Violence against civilians has also continued. It is a violation of international humanitarian law, which profoundly undermines the confidence and trust necessary for peace negotiations. It appears to be a deliberate attempt to stifle debate in advance of peace negotiations. These crimes need to be investigated and the responsible brought to justice,” it further stated.

 

[danielboon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1279574926156955650

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/duandang/status/1279574926156955650

 

[Housecarl]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1279574926156955650

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/duandang/status/1279574926156955650

Yeah, it's getting a whee bit crowded around there.

 

[energy_wave]

The US has two carrier groups drilling together not far from the Chinese military drill. The Nimitz and Regan, iirc.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Islamic State And Al-Qaeda Clash In The Sahel – Analysis

By Prashant Kandpal The Western Sahel region of the African continent has become an infighting battleground for jihadist groups competing for hegemony over the region. In May, Islamic State&nb…

www.eurasiareview.com

Islamic State And Al-Qaeda Clash In The Sahel – Analysis
July 3, 2020 Geopolitical Monitor 0 Comments
By Geopolitical Monitor

By Prashant Kandpal
The Western Sahel region of the African continent has become an infighting battleground for jihadist groups competing for hegemony over the region. In May, Islamic State (IS) in its newspaper Al-naba revealed its clashes with Al-Qaeda affiliates. IS has blamed Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin (JNIM), an Al-Qaeda affiliate, for initiating the fierce fighting and mobilization of forces in order to wrest areas from Islamic State’s control. Since last year there has been a surge in the attacks conducted by these groups against each other. Conversely, there have been some mainstream reports claiming operational and organizational cooperation between the groups, though there has been no real evidence to support this. Other than the two major players Islamic State in Greater Sahara (ISGS) and Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), there are many other small terror outfits and tribal militias that are present in a fragmented pattern all over the region. A recent trend in the region reflects that, due to lack of resources and funding, members of these small terror outfits and tribal militias are defecting to the major players. This trend of defection is helping terror outfits like IS and Al-Qaeda increase their strength in the region. The Sahel is thus currently experiencing a surge in terrorist activity; in addition to porous borders between the countries, looming international support and social exclusion of rural areas are making the situation even worse. This only emboldens the major players in the region and their game of locking horns for territory, resources, and support.

The history of AQIM is deeply rooted in the Algerian Civil War of 1992. During the 1992 presidential elections, the Front Islamique du Salut (FIS, Islamic Salvation Front) was on the brink of victory. In order to prevent an Islamist party winning the election, the military staged a coup and cancelled the second round of Parliamentary elections. In response, the FIS’ Islamic extremists advocated a full-fledged war against the Algerian regime and formed an Islamic armed group, the Armee Islamique du Salut (AIS), with an approximate strength of 4000 terrorists. Certain Islamic extremists who didn’t support FIS merged with various jihadist guerillas and formed a group known as Groupe Islamique Armé (GIA), with a strength of around 2000-3000 (approx). In October 1992, many such groups, which were loosely held together with no central command structure, initiated a terror campaign against the government, to which the military responded with brutality, leading to the civil war. From 1992-1998 Algeria was engaged in a fierce fight between rebels and government forces. This led to casualties of around 150,000, most of them civilians. Internal conflicts among groups and the response from government forces shattered various large terror groups, leaving them as local outfits. At the end, many terror groups negotiated with the government; others that didn’t comply fled the country and took refuge in the deserted area of northern Mali. In 1998, Hassan Hattab, who was the commander of one of the fragmented GIS units, formed his own organization called the Groupe Salafiste pour la Prédication et le Combat (GSPC, Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat). Eight years later, the leadership of GSPC plugged into the global realm by forming links with Al-Qaeda, later pledging public allegiance to Bin Laden in September 2006. A few months later, they renamed themselves Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. In 2015, Al-Mourabitoun, a local Salafist outfit, earlier an offshoot of AQIM, re-joined it after a period of internal conflict. In 2017, AQIM announced the formation of Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM) after merging Ansar Al-Dine and Al-Mourabitoun. JNIM currently is working under the direction of AQIM and Al-Qaeda central.

In 2015, when the top brass of Al-Mourabitoun was thinking of reconciling with AQIM, a splinter group under the leadership of Adnan Abu Walid al Sahrawi pledged their allegiance to Islamic State. He left the group and formed Islamic State in Greater Sahara (ISGS). However, the call was left unheard by IS leadership for a long period. It was only after 17 months that IS officially accepted their allegiance and acknowledged ISGS as their affiliate in the African continent.
Speculation is rife as to why Islamic State took over a year to officially declare ISGS as its affiliate. One theory is that the decline of Islamic State’s influence in Syria and Iraq forced the terror group to search for a new base. The Sahel in particular, with its porous borders, poor governance, and large tracts of ungoverned space, emerged as the best option for a new home. Boko Haram, a Salafist-jihadist terror outfit, had earlier maintained close ties with AQIM. But in 2015, Abubakar Shekau, leader of Boko Haram pledged allegiance to ISIS. Further, ISIS leadership become embroiled in conflict with Abubakar over unilaterally announcing Abu Musab al-Barnawi as a new leader of Boko Haram under ISIS. This led to a split in the organization, with members pledging their loyalty to both Abubakar (Boko Haram) and Barnawi (ISIS, Islamic State in West Africa).

Over the years, many small rebel groups and tribal outfits have endeavored to take on various international brands of terrorism. For terror outfits like AQ and IS, this was a chance to expand their territory. AQIM initially formed a triangular strategy, under which North Africa (Maghreb) was their recruiting hub. Iraq served as a battlefield for recruits, and Europe was where AQIM wanted to pursue an aggressive propaganda campaign against France. But with the declining influence of Al-Qaeda in Iraq, AQIM was unable to implement the strategy it envisaged. With its inability to execute the strategy, AQIM started looking for global targets in their own immediate environment. Conversely, for IS, this moment became a chance to gain a new foothold after the collapse in the Middle East.

One reason why AQ and Islamic State chose the Maghreb as their base might be the presence of these local militias. The militias themselves thrive in the region thanks to its lack of governance and resources, which generally has led to inter-tribal conflicts that can be further exploited by providing support in the form of daily basic needs, which then provides opportunities to spread an organization’s ideology. Moreover, for local militias, aligning with larger groups helps create new avenues of funding and weapon procurement. The weak military presence in the region is another contributing factor.

Since the beginning of 2020, there has been a surge in conflict between ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the Sahel region. Natural resources, hegemony, internal conflicts are few reasons fueling the growing strife, but there are other reasons as well: local, regional and international dynamics that together alter the power balance, putting formerly cordial relationships under strain. In Sahel, both terror groups have blamed each other for deviating from the path of jihad; ISIS has always blamed Al-Qaeda for being lenient, while Al-Qaeda blames ISIS for being more brutal than needed. Both groups have ideological differences and different perceptions as to whom they see as their enemies; this creates a difference in their modus operandi. While on the one hand, Al-Qaeda in Sahel stresses the fight against the government, bureaucrats, and foreign forces, and not to harm fellow Muslims, on the other ISIS believes in Takfirism and allows its members to kill Muslims who don’t follow the essential tenets of Islam. ISIS ideological teachings are more focused towards building dogmatic fighters who are committed to the establishment of the Caliphate. A lack of resources in the region has forced these terror groups to capture areas where they can sustain themselves, which has given rise to a common area of operation and frequent clashes between the groups. The area of influence of both Islamic State and Al-Qaeda affiliates overlaps with each other in certain strategic areas, and this generally creates tensions between both the groups. In the first quarter of 2020, a largely peaceful relationship between the two devolved into intense and deadly confrontations. Both groups have clashed in various theatres: the inland Niger Delta area around Mopti, Mali, which traditionally has been under the control of JNIM – an Al-Qaeda affiliate; in the Gourma area on both sides of the Mali-Burkina Faso border, where both groups had previously peacefully coexisted until 2020; and in In-Tillit and Tin-Tabakat (Mali), along with Korfooueyouey, Arayel, Arbinda, Nassoumbou, Pobé (Burkina Faso).

In terms of strength, AQ affiliates heavily outnumber IS affiliates in the region, and this is the reason why JNIM, an AQ affiliate, has maintained its dominance over the conflicted area despite a number of attempts from ISGS which were met with initial success. As of May 2020, JNIM has not only taken back their territory in the Malian Gourma, but has also shaken Islamic State’s traditional strongholds in the Soum Province of Burkina Faso. It has also maintained its dominance in the regions around the Delta Niger.

The Sahel has traditionally been dominated by Al-Qaeda and its affiliates. With a long history in the region, they have always been high up on the target list of government forces. On the other hand, the rise of IS in the region has been non-linear; it took the group a year and a half to officially recognize ISGS, and secondly, due Islamic State’s collapse in the Middle East, committing resources to the Sahel has been difficult.

The US decision to pull its forces back from the region has made conditions worse for the Sahel. In the days ahead, with decreased international support and continuous rivalry between various terror groups, locals will suffer amid escalating clashes and competition for resources, money, and recruitment. The Sahel as a region has long suffered from poverty, bad governance, unemployment, and tribal conflicts. The escalating conflict between Al Qaeda and Islamic State will only worsen these unfortunate trends.

This article was published by Geopolitical Monitor.com

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Mexican soldiers kill 12 gunmen in city on border with Texas - KVIA

NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico — Mexican soldiers patrolling in the Texas border city of Nuevo Laredo came under fire from drug cartel gunmen, then killed 12 of their attackers in a gunbattle, the military said. The Defense Department said three army patrol trucks were hit by Friday's gunfire, but no...

kvia.com

Mexican soldiers kill 12 gunmen in city on border with Texas

MGN

NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico — Mexican soldiers patrolling in the Texas border city of Nuevo Laredo came under fire from drug cartel gunmen, then killed 12 of their attackers in a gunbattle, the military said.
The Defense Department said three army patrol trucks were hit by Friday's gunfire, but no troops were hurt. The gunmen were believed to belong to the Cartel of the Northeast, a split-off of the old Zetas cartel.
The department said one of the attackers’ burned-out pickups was left at the scene and eight assault rifles and two .50-caliber sniper rifles were also found. Nuevo Laredo, which is across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas, has been the scene of bloody gunfights in recent years.

On April 1, the U.S. consulate in Nuevo Laredo issued an alert citing “reports of multiple gunfights and blockades throughout the city of Nuevo Laredo. U.S. government personnel are advised to shelter in place.”
On Jan. 4, the consulate wrote that “organized crime activity (including gun battles, murder, armed robbery, carjacking, kidnapping, forced disappearances, extortion, and sexual assault) is common” in Nuevo Laredo. “Heavily armed members of criminal groups often patrol areas in marked and unmarked vehicles and operate with impunity. Local law enforcement has limited capability to respond to crime incidents.”
Elsewhere, state police in the border state of Coahuila reported that officers killed five suspects after being fired on. The state government said the shootout occurred in the city of Torreón when police came under fire from a man who fled into a house, where four other occupants also began shooting.

In central Mexico, meanwhile, armed men killed five state police officers and wounded two others in Guanajuato, the state where 26 recovering addicts at a drug rehabilitation center were massacred earlier in the week.
Gov. Diego Sinhue Rodriguez wrote in his Twitter account: “I regret what happened to the five officers ... we will be intensifying our efforts to equip and train security personnel.”
Guanajuato has been the scene of bloody turf battles between the Jalisco drug cartel and the local Santa Rose de Lima gang. The killings have made it Mexico’s most violent state.

News / Texas / US & World

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

GRAPHIC: Los Zetas Attacks Mexican Military near U.S. Border

Law enforcement in Mexico killed 12 Los Zetas gunmen after an attack on Mexican soldiers in the neighborhood of Los Fresnos, near Nuevo Laredo. Military | Border / Cartel Chronicles

www.breitbart.com

GRAPHIC: Los Zetas Attacks Mexican Military near U.S. Border
290

File Photo: Breitbart Texas / Cartel Chronicles
Jaeson Jones4 Jul 2020222

2:02

Law enforcement in Mexico killed 12 Los Zetas gunmen after an attack on Mexican soldiers in the neighborhood of Los Fresnos, near Nuevo Laredo.

Military personnel from the 16th Regiment conducting routine patrols came under attack during an ambush by members of Los Zetas, also known as Cartel Del Noreste (CDN). The attack commenced at approximately 2:15 a.m. on July 3 on the outskirts of Nuevo Laredo in the neighborhood of Los Fresnos. The community is located roughly a mile from the U.S./Mexico border.

Mexican soldiers repelled the attack, according to authorities. The gun battle resulted in the deaths of twelve cartel gunmen. Authorities later found another gunman from the same group deceased from wounds related to the attack.

Los Zetas CDN gunmen wearing matching tactical uniforms including CDN patches. Authorities seized a Barrett .50 caliber rifle at the scene. (Photo: Government of Mexico)

Officials seized eight AR-15 weapons, one AK47, and two .50 caliber Barret rifles at the scene.
Two vehicles utilized in the ambush had been stolen in the United States, authorities reported. The federal ministerial authority disclosed details from the attack to Mexican media outlets.

The attack highlights the increased threats from these cartels as their weaponry, equipment, and tactics continue to improve. In photographs provided by Mexican authorities, uniforms, including CDN patches, and insignias are visible on cartel operatives killed at the scene.

The photos below graphically reveal the level of violence and the tactical gear and firepower utilized in the gunbattle that raged in the Mexican neighborhood in the middle of the night.

Tactical gear worn by Los Zetas CDN gunmen includes gear commonly used by Mexican and U.S. special operations groups. Items include Tactical helmets, load-bearing vests, and bulletproof chest plates. (Photo: Government of Mexico)

Two of the truck utilized by CDN Los Zetas gunmen had been stolen in the United States. (Photo: Government of Mexico)
Jaeson Jones is a retired Captain from the Texas Department of Public Safety’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism Division and a Breitbart Texas contributor. While on duty, he managed daily operations for the Texas Rangers Border Security Operations Center.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Thousands of US troops will shift to Asia-Pacific to guard against China

German contingent to redeploy to Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, Japan and Australia

asia.nikkei.com

International relations
Thousands of US troops will shift to Asia-Pacific to guard against China
German contingent to redeploy to Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, Japan and Australia

A sailor signals an F/A-18E Super Hornet to launch from the flight deck of the USS Ronald Reagan in the Philippine Sea. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy)
TSUYOSHI NAGASAWA and SHOTARO MIYASAKA, Nikkei staff writersJuly 5, 2020 03:53 JST

WASHINGTON/TOKYO -- Facing what a Trump administration official recently called "the most significant geopolitical challenge since the end of the Cold War" in the Indo-Pacific theater, the U.S. military will embark on a realignment of its global posture.

Several thousand of the troops currently posted in Germany are expected to redeploy to American bases in Guam, Hawaii, Alaska, Japan and Australia.

Priorities have changed. During the Cold War, American defense strategists thought it important to maintain a massive land force in Europe to keep the Soviet Union at bay. In the 2000s, the focus was primarily on the Middle East as the U.S. waged its "war on terrorism" in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now the game planning centers on China.

To counter the "two great-power competitors" of China and Russia, "U.S. forces must be deployed abroad in a more forward and expeditionary manner than they have been in recent years," wrote Robert O'Brien, President Donald Trump's national security adviser, in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece late last month.

Toward this end, the administration will reduce its force permanently stationed in Germany from 34,500 troops to 25,000.
The 9,500 who are leaving will be reassigned elsewhere in Europe, redeployed to the Indo-Pacific region, or sent back to bases in the U.S.

On the Indo-Pacific, O'Brien wrote: "In that theater, Americans and allies face the most significant geopolitical challenge since the end of the Cold War."

Beijing continues to pour money into its forces, for instance. The Japanese government's defense white paper estimates that China's true defense spending exceeds its announced annual budget, which amounts to roughly triple Russia's.

The crux of the Chinese defense strategy is anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD -- an effort to keep American ships and fighter jets from approaching the shores of China. Toward this end, the Chinese have been strengthening their precision missile systems and sophisticated radar capabilities.

Analysts see three trends in the U.S. military's global operations. One is the geographical shift from Europe and the Middle East to the Asia-Pacific. Second is the shift from land-based combat to an "Air-Sea Battle" concept. The third, and perhaps most characteristic to Trump, is a desire to hold down defense spending.

Sailors and Marines recover combat rubber raiding craft during night operations on the amphibious assault ship USS Bonhomme Richard in the East China Sea. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Navy)

O'Brien's redeployment proposal touches on all three aspects.

Geographically, the shift away from the Middle East has been spurred by the shale revolution. America's interest in the Middle East has declined as its dependence on the region for energy has shrunk. In 2011, the Obama administration launched a policy of rebalancing, or pivoting, to Asia, based on the acknowledgement that a focus on the Middle East had created the Asia-Pacific vacuum that enabled China's rise.

In terms of strategy, the U.S. military has been shifting focus and resources to the Navy and Air Force, now that the threat of a large-scale ground attack in Europe has receded.

The Air-Sea Battle concept announced in 2010 aims to disable China's A2/AD defenses using long-range bombers and submarines.

In a faceoff with China, it will be the amphibious Marines as well as maritime and aviation capability that prove crucial. This is because the battlefield will be in the waters of the South China Sea, the East China Sea, and the Pacific and Indian oceans.

Costs are the third trend. Trump has consistently expressed frustration over the massive expense of deploying U.S. troops around the world and has pressed host nations to shoulder more of the financial burden.

He has been especially critical of Germany, which he says is not keeping its promise to spend 2% of its gross domestic product on its own defense.

Germany has "been delinquent for years," Trump said in mid-June, explicitly linking this to the troop drawdown. "And they owe NATO billions of dollars, and they have to pay it. So we're protecting Germany, and they're delinquent. That doesn't make sense."

Meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda recently, Trump revealed that part of the German contingent will be moved to Poland. The Eastern European country has expressed a willingness to pay much of the stationing costs.

The U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific was down to 131,000 troops as of 2018, from 184,000 in 1987.

While that reduction is much less extreme than the downsizing that took place in Europe -- 354,000 to 66,000 in the same time frame -- the general trend is toward a smaller, leaner force.

The Trump administration is currently in prolonged negotiations with South Korea over host-nation support and will hold similar talks with Japan from the fall.

For Japan, which recently halted the deployment of the land-based Aegis Ashore missile defense system over cost concerns, pressure from the U.S. to increase host-nation support may lead to a rethink of its defense strategy.
Traditionally, Japan was willing to serve only as the "shield," through missile defense, while depending on the U.S. to act as the "spear."

Already, talks have begun in the ruling Liberal Democratic Party on acquiring the capability to strike enemy bases to preempt missile launches. Acquisition of such "spear" capabilities will be a turning point for the nation's defense philosophy.

 

[Housecarl]

The "stuff" that the Japanese can build and deploy is only limited by the political will to do so....

Posted for fair use.....

Strike capability, other military options on table after Japan's Aegis U-turn

Japan's decision to scrap two Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense systems means it must find other ways to defend a 3,000-kilometer archipelago along Asia's eastern edge. Some policy makers want Japan to acquire the capability to attack enemy missiles before they are launched. 'IMPOSSIBLE'...

japantoday.com

politics
Strike capability, other military options on table after Japan's Aegis U-turn

Today 06:25 am JST 13 Comments




By Tim Kelly

TOKYO

Japan's decision to scrap two Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defense systems means it must find other ways to defend a 3,000-kilometer archipelago along Asia's eastern edge.

Some policy makers want Japan to acquire the capability to attack enemy missiles before they are launched.

'IMPOSSIBLE' PROBLEM
In a surprise decision, Defense Minister Taro Kono recently halted the 2025 deployment of Aegis Ashore because booster rockets used to accelerate SM-3 Block IIA interceptor missiles might fall on communities in northern Akita and southern Yamaguchi prefectures.

That problem, according to military experts, has been known since Japan picked Aegis Ashore in 2018. The interceptor was developed for use at sea, where debris would fall harmlessly.

"From the beginning, the Japanese government's story was impossible. I was a missile shooter, I knew how difficult it would be to control the fall of burned-out boosters," former Maritime Self Defense Force Admiral Yoji Koda, who commanded Japan's naval fleet from 2007 to 2008, told Reuters.

The expense of Aegis Ashore project also affected Kono's decision.

Japan's Aegis Ashore contracts are worth around $1.7 billion, with more than $100 million already spent. Over 30 years the defense ministry estimated the budget at around $4 billion, not including missile tests that sources last year said could cost at least $500 million.

ALTERNATIVES
For now, Japan will rely on destroyers with older Aegis radars that guide less-powerful SM-3 interceptors, which can hit enemy missiles in space and can be upgraded to tackle other threats. Japan also has PAC-3 Patriot missile batteries, which can shoot at plunging warheads in their last seconds before impact.

Japan is increasing the range and accuracy of its Patriots and by next year will have eight Aegis destroyers. Crewing ships with about 300 sailors each, however, strains naval resources as the country struggles to find recruits.

"Having two or three Aegis ships in the Sea of Japan is a waste of assets. I think Aegis Ashore is a good option," said Noboru Yamaguchi, a Sasakawa Peace Foundation adviser and former Ground Self Defense Force general.

Japan could add another layer of defense, such as the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missiles, which aims at warheads between the capabilities of SM-3s and Patriots. Their mobile launchers are easier to deploy than fixed Aegis sites, but could still face opposition from residents because several missile batteries, which use powerful radars, would be needed to cover Japan's big cities.

STRIKE OPTION
Japan's National Security Council, led by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, will this summer consider whether to buy weapons for attacking missile sites before a launch.

A council made up senior ruling Liberal Democratic Party lawmakers, including four former defense ministers, will also weigh the idea. Itsunori Onodera, who approved the Aegis Ashore purchase when he was defense chief, is leading the discussion.

Such an option is attractive because it is easier to hit missiles sitting on launch pads than to attack them in flight.

Onodera argues that attacking missile sites is the modern equivalent of downing enemy bombers, putting it in line with Japan's war-renouncing constitution, which allows for self defense.

In 2017 Onodera approved the purchase of air-launched cruise missiles with a range of up to 1,000 kilometers that can be fired from F-35 stealth fighters or F-15 attack jets, making them able to strike targets in North Korea from the Sea of Japan.

SNAGS
Those cruise missiles are not effective without satellites or other means of providing precise targeting information, and of telling whether an attack is imminent. Japan has launched surveillance satellites on its H-2A rocket, most recently in one in February, but those are not designed for strike-targeting.

If Japan musters a first-strike capability, it could face opposition from China, Russia and even South Korea.

That may not stop Japan, but resistance from the United States could. Under their military alliance, Japan provides a defensive shield that protects U.S. forces. Past U.S. administrations have opposed an independent Japanese strike capability.

Constitutional considerations could also curtail the scope of strikes. Japan's U.S.-authored constitution renounces its right to wage war.

Any first-strike doctrine would have to be carefully defined before it is even considered by the NCS, Kono said in Tokyo last month.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

After Japan Backs India At LAC, Chinese Navy Intrudes Into Japanese Territorial Waters

Days after Japan extended support to India and antagonizing China, patrol ships from the Chinese Navy entered Japanese territory twice this week. Japanese Coast Guard confirmed the presence of Chinese patrol ships in the territorial waters of Japan. US To Conduct Biggest War Drills In South...

eurasiantimes.com

Asia Pacific
After Japan Backs India At LAC, Chinese Navy Intrudes Into Japanese Territorial Waters

Published
15 hours ago
on
July 4, 2020


By
EurAsian Times Desk


Days after Japan extended support to India and antagonizing China, patrol ships from the Chinese Navy entered Japanese territory twice this week. Japanese Coast Guard confirmed the presence of Chinese patrol ships in the territorial waters of Japan.

The latest intrusion by China comes days after Japan had supported India and called for a peaceful resolution, opposing any unilateral attempts to change the status quo in Ladakh.

As per media reports, two Chinese patrol ships entered the waters of the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea on Thursday before re-entering the area again.

The Chinese ships even approached a Japanese fishing vessel inside the territorial water and the Coast guard said it was the longest intrusion into the territorial waters by Chinese ships. Despite repeated calls to leave the area, the vessels stayed inside Japanese territory for nearly 30 hours before leaving on Friday.

The Senkaku Islands, as japan calls it, have been contested by China and Japan for nearly a century. Located 1,200 miles (1,931 kilometres) southwest of Tokyo, the islands have been administered by Japan since 1972.

Since April, Japan has reportedly spotted at least 67 Chinese ships near Senkaku islands. Japan has already deployed its missiles towards its border facing China amid its several maritime incursions.

To avoid any confusion, Ishigaki City Council in Japan’s Okinawa approved legislation to change the administrative status of the Senkaku islands by changing its name from “Tonoshiro” to Tonoshiro Senkaku” in June.

Chinese aggression could also be retaliation against Japan as they grow closer to each other in an effort to contain China, expert talking to EurAsian Times state. Japan is also looking to sign an intelligence-sharing pact with India, Australia and the UK to track Chinese Navy vessels in the region.

The ongoing feud at Ladakh has helped India and Japan to strengthen their ties even further. On Friday, Satoshi Suzuki, Japanese Ambassador to India, said that he had a “good talk” with Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla in this regard. The Japanese Ambassador took to twitter to express appreciation for the briefing on the situation along LAC and hoped for a peaceful resolution.

With regards to the Chinese intrusion into Japanese waters, Tokyo has lodged strong protests with China. The disputed islands are also claimed by Taiwan.

 

[jward]

US, China inch closer towards a conflict at sea

Superpowers launch simultaneous drills and tough rhetoric as disputed waters boil in the South China Sea
by Richard Javad Heydarian July 6, 2020

The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier leads a formation of the Carrier Strike Group 5 in a 2018 file photo. Photo: US Navy

The United States and China have just simultaneously conducted military exercises in the disputed South China Sea, dueling big boat deployments that threaten to tilt the volatile maritime region ever closer to a superpower conflict.
The US Navy deployed two aircraft carriers, namely the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz, to the sea while marking America’s Independence Day on July 4.
The Pentagon described the dual-carrier operations, the first launched since 2014, as “exercises in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific.”
“Sailors from both carrier strike groups continue to stand the watch, defending freedom every day of deployment, and reflecting on the freedoms we hold sacred and celebrate during this holiday,” the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet said in a statement.

The USS Nimitz and USS Roosevelt in a dual-carrier operation in a file photo. Image: Handout/US Navy
At the same time, China displayed its latest warships, including Type 052D guided-missile destroyers and Type 054A guided-missile frigates, in integrated military exercises across the South China Sea, East China Sea, and Yellow Sea.


Crucially, the PLA has also been testing its new anti-aircraft carrier weapons, the so-called “aircraft carrier killer” DF-21D and DF-26 missiles, which in any conflict scenario could target America’s largest vessels from Chinese shores.
China maintained that its drills were “regularly scheduled” and simply “aimed at safeguarding China’s territorial integrity and sovereignty and do not target any other country.”

“The fundamental cause of instability in the South China Sea is due to large-scale military activities and flexing of muscles by some non-regional country that lies tens of thousands of miles away,” maintained Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian in referring to the US naval exercises.
China’s state-affiliated state media took a more skeptical line on America’s latest show of naval force in the area.
The “South China Sea is fully within grasp of the [People’s Liberation Army]; any US ‪aircraft carrier movement in the region is at [our] pleasure,” China’s jingoistic, state-affiliated Global Times warned in a tweet.

Chinese military expert Song Zhongping, meanwhile, said, “it’s unrealistic for the US to wage a war against China with just two aircraft carriers in the South China Sea, and it’s very unlikely the two sides could accidentally spark a conflict due to the drills.”

Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) shipmen during an operation in the South China Sea in a file photo. Photo: AFP via Getty
“[T]he PLA can conduct surveillance missions on US drills, and [easily] expel US surveillance attempts using proper measures,” he added.

The US’ latest deployments have coincided with a chorus of criticism against China’s strategic opportunism amid a devastating pandemic.
During the recently-concluded summit of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Vietnam’s Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc criticized China, without directly naming the country, for “irresponsible acts and acts in violation of international law” while “the entire world is stretched thin in the fight against the pandemic.”
Indonesian President Joko Widodo, in turn, reiterated “ASEAN must be the guardian of our own region not the projection of power by bigger nations.”

The most surprisingly strident response, however, came from the Philippines, which has developed especially warm ties with China under President Rodrigo Duterte.
In response to China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) early-July military drills in the Paracel Islands, Philippine Foreign Secretary Teodoro Locsin Jr warned on July 3 of a “severest response” if Chinse military activities extended into Philippine-claimed waters.

The Philippines’ diplomatic chief accused China of aiming to “establish a perennial and unchallenged presence that may in time congeal into right” and that Beijing was “playing fast and loose with historical narratives.”
“I will end on what has become a trite but still true statement: We call on the erring parties to refrain from escalating tension and abide by the responsibilities under international law, notably [the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea],” Locsin added, directly accusing China of contributing to regional instability.

A Philippine naval officer stands guard during the arrival of American missile destroyer USS Chung Hoon before US-Philippine joint naval military exercises in a file photo. Photo: AFP/Noel Celis/Getty Images
Last month, the Philippines suspended its earlier decision to abrogate a key defense agreement that allowed for the rotational presence of US soldiers in the country. Top Philippine officials made it clear that the policy reversal was driven by anxieties over China’s maritime assertiveness in recent months.

Regional states seem to be encouraged by the US’ determined pushback and apparent new willingness to put naval muscle behind its rhetoric. The Pentagon was quick to criticize China’s latest South China Sea drills as “counter-productive to efforts at easing tensions and maintaining stability,”
At the same time, the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet described its dual-carrier deployment as “[h]igh-end integrated exercises” that aim to “build unmatched flexibility, endurance, maneuverability, and firepower in an all-domain warfighting environment.”

“These efforts support enduring US commitments to stand up for the right of all nations to fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows,” said the US Navy statement, underscoring the broader strategic and symbolic value of its latest show of force in the disputed waters.
Rear Admiral George Wikoff, commander of Carrier Strike Group 5, however, denied that the recent dual-carrier deployment was a direct response to China’s large-scale drills in the South China Sea.

A Chinese naval soldier overlooks a rival vessel in the South China Sea in a file photo. Photo: Twitter
“We aggressively seek out every opportunity to advance and strengthen our capabilities and proficiency at conducting all-domain warfighting operations,” Wikoff added, while portraying the dual-carrier deployment as part of “routine” exercises to project American leadership.
“Dual carrier operations demonstrate our commitment to regional allies, our ability to rapidly mass combat power in the Indo-Pacific, and our readiness to confront all those who challenge international norms that support regional stability,” said the US commander. “The US Navy remains mission-ready and globally deployed.”
Earlier this year, the US had to temporarily suspend overseas military deployment and ground the iconic USS Theodore Roosevelt carrier amid an epidemic outbreak, raising new questions about America’s ability and resolve to maintain freedom of navigation in the South China Sea at a time China was showing signs of rising assertiveness.

posted for fair use

US, China inch closer towards a conflict at sea - Asia Times

The United States and China have just simultaneously conducted military exercises in the disputed South China Sea, dueling big boat deployments that

asiatimes.com

 

[jward]

US preps for Pacific conflict with Wake Island expansion


Satellite photos show a major buildup on America's remote island outpost in the Pacific ocean

by Dave Makichuk July 6, 2020

USAF Hornets refuel over Wake Island in the Western Pacific. Credit: USAF.

Things are heating up in the Pacific.
As China slowly grows stronger in the region and flexes its power, the ongoing US Navy “pivot toward the Pacific” is making US bases more important in the scheme of things, and one of the most important is Wake Island, Tyler Rogoway of The Drive reported.

America’s remote outpost deep in the Pacific, situated roughly between Japan and Hawaii, it serves as a reserve airfield should American airpower have to fallback from the far reaches of Western Pacific during a conflict.
It also provides a reverse utility, working as a staging ground in a crisis for air combat missions heading west, into Russia’s and especially China’s highly-defended area-denial bubbles that emanate far from their shores, The Drive reported.
The restricted access island — which is one of the most remote on Earth — is an unincorporated territory of the United States that is also claimed by the Marshall Islands.


The vast majority of the atoll is taken up by a 9,800-foot runway — long enough to accommodate anything in the Pentagon’s inventory — and the airfield infrastructure and staging areas that surround it, The Drive reported.
Although it supports some missile defense tests with launchpads scattered around its southernmost tip, it is best known for being an emergency diversion point.

New satellite imagery that The War Zone obtained from Planet Labs dated June 25th, 2020 shows that substantial improvements to the base have occurred recently, The Drive reported.
The new satellite image is posted below and you can see a full-resolution version of here. It shows the large eastern apron area’s big expansion, as well as an enlarged secondary apron.
The runway itself has been completely rebuilt and a large solar farm has been added in the western area of the island.

It’s more likely than not that even more investment into the island’s infrastructure will be made in the near term as rising tensions with China, North Korea, and Russia have reinvigorated the strategic importance of the remote base, The Drive reported.

In fact, not since the Second World War has the base garnered so much importance.
Beyond its clear logistical utility, acting as a major hub where there isn’t another for thousands of miles, it sits outside the range of China’s and North Korea’s medium-range ballistic missiles, and largely at the end, if not entirely out of range, of their intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs). Guam, which is situated about 1,500 miles further west, is well within the range of these weapons.

During the opening stages of a major conflict with China, America’s bases that are within range of these missiles would be overwhelmed by them, at the very least knocking bases like Kadena in Okinawa out of commission, The Drive reported.
These strikes would likely be layered with cruise missile attacks, making them harder to defend against and upping the odds that Beijing could neuter American airpower throughout the region in the opening exchanges of a conflict.

Guam, which hosts a key US naval base and the sprawling Andersen Air Force Base, would be targeted as well, although at greater range.
So, you can see how Wake Island quickly becomes a key fallback position during what could be an incredibly violent and fast-moving conflic, The Drive reported.

The idea of making Wake Island a hub of airpower activity that looks to overcome the “tyranny of distance” that is so closely associated with conflict in the Pacific Theater is already being trialed.
Just last year, B-2 Spirits used the airfield for the first time as a forward re-arming and refueling point, with their sorties beginning at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, not Guam.

posted for fair use

US preps for Pacific conflict with Wake Island expansion - Asia Times

Things are heating up in the Pacific. As China slowly grows stronger in the region and flexes its power, the ongoing US Navy "pivot toward the Pacific" is

asiatimes.com

 

[mzkitty]

 

[Zagdid]

Foreign Minister: Greece Is Developing A National Strategy Against The Challenges

Greece has a say and a role in the region and the ability to effectively deal with any intrusion as it is forming a national strategy against challenges,

greekcitytimes.com

Foreign Minister: Greece is developing a national strategy against the challenges
by PAUL ANTONOPOULOS GREEK NEWS 1 DAY AGO

Greece has a say and a role in the region and the ability to effectively deal with any intrusion as it is forming a national strategy against challenges, Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias said in an article in Sunday’s Free Press newspaper.

As the Foreign Minister pointed out, “from the first day of [Prime Minister] Kyriakos Mitsotakis’ rule, it became clear that our goal was a foreign policy with a sense of patriotic responsibility and national solidarity, which has turned its back on the grievances of the powerless and fraternal nation.”

Dendias analysed the alliances that Greece has created in the region, an environment of security and mutual understanding, as well as the bilateral strategic relations it has developed with countries such as the United States, France and Israel.

In particular, he recalled the signing of the updated MDCA agreement with the United States, which expands the US geostrategic footprint in Greece and the visit of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. He also mentioned the strategic partnership with France, but also the signing of the agreement on the delimitation of maritime zones with Italy, which “is another practical proof of an active foreign policy, guided by a clear strategy and based on international law and Charter Law of the Sea.”

At the same time, a Dendias pointed out, Greece is strengthening the existing tripartite cooperation schemes in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf region, by creating the five-member Greece-Egypt-Cyprus-France-UAE scheme, while at the same time cultivating policies of understanding with important countries in the region.

Greece rejuvenated its relations with North Africa, with Dendias visiting Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, and returning to multilateral diplomacy, participating for the first time in major initiatives beyond its region, such as the Sahel.

“In this regard, we have gained an effective channel of communication with the leadership of the Libyan House of Representatives and the Libyan National Army. We are systematically developing our contacts with the Permanent Members of the OHE Security Council, while expanding our country’s diplomatic presence with the targeted opening of new embassies,” he explained.

“We are proving every day that we believe in an extroverted, strong ally and partner in Greece. A Greece that with confidence in its forces faces with confidence any kind of challenge,” the Foreign Minister concluded.

 

[Zagdid]

Greece Needs To Radically Change Its Defence Doctrine

Turkey is already in Syria and Libya, and it is only a matter of time before it conducts underwater surveys south of Crete, in which Greece has sovereignty

greekcitytimes.com

Greece needs to radically change its defense doctrine
OPINION 2 DAYS AGO by GUEST BLOGGER Kostas Stoupas

Although Turkey is on the verge of bankruptcy and joining the IMF, it continues to spend huge sums on defence equipment and is constantly announcing new investment programs in the development of its defence industry.

In recent years, Turkey has made it clear that it wants to revise the borders that have emerged in the wider region since the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923.

Turkey is already in Syria and Libya, and it is only a matter of time before it conducts underwater surveys south of Crete, in which Greece has sovereignty and exploitation rights.

Turkey is also a country with a population of over 80 million with a GDP of about $750 billion, while Greece is a country with a population of 10 million and a GDP of about $200 billion.

Turkey spent more than $22 billion on defence in 2019, while Greece spent less than $5 billion. In 2009, Greece spent about $9 billion and Turkey about $13 billion.

The potential difference between the two countries in 2020 is evident in all areas, from the population, the size of the economy and therefore the financial resources, to defence spending.

It is therefore logical that Turkey wants to turn this power difference into a political and economic impact in the region with tangible economic consequences for its population.

The situation seems particularly critical for Greece and that is why we need to be careful.

Greece needs to develop a multifaceted effort to neutralise Turkey’s core advantages of effective deterrent military power.

These fronts are as follows:

A) The creation of a front of counterattacking local forces that could balance Turkish power.

Several steps have been taken on this issue with the creation of the Greek, Israeli, Egyptian and Cypriot fronts.

B) The confrontation with another great power that has competitive interests with Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East.

In this matter, it is in the best interests of France to work together and there is room for improvement. The difference in military and political power between France and Turkey is significantly in favour of the former.

C) The exploitation of Greece’s status as a member of the EU by invoking the “vague” but obligation of solidarity between members. The exploitation of Greece’s strategic role as an EU border country.

D) The need for stability in NATO, in which Greece and Turkey participate.

Trump’s allies, but especially the United States, must understand that if they let Turkey seek hegemony in the region, a rift between Greece and Turkey will be the most likely outcome, and this will cause chaos in the alliance.

It should be clear that Greece is a member of the alliance as long as it can guarantee its integrity and ensure its pursuit of outstanding issues.

E) Greece needs deterrent power. What is paradoxical, however, is that the defence doctrine of our country in recent decades has not been adapted to the demographic and economic data of the two countries, but remains in line with the data of the 1950s and 1920s when the countries had similar power.

Greece cannot increase defence spending to 20 and 30 billion a year, as Turkey does. Consequently, it cannot continue to compete with it by buying very expensive planes and ships.

Countries like Greece can have effective deterrent power by investing in ballistic and anti-ballistic missiles where there are revolutionary developments.

Ankara is about 500 km from Mytilene and Turkish generals and politicians will have to decide in the future knowing that there are lines in the Greek islands with a few hundred missiles with the required range.

I follow the experts who analyse how many Greek warships have to go south of Crete if Turkish units appear there. A few missiles in Crete will be enough to prevent any Greek ships from appearing and hit any target as far as Libya.

Missiles that cost a few tens of millions can make use of any more warships and planes that cost from a few hundred million to a few billion euros.

Of course, ships and planes and special forces and electronic warfare systems are also needed, but the peak of a deterrent defensive war must be different.

If one looks at the Greek arsenal, one will find that it is particularly poor in ballistic missiles, modern torpedoes, and modern “smart” missiles, while there are a number of very expensive systems of dubious effectiveness in relation to the two countries’ aspirations and balance of power.

There are modern approaches to defensive strategies that claim that technological advances in missiles make investments in large surface vessels and very expensive manned aircraft of dubious effectiveness.

What is urgently needed is next to the committee under Nobel Laureate Mr. Pissaridis who will plan the economic reconstruction of the country, a similar committee of experts that will redesign the country’s defence doctrine.

 

[Housecarl]

US preps for Pacific conflict with Wake Island expansion


Satellite photos show a major buildup on America's remote island outpost in the Pacific ocean

by Dave Makichuk July 6, 2020

USAF Hornets refuel over Wake Island in the Western Pacific. Credit: USAF.

Things are heating up in the Pacific.
As China slowly grows stronger in the region and flexes its power, the ongoing US Navy “pivot toward the Pacific” is making US bases more important in the scheme of things, and one of the most important is Wake Island, Tyler Rogoway of The Drive reported.

America’s remote outpost deep in the Pacific, situated roughly between Japan and Hawaii, it serves as a reserve airfield should American airpower have to fallback from the far reaches of Western Pacific during a conflict.
It also provides a reverse utility, working as a staging ground in a crisis for air combat missions heading west, into Russia’s and especially China’s highly-defended area-denial bubbles that emanate far from their shores, The Drive reported.
The restricted access island — which is one of the most remote on Earth — is an unincorporated territory of the United States that is also claimed by the Marshall Islands.


The vast majority of the atoll is taken up by a 9,800-foot runway — long enough to accommodate anything in the Pentagon’s inventory — and the airfield infrastructure and staging areas that surround it, The Drive reported.
Although it supports some missile defense tests with launchpads scattered around its southernmost tip, it is best known for being an emergency diversion point.

New satellite imagery that The War Zone obtained from Planet Labs dated June 25th, 2020 shows that substantial improvements to the base have occurred recently, The Drive reported.
The new satellite image is posted below and you can see a full-resolution version of here. It shows the large eastern apron area’s big expansion, as well as an enlarged secondary apron.
The runway itself has been completely rebuilt and a large solar farm has been added in the western area of the island.

It’s more likely than not that even more investment into the island’s infrastructure will be made in the near term as rising tensions with China, North Korea, and Russia have reinvigorated the strategic importance of the remote base, The Drive reported.

In fact, not since the Second World War has the base garnered so much importance.
Beyond its clear logistical utility, acting as a major hub where there isn’t another for thousands of miles, it sits outside the range of China’s and North Korea’s medium-range ballistic missiles, and largely at the end, if not entirely out of range, of their intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs). Guam, which is situated about 1,500 miles further west, is well within the range of these weapons.

During the opening stages of a major conflict with China, America’s bases that are within range of these missiles would be overwhelmed by them, at the very least knocking bases like Kadena in Okinawa out of commission, The Drive reported.
These strikes would likely be layered with cruise missile attacks, making them harder to defend against and upping the odds that Beijing could neuter American airpower throughout the region in the opening exchanges of a conflict.

Guam, which hosts a key US naval base and the sprawling Andersen Air Force Base, would be targeted as well, although at greater range.
So, you can see how Wake Island quickly becomes a key fallback position during what could be an incredibly violent and fast-moving conflic, The Drive reported.

The idea of making Wake Island a hub of airpower activity that looks to overcome the “tyranny of distance” that is so closely associated with conflict in the Pacific Theater is already being trialed.
Just last year, B-2 Spirits used the airfield for the first time as a forward re-arming and refueling point, with their sorties beginning at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, not Guam.

posted for fair use

US preps for Pacific conflict with Wake Island expansion - Asia Times

Things are heating up in the Pacific. As China slowly grows stronger in the region and flexes its power, the ongoing US Navy "pivot toward the Pacific" is

asiatimes.com

Definitely a "DOT"....

 

[danielboon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280910330009272321

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/Fxhedgers/status/1280910330009272321

 

[danielboon]

 

[Pinecone]

July is already claimed by "Bunny Ebola." China will have to reschedule.

 

[jward]

Artist impression of the future Attack-class submarines of the Royal Australian Navy. Naval Group image.
Attack-class Submarine Program Moving Forward
Naval Group and its Australian subsidiary Naval Group Australia task themselves with the construction project of building 12 new future Attack-class submarines to replace the Collins-class attack submarines currently in service.
Peter Ong 07 Jul 2020

by Peter Ong with additional reporting by Xavier Vavasseur

The Royal Australian Navy’s Collins-class submarines were the first locally produced Australian submarines built in partnership with a few European countries during the 1990s and are expected to reach the end of their service lives in 2026 although plans are for all six Collins submarines to undergo upgrades to prolong their lives until the Attack-class enter service as reported in Naval News.

Despite being locally produced, the Collins submarines had inherent design problems as they were loud at higher speeds and their combat systems didn’t perform as expected. These issues were attributed to the bad design of the hull, the poor shipbuilding experience of Australia at the time, the poor quality of manufacturing and mechanical engineering, and the poor quality of the hull welds. Thus, Naval Group strives to help build an efficient and local Australian supply chain to maximize Australian content while building the future Attack-class submarines with better knowledge, quality, and expertise than the Collins-class attack submarines.

The Attack-class design is based on a conventional version of the Barracuda SSN (Suffren-class) and has a sloped-front sail, bow diving planes, and a pump-jet propulsor (instead of a propeller) with an X-rudder. According to Navy News, the official newspaper of the Royal Australian Navy, the diesel-electric Attack-class specifications compared to the current Collins-class submarines are:

The Attack-class sensors and processing systems are supposed to be superior in every way to the Collins-class, and will possess the AN/BYG-1 combat system with the armament consisting of eight x 533 mm (21-inch) torpedo tubes with an inventory of 28 torpedoes being Mark 48 MOD 7 heavyweight torpedo, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, or Mk III Stonefish mines.

The decision not to use nuclear power for the Attack-class submarine propulsion stemmed from the facts that Australia has little nuclear power industry and experience, operational sovereignty issues with operating a foreign nuclear-powered submarine such as those built in the U.S.A., and public opposition to using nuclear power and technology.

Scale model of Australia’s future Attack-class submarine

According to Naval Group Australia’s (NGA) website, “In 2016, the Commonwealth Government announced in the Defence White Paper that it would double the size of the current fleet of Collins submarines by procuring 12 Future Submarines at a cost of more than $50 Billion – the largest Defence procurement program in Australia’s history.

“Key strategic requirements for the Future Submarine were: Range and endurance similar to the Collins, stealth and sensor performance superior to the Collins, and upgraded versions of AN/BYG-1 combat system and Mk 48 heavyweight torpedo.

“All submarines will be built in Australia at the Submarine Construction Yard, Osborne, South Australia. The first submarine will begin service in the early 2030s with construction of the last submarine in the 2050s with sustainment continuing until the 2080s.

“Australia’s Future Submarines will be built in Adelaide, Australia. The first submarine will commence service in the early 2030s with construction of the last submarine in the 2050s. Sustainment will continue into the 2080s. Naval Group (formerly DCNS) was announced as Australia’s International partner for the design and build of 12 Future Submarines in 2016.

“Naval Group was announced as the Future Submarine Platform Systems Integrator for the design of the Future Submarine in April 2016 and the Submarine Design Contract was signed 1st March 2019.

“Lockheed Martin, Australia (LMA), was announced as the Future Submarine Combat System Integrator in September 2016 and the Design Build and Integration Contract was signed 12 January 2018.

“Laing O’Rourke was announced as the managing contractor for the construction of Submarine Construction Yard in December 2018.

According to NGA’s Warship Program Director, the timeline for the Attack-class submarine design is as follows:

Australian Defense Industry Invitation

Artist impression of the future Attack-class submarine of the Royal Australian Navy. Naval Group image.

Due to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Naval Group Australia’s General Manager, Stakeholder Management explained the latest meeting between Naval Group Australia and local industry had to be moved online and invited local industry to participate in videos available on a dedicated website.

According to the introduction video, engaging Australian industry in the future submarine program is a priority for Naval Group that committed to 60% of Australian content for the 12 Attack Submarines to be produced locally in Australia. The basic Attack-class design is currently taking place with the detailed design to start in early 2023.

Contracts were awarded to PMB Defense and Sunlight Systems for study and design of the batteries. Schneider Electric will deliver the main D/C electrical switchboards. Babcock will deliver the weapons discharge systems. MTU will deliver the Diesel Generators. Jeumont will deliver the main electrical propulsion units. Australian industry does not produce these kinds of systems so contract went to international companies that committed to developing the subsystems and components locally.

The Submarine Construction Yard will be located in Osborne, South Australia. Source: Osborne Naval Shipyard.

The Submarine Construction Yard, Osborne, South Australia, is called Building 001 with other buildings providing support for painting and subcomponent assembly (such as Building 003 and 008). All this is locally produced for a viable submarine building program that is not currently in existence. According to the NGA (interim) General Manager – Procurement & Supply Chain video, the Timeline for the Submarine Construction Yard is as follows:

Building 001 has two adjacent construction bays potentially able to produce two submarines although this is unclear if construction would be done simultaneously. 001 is an enclosed building designed to shelter the workforce and shield assembly from overhead spy satellites. Inside, the ceiling has two overhead cranes running one-half the length of the construction bays with multi-story construction scaffolding left, right, and center.

Inside of Building 001 showing the possibility of two Attack subs being built. Source: National Shipbuilding College

The Common User Facility Shiplift outside of Building 001 is used as the launching bay and floodable submarine dry-dock. The built submarines need to be rolled out to reach the dry-dock.

The Introductory video also states that to produce the Attack-class submarines locally, four-year apprenticeships were established, and with completion in 2023. These apprentices will then transfer back to Naval Group Australia for hull fabrication in late 2023. The Engineering Services Timeline for subcontractors to build the Attack-class is as follows:

200 people are currently working in Naval Group Australia on the future submarine program with 500 additional in France. Some Australian submarine design engineers will move to France (after COVID-19) to do a three-year study on submarine build design.

Four very specific, technical, complicated parts will be made at Naval Group’s Submarine shipyard in Cherbourg (France) with French and Australian workers. This is limited to the very first of the Attack-class submarines as it will serve as training for the Australian workforce who will then be able to bring this knowledge back to Australia for the rest of the series.

By 2028-2029 there will be about 1,800 employees at Naval Group Australia (compared to 200 currently). By 2032, the first Attack-class submarine will be launched and the last (twelfth submarine) will be launched in 2054.

According to Australian authorities, the program is still on track even though impact of COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 on the program is being assessed. Program Managers of Naval Group are waiting for when it would be safe to resume International air travel between Australia and France and rely on visio and teleconferencing to keep the link in the meantime.
posted for fair use

Attack-class Submarine Program Moving Forward - Naval News

Naval Group and its Australian subsidiary Naval Group Australia task themselves with the construction project of building 12 new future Attack-class submarines to replace the Collins-class attack submarines currently in service.

www.navalnews.com

 

[jward]

Some 20 Soldiers Died in Suspected Boko Haram Attack in Northeastern Nigeria - Reports
© AFP 2020 / SUNDAY AGHAEZE
Africa
01:58 GMT 09.07.2020(updated 02:08 GMT 09.07.2020) Get short URL
0 0 0
Subscribe
MOSCOW (Sputnik) - At least 20 soldiers have been killed and a few injured as insurgents ambushed an army convoy in northeastern Nigeria, Daily Trust newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing its sources.
According to the news outlet, the surprise attack, allegedly carried out by the Boko Haram Islamist group, took place on a highway 30 kilometres away from the town of Damboa in the Borno state on Tuesday.

“It was so sad, our troops went on clearing operations on the way back to Damboa at 30 kilometers away, the terrorists laid an ambushed and shots from every angle. We lost more than a dozen soldiers. The corpses of the soldiers have been evacuated to Maiduguri as well as those who sustained injures. They are currently receiving treatment in the military facility”, a security source said, as quoted by Daily Trust.

However, Defence Media Operations Coordinator Major-General John Enenche was quoted as saying that only two troops died, while four were wounded in the gunfight, adding that the Army outflanked and engaged the militants with an overwhelming volume of firepower, forcing them to withdraw in disarray.
The government forces "neutrilized" 17 members of the terrorist group during the encounter, the newspaper reported, citing military officials.
In 2009, Boko Haram launched an armed insurrection against the Nigerian government to introduce sharia law throughout the country. In 2015, one of its factions aligned itself with the Daesh* terrorist group.
*Daesh (also known as ISIS/ISIL/IS) is a terrorist group banned in Russia

posted for fair use

Some 20 Soldiers Died in Suspected Boko Haram Attack in Northeastern Nigeria - Reports

MOSCOW (Sputnik) - At least 20 soldiers have been killed and a few injured as insurgents ambushed an army convoy in northeastern Nigeria, Daily Trust newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing its sources.

sputniknews.com

 

[jward]

US Calls China The “Greatest Long-Term Threat” To The Future Of United States


Published
19 hours ago
on
July 8, 2020


By
EurAsian Times Desk



China is the biggest threat to the US. This was stated by the director of the FBI who said that the acts of espionage and theft by the Chinese government poses the “greatest long-term threat” to the future of the United States.

FBI Director – Christopher Wray, speaking to the Hudson Institute in Washington said that Beijing had started targeting Chinese citizens living overseas, pressuring their return, and was working to jeopardise US COVID-19 research.
“The stakes could not be higher,” Wray said. “China is engaged in a whole-of-state effort to become the world’s only superpower by any means necessary,” he added.

Wray also talked about Chinese interference and said — “We’ve now reached a point where the FBI is now opening a new China-related counterintelligence case every 10 hours,” Wray said. “Of the nearly 5,000 active counterintelligence cases currently underway across the country, almost half are related to China.”
He also accused Chinese President Xi Jinping of working on a programme called “Fox Hunt” aimed at targeting Chinese citizens living overseas seen as menaces to Beijing. “We’re talking about political rivals, dissidents, and critics seeking to expose China’s extensive human rights violations,” he said. “The Chinese government wants to force them to return to China, and China’s tactics to accomplish that are shocking.”

He continued: “When it couldn’t locate one Fox Hunt target, the Chinese government sent an emissary to visit the target’s family here in the United States. The message they said to pass on? The target had two options: return to China promptly, or commit suicide.”

It clearly indications that the US now sees China not only as a hostile opponent, but also an aspiring contender for global leadership. What is evident is that the power dynamics between China and the US have radically transformed, and irrespective of the next US president, tensions between China and the US will only intensify.
posted for fair use

US Calls China The "Greatest Long-Term Threat" To The Future Of United States

China is the biggest threat to the US. This was stated by the director of the FBI who said that the acts of espionage and theft by the Chinese government poses the “greatest long-term threat” to the future of the United States. India or China: Whom Did Israel Support During The Intense...

eurasiantimes.com

 

[jward]

6th Gen Fighter Jets To Be Equipped With Laser Weapons As F-22s, F-35s Could Be Phased Out
Every generation of fighter jets has increased flying range and 6th gen fighters would try and do the same. Currently, 5th gen fighters in countries in North America, Europe, and Asia are multirole aircraft with a fairly typical combat radius of only 670 nautical miles.






Published
3 mins ago
on
July 9, 2020


By
EurAsian Times Desk


5th gen fighter jets were considered a marvel when they came into existence. The US operated fighter jets like F-22s and F-35s became household names as they revolutionized aerial combats. However, experts say that the end 5th generation jets is near with the arrival of 6th generation jets.

Writing for the National Interest, Mizokami believes that the 6th generation fighter jet will feature decisive improvements over current-gen fighters, making air forces deadlier and more effective than ever before. These improvements could possibly include addition/usage of artificial intelligence, drones, laser weapons and increased flying range.

Drone and Increased Range
Drone technology will play a bigger role when 6th gen jets get commissioned. Drones could be used alongside 6th gen fighter jets to carry an assortment of missions including, but not limited to, searching and destroying enemy surface-to-air radars, waiting for careful radar operators to turn their radars back on, broadcasting powerful jamming signals, or impersonate the sixth-generation fighter on the radar.
In Mizokami’s opinion, if a mission is intercepted by enemy fighters, drones armed with air-to-air missiles could outflank the enemy or act as bait, drawing them into a trap laid by the manned fighters. Additionally, other drones could act as flying magazines for the manned fighters, carrying even more precision-guided missiles to drop on enemy targets.
The addition of drones will allow air forces to buy back numbers of aeroplanes overall while the cost of manned aircraft skyrockets. They will also allow fighter pilots to not enter dangerous or heavily guarded airspace, thus saving human lives.
Every generation of fighter jets has increased flying range and 6th gen fighters would try and do the same. Currently, 5th gen fighters in countries in North America, Europe, and Asia are multirole aircraft with a fairly typical combat radius of only 670 nautical miles.

As tensions increase in the Pacific due to Chinese aggression or as countries prepare for a potential battle over the frozen arctic, increased range for fighter jets is on the mind of many. The vastness of the Pacific Ocean, as well as Eastern Europe and European Russia, means that tactical aircraft may have to travel long ranges to reach their targets.
This situation is further complicated by the abundance of tactical and short-range ballistic missiles in Russian and Chinese inventories, and efforts by both countries to cripple U.S. and NATO airpower by targeting tankers and early warning aircraft with long-range missiles.

Laser Weapons and Artificial Intelligence
The introduction of laser weapons could revolutionize short-range aerial warfare, according to Mizokami. At present, the popular F-35 use chemical energy guns in the 20 – 30 mm range and has retained guns but the need to store all the weapons, fuel, and sensors inside the aircraft fuselage which severely restrict the size of the gun magazine.
However, with the addition of laser weapons, the weapon would simply require the laser and draw power from the aircraft’s engine or engines, storing it and then releasing it in pulses of the concentrated beam. This would be a massive improvement in chemical energy guns.
Agreed that laser might need an energy storage system, but it would theoretically have an unlimited number of shots. Additionally, a laser would travel in an absolutely straight line at 186,000 miles a second, making hitting enemy aircraft much easier and it could also be used as a defensive weapon system, shooting down incoming air-to-air missiles.
Flying a 5th gen fighter jet is a herculean task in itself and the abundance of sensor data from the pilot’s aircraft, nearby aircraft, ships, ground forces, satellites, and other sources of information makes it not any easier. Therefore, having artificial intelligence( AI) systems that could prioritize information shared with the pilot would a great technological advancement.
The possibilities for AI being incorporated with 6th gen fighter jets are endless. It could be used to keep a check on drones flying alongside the 6th gen fighter, monitor fuel use, range, and weapons. It could recommend alternate landing sites for damaged aircraft, taking into consideration range, airfield condition and damage to the manned fighter, and make the necessary fuel and range calculations.

Not only this, but AI could also assign other less pressing data to other AIs to keep abreast of developments and bring it to the master AI—or pilot’s—attention as it grows in relevance to the mission.
The arrival of 6th gen fighter jets by no means indicate the complete demise of 5th generation jets. The 6th gen jet would naturally incorporate the feature set of a fifth-generation jet, but what technology it incorporates would set it apart.

posted for fair use

6th Gen Fighter Jets To Be Equipped With Drones, Laser Weapons As F-22s, F-35s Could Be Phased Out

Every generation of fighter jets has increased flying range and 6th gen fighters would try and do the same. Currently, 5th gen fighters in countries in North America, Europe, and Asia are multirole aircraft with a fairly typical combat radius of only 670 nautical miles.

eurasiantimes.com

 

[energy_wave]

By the end of 2024, which would be the end of Trumps 2nd term, there should be around 1,000 F-35's in service. 1,000 stealth fighter jets most of which can or will be able to carry nukes along with the F-22's, B-2 bombers and the newest F-21 Raider. As it stands right now, there is almost as many drone attack aircraft in use as there are air force fighter planes, which actually doubles our forces, but you won't hear about that through the media.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

China Is NATO’s New Problem

The alliance has been so focused on Moscow that it has missed Beijing’s growing clout across Europe.

foreignpolicy.com

China Is NATO’s New Problem
The alliance has been so focused on Moscow that it has missed Beijing’s growing clout across Europe.

By Lauren Speranza | July 8, 2020, 1:25 PM

Over the past decade, Chinese companies have invested billions of dollars throughout Europe—buying up critical infrastructure and increasing Beijing’s political clout across the continent. As Chinese firms, often with strong ties to the state and Chinese Communist Party (CCP), acquire parts of sensitive ports, pipelines, and telecommunication networks, China’s incursions into Europe’s security umbrella are drawing serious concern.

But NATO, long worried about Russia, has largely been silent on China. Now, that is changing. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg recently called on the alliance to stand up to Beijing’s “bullying and coercion,” underscoring how China’s rise is fundamentally shifting the global balance of power. It’s apparent that NATO can no longer ignore the threat. If the alliance hopes to remain competitive, it will need to develop a new strategy for dealing with Beijing.

First, NATO needs a common assessment of China’s hybrid threats—a mix of diplomatic, economic, security, information, and technological actions designed to quietly undermine democratic states and institutions to Beijing’s benefit while avoiding a traditional conflict. While China’s conventional military threat in the Indo-Pacific is far from NATO’s borders, its hybrid activities are happening in the alliance’s own backyard.

While China’s conventional military threat in the Indo-Pacific is far from NATO’s borders, its hybrid activities are happening in the alliance’s own backyard.

Cyber-espionage, intellectual property theft, infiltration of critical infrastructure, debt manipulation, and disinformation are prime examples. While these threats may seem to fall outside of NATO’s purview, they pose serious security risks for the alliance. For instance, China’s desire to invest in Lithuania’s Klaipeda Port may not look like a problem for NATO on its surface. But its investments have worrying strings attached that give China operating control over the infrastructure. That control could decrease allies’ willingness to move military forces—including sensitive technologies—through the port and its surrounding networks. This could lead to disrupted planning and fewer military exercises, decreasing NATO’s ability to defend the Baltic States during a crisis with Russia. This could also open the door for pragmatic collaboration between China and Russia to undermine trans-Atlantic security.


Allies need to forge a shared understanding of these risks through information-sharing and dialogue—no small feat for countries that do not see eye to eye on China. Some are even willing to ignore such vulnerabilities, due to economic benefits or disenchantment with trans-Atlantic institutions. The United States has a critical role to play in getting allies on the same page and setting common goals for countering China’s hybrid activities.

Second, NATO needs to focus on public diplomacy. NATO has an important role to play in the battle against the CCP’s global narratives, which Beijing promulgates through hybrid activities. To defend the trans-Atlantic values on which the alliance is built—freedom, democracy, rule of law, and human rights—NATO should clearly communicate China’s violations of these principles and its propaganda efforts to cover them up. (These include, among others, human rights abuses against ethnic Uighurs in Xinjiang and violations of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea in the South China Sea.) NATO should also enhance its outreach to key partners in the Indo-Pacific, such as Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea, which can serve as important counterweights to Chinese influence in the region. Effective public messaging also means getting serious about attributing the blame for attacks, as the European Commission recently did over Chinese disinformation around COVID-19, to raise the pressure on Chinese officials. Trans-Atlantic countries have struggled to shape China’s behavior because they cannot prove malign intent or agree to call out Beijing for its subversive efforts. Allies should develop clearer guidelines—what needs to be proved, by whom, and to what degree—to enable collective attribution. NATO is strongest when it speaks with one voice. It should use that voice to demand transparency and change from China.

Third, the alliance should step up its counteroffensive. China’s hybrid actions intentionally blur the lines between what is legally permissible, politically inappropriate, and downright escalatory.

China’s hybrid actions intentionally blur the lines between what is legally permissible, politically inappropriate, and downright escalatory.

This makes it difficult for leaders to determine appropriate responses, producing a reactionary approach thus far. But an intensifying geostrategic competition has already begun. To compete in this environment, the trans-Atlantic community needs a more proactive approach. Rather than waiting for China to invest in the next major European port, allies should coordinate legislation to prevent the riskiest Chinese acquisitions. And rather than waiting for more Chinese cyberintrusions, allies should collaborate on responsible, targeted offensive cyberactions. Over time, this would help dissuade China from manipulating investments in critical infrastructure, conducting cyber-espionage, and other hybrid activities. While adopting a more offensive posture remains controversial among certain allies, it is gaining traction across Europe and is strongly supported in Washington. Although NATO, as a defensive alliance, should not implement such a counteroffensive, policymakers should leverage it as the primary forum to coordinate actions among willing nations.


Fourth, NATO needs to deepen its cooperation with other key players, such as the European Union and the private sector. Where NATO lacks the mandate and means, the EU and multinational businesses play critical roles in developing, implementing, and enforcing the legislation and financial incentives necessary to counter Chinese hybrid threats. Complementary to that, NATO and its allies can focus on providing intelligence, defending cyberspace, developing capability targets for new technologies, conducting exercises and contingency planning, informing resilience requirements for secure infrastructure, and bolstering deterrence. Despite the political obstacles that impede more formal NATO-EU cooperation, allies should look to the European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats in Helsinki to bring together NATO and EU staff, national officials, and industry voices in one place to align their counter-hybrid policies for China.

The Chinese government’s manipulative efforts around the coronavirus have thrust China’s hybrid activities to the center of trans-Atlantic debates. Policymakers need to seize the moment and respond by “using NATO more politically,” in Stoltenberg’s words. NATO is first and foremost about its nations. In the fight against China’s hybrid threats, these nations bring much more to the table than military power alone. They have access to a broad range of tools—military, political, economic, technological, and information—which the alliance can use to its collective geopolitical advantage in the competition with China. What NATO needs now is a strategy to leverage those tools in a coordinated manner. That will go a long way in solving NATO’s China problem.

This piece is based on a forthcoming Atlantic Council report, “A Strategic Concept for Countering Russian and Chinese Hybrid Threats.”
Read More


Anatomy of a Kosovo Summit Catastrophe
The Trump administration is hosting Balkans leaders this week to culminate a peace process that’s gone wrong from the start.


NATO Chief Rebukes China Over Coronavirus Disinformation
Stoltenberg says state-backed disinformation campaigns are making the health crisis worse.


NATO Has a New Weak Link for Russia to Exploit
North Macedonia just became NATO’s newest and weakest member. That makes it a ripe target for interference.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

A Political Solution to the Crimea Dispute With Russia

While there is much to be argued against Russia’s behavior, in particular how the Russian government treats its own citizens, and the recent revelation that a Russian intelligence agency paid bo

www.realcleardefense.com

A Political Solution to the Crimea Dispute With Russia

By Richard E. Caroll
July 09, 2020

While there is much to be argued against Russia’s behavior, in particular how the Russian government treats its own citizens, and the recent revelation that a Russian intelligence agency paid bounties to the Taliban to kill U.S. and British soldiers, the overall world political security issues call for an understanding to be reached between the West and Russia. With Vladimir Putin strengthening his control over Russian political life, it would be futile to believe that President Putin will be relinquishing control of Russia anytime soon. While the West universally condemned the seizure of the Crimea, which began this standoff, it was the West's behavior that pushed Russia to assert political control over the Crimea in her national security interests and give Putin the leverage to solidify his control of Russian political life.

With the rise of the “Wolf Warrior” policy by China, the threat to world peace comes from China.


Russia shares a large land border with China, in particular Siberia, and China has already proclaimed that China intends to recover land taken from China by Russia by the Treaty of Nerchinsk in 1689. Given Russia's history with the Oriental culture, it is hard to imagine that Russia does not have apprehensions about China's rise, both economically and militarily. Given the West's menacing moves against Russia, it is no wonder that Russia has moved closer to China, rationalizing that Russia's more immediate threat was from Europe.
The Importance of the Crimea to Russia

While the Crimea has always been important to the national security of Russia, the most recent example is the summer of 1942 and the siege of Sevastopol that delayed the start of the German offensive, code named Case Blue, until June of 1942. A look at the topography of southern Russia clearly shows the importance of the Crimea to the national security interests of Russia. The key to southern Russia has always been the Crimea. Separated from the mainland, the Crimea acts as a natural fortress which would need to be subjugated before any invasion of southern Russia would have any hope of success. As the reader can see in the map below, once past the Crimea, there are no natural boundaries to an invading force until one reaches the foothills of the Caucuses and the Volga river.

Before Case Blue could begin, the 1942 German offensive in southern Russia, the Russian naval base at Sevastopol had to be reduced, and the Crimea denied to the Russian air force. The Russian military airfields were within easy striking range of the oil fields of Romania, which German depended upon for her oil supplies for the German war machine. The fight for Sevastopol was long and costly for the German 11th Army. The 11th had been scheduled to accompany the German 6th Army in the drive to the Volga, and the capture of Stalingrad. However, the 11th Army was so depleted after the fight that it was not able to accompany the 6th Army. So, when the moment of truth arrived in the rubble filled streets of Stalingrad, the 6th Army did not have the strength to evict the Russian Army from the west bank of the Volga, and this led to the defeat and total destruction of the German 6th Army in February of 1943.
The U.S. Betrayal of Russia and the Overthrow of an Elected Government in Ukraine

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and prior to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the West approached Russia and struck an agreement that would gain Russia agreement to allow East and West Germany to reunite, as well as allowing Germany to remain a part of NATO. In return for the reluctant acquiescence of the Russian government, the U.S. and NATO promised Russia that NATO would not advance any further into Middle Europe and threaten the borders of Russia. Yet less than two weeks after this gentleman's agreement was reached, the United States reneged on its promise and laid plans to expand NATO up to the frontier of Russia. By 2009, NATO had advanced right up to the Russian political borders. It should be noted here that in the last 220 years, the West has invaded Russia four times if one includes the Crimean War in the 1800s. Three of those times, the invasions were of an existential threat to Russia. Russia has not invaded Western Europe except during WW2, where Russia moved west to defeat Germany, who had attacked her in 1941.

In 2014, Ukraine's legally elected government was overthrown by protesters in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. This was done at the urging of the West. Indeed, western diplomats discussed with the protestors the advantage of being aligned with the West internationally. Regardless of who would have been in power at the time, Russia had to see that as a threat against her polity and took the steps necessary to protect the vulnerable soft underbelly of Russia.

Absent a military campaign by the West to force Russia out of the Crimea, it should be clear to all parties that Russia will not willingly quit her position in the Crimea. It should be abundantly clear by now as well, that the eastern provinces of Ukraine object to the overthrow of a democratically elected government and feel that their destiny lies with Russia rather than with Ukraine.

Unless there is a dramatic change in the willingness of the West to force a military decision, then a political solution must be sought to lower tensions between the West, in particular, Western Europe and the E.U., and come to an accommodation with Russia. By coming to an accommodation with Russia, China would be forced to consider her security issues to the North with Russia and would need to become less aggressive in other parts of the world.
A Possible Diplomatic Solution to the Crimean Crisis

For any type of a settlement to be made, the West will need to acknowledge that the Crimea will remain in Russian hands.

If one makes a careful study of history, they will find that historically, since 1768, when Russia annexed it during the Russo-Turkish War, Ukraine has been a political and territorial part of Russia. The ethnic population of the Crimea is over 65% Russian.

1. Crimea was traditionally a part of the Russian SFSR until 1954 when it was transferred to the Ukrainian SSR by Nikita Khrushchev. Khrushchev was in a power struggle for control of the Communist Party of Russia and needed the support of Oleksiy Kyrychenko, head of the Ukrainian SSR, to defeat his rival Georgii Malenkov. Kyrychenko’s price for supporting Khrushchev was the Crimea, which Khrushchev was willing to pay. In the end, Khrushchev was triumphant and disposed of Malenkov from the Politburo in 1957.
2. The recognition of the Donetsk People’s Republic by the West and Ukraine. The DPR has been in open rebellion against Ukraine since 2014. The population of this region feels the overthrow of a popularly elected government by a minority segment of Ukraine was illegal and did not represent their political desires to remain in Russia's economic orbit.
3. NATO would agree not to allow Ukraine to join NATO, but NATO would be allowed to hold defensive war games in Ukraine under the observation of Russian military observers.
4. Russia would agree to provide compensation to Ukraine. A neutral party would determine the compensation.
5. Russia would acquiesce in Ukraine, turning her economic interests and political structure to the West and would not object if Ukraine were to join the European Union in the future.
6. Sanctions against Russia that came about after the seizure of the Crimea would be dropped, and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline would be allowed to be completed.

This agreement could be brokered under the auspices of the current Minsk Agreement.

These proposals only reflect the current political and military situation in Ukraine. The West is not going to use military force to retrieve the Crimea or force the breakaway provinces to return to Ukrainian federal control. Since there is not going to be a change in leadership in Russia, the situation as it stands will not change. It is time for the West to accept, however much it grates on the West, that the Crimea now belongs to Russia, and that the eastern Donbass region will not be returning to the government in Kiev. This is simply realpolitik. The West needs to woo Russia away from her de facto alliance with China and apply strategic pressure upon the northern Chinese border to modify China's behavior.

Triangular Diplomacy was used before in the 1970s by the Nixon Administration, though it was China that the U.S. used as a trump card against Russia. This was when Russia was viewed as the primary threat to the United States' national security interests and world peace.


Richard E. Caroll is a retired economist and a retired soldier. His degrees are in Economics and Liberal Arts. He has traveled extensively in South East Asia and in Latin America, and is currently living in South East Asia.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

The Political Logic of China’s Strategic Mistakes | by Minxin Pei - Project Syndicate

Minxin Pei traces the communist regime’s recent policy blunders – including in Hong Kong – to two aspects of its mindset.

www.project-syndicate.org

The Political Logic of China’s Strategic Mistakes

Jul 8, 2020 Minxin Pei

For the first time since the end of the Cultural Revolution, the Communist Party of China faces a genuine existential threat, mainly because its mindset has led it to commit a series of calamitous strategic errors. And its latest intervention in Hong Kong suggests that it has no intention of changing course.

CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA – Some of the Chinese government’s recent policies seem to make little practical sense, with its decision to impose a national-security law on Hong Kong being a prime example. The law’s rushed enactment by China’s rubber-stamp National People’s Congress on June 30 effectively ends the “one country, two systems” model that has prevailed since 1997, when the city was returned from British to Chinese rule, and tensions between China and the West have increased sharply.

1. Understanding the Pandemic Stock Market
   Understanding the Pandemic Stock Market
   Robert J. Shiller
   The worse economic fundamentals and forecasts become, the more mysterious stock-market outcomes in the US appear. At a time when genuine news suggests that equity prices should be tanking, not hitting record highs, explanations based on crowd psychology, the virality of ideas, and the dynamics of narrative epidemics can shed some light.
   14

Hong Kong’s future as an international financial center is now in grave peril, while resistance by residents determined to defend their freedom will make the city even less stable. Moreover, China’s latest move will help the United States to persuade wavering European allies to join its nascent anti-China coalition. The long-term consequences for China are therefore likely to be dire.It is tempting to see China’s major policy miscalculations as a consequence of over-concentration of power in the hands of President Xi Jinping: strongman rule inhibits internal debate and makes poor decisions more likely. This argument is not necessarily wrong, but it omits a more important reason for the Chinese government’s self-destructive policies: the mindset of the Communist Party of China (CPC).The CPC sees the world as, first and foremost, a jungle. Having been shaped by its own bloody and brutal struggle for power against impossible odds between 1921-49, the party is firmly convinced that the world is a Hobbesian place where long-term survival depends solely on raw power. When the balance of power is against it, the CPC must rely on cunning and caution to survive. The late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping aptly summarized this strategic realism with his foreign-policy dictum: “hide your strength and bide your time.”So, when China pledged in the 1984 Joint Declaration with the United Kingdom to maintain Hong Kong’s autonomy for 50 years after the 1997 handover, it was acting out of weakness rather than a belief in international law. As the balance of power has since shifted in its favor, China has consistently been willing to break its earlier commitments when doing so serves its interests. In addition to cracking down on Hong Kong, for example, China is attempting to solidify its claims in disputed areas of the South China Sea by building militarized artificial islands there.The CPC’s worldview is also colored by a cynical belief in the power of greed. Even before China became the world’s second-largest economy, the party was convinced that Western governments were mere lackeys of capitalist interests. Although these countries might profess fealty to human rights and democracy, the CPC believed that they could not afford to lose access to the Chinese market – especially if their capitalist rivals stood to profit as a result.

Such cynicism now permeates China’s strategy of asserting full control over Hong Kong. Chinese leaders expect the West’s anger at their actions to fade quickly, calculating that Western firms are too heavily vested in the city to let the perils of China’s police state be a deal breaker.

Even when the CPC knows that it will incur serious penalties for its actions, it has seldom flinched from taking measures – such as the crackdown on Hong Kong – deemed essential to maintaining its hold on power. Western governments had expected that credible threats of sanctions against China would be a powerful deterrent to CPC aggression toward the city. But judging by how China has thumbed its nose at the West, and especially at the US and President Donald Trump, this has obviously not been the case.These Western threats do not lack credibility or substance: comprehensive sanctions encompassing travel, trade, technology transfers, and financial transactions could seriously undermine Hong Kong’s economic wellbeing and Chinese prestige. But sanctions imposed on a dictatorship typically hurt the regime’s victims more than its leaders, thus reducing their deterrent value.Until recently, the West’s acquiescence in the face of Chinese assertiveness appeared to have vindicated the CPC’s Hobbesian worldview. Before the rise of Trumpism and the subsequent radical shift in US policy toward China, Chinese leaders had encountered practically no pushback, despite repeatedly overplaying their hand.But in Trump and his national-security hawks, China finally has met its match. Like their counterparts in Beijing, the US president and his senior advisers not only believe in the law of the jungle, but also are unafraid to wield raw power against their foes.

Unfortunately for the CPC, therefore, it now has to contend with a far more determined adversary. Worse still, America’s willingness to absorb enormous short-term economic pain to gain a long-term strategic edge over China indicates that greed has lost its primacy. In particular, the US strategy of “decoupling” – severing the dense web of Sino-American economic ties – has caught China totally by surprise, because no CPC leader ever imagined that the US government would be willing to write off the Chinese market in pursuit of broader geopolitical objectives.

For the first time since the end of the Cultural Revolution, the CPC faces a genuine existential threat, mainly because its mindset has led it to commit a series of calamitous strategic errors. And its latest intervention in Hong Kong suggests that it has no intention of changing course.

Minxin Pei

Writing for PS since 2006
68 Commentaries


Minxin Pei is Professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College and a non-resident senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.

 

[Housecarl]

Hummm.....

Posted for fair use.....

China challenges U.S. to cut nuclear arsenal to matching level

China would "be happy to" participate in trilateral arms control negotiations with the United States and Russia, but only if the United States were willing to reduce its nuclear arsenal to China's level, a senior Chinese diplomat said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

World News
July 7, 2020 / 8:09 PM / 2 days ago

China challenges U.S. to cut nuclear arsenal to matching level

BEIJING (Reuters) - China would “be happy to” participate in trilateral arms control negotiations with the United States and Russia, but only if the United States were willing to reduce its nuclear arsenal to China’s level, a senior Chinese diplomat said on Wednesday.

Washington has repeatedly called for China to join in trilateral negotiations to extend New START, a flagship nuclear arms treaty between the United States and Russia that is due to expire in February next year.

Fu Cong, head of the arms control department of Chinese foreign ministry, reiterated to reporters in Beijing on Wednesday that China has no interest in joining the negotiation with former Cold War-era superpowers, given that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is about 20 times the size of China’s.

“I can assure you, if the U.S. says that they are ready to come down to the Chinese level, China would be happy to participate the next day,” he said. “But actually, we know that’s not going to happen.”

Fu asserted that for the United States, asking China to participate in trilateral negotiations is “nothing but a ploy to divert attention” and an excuse for the United States to walk away from the New START extension.

“The real purpose is to get rid of all restrictions and have a free hand in seeking military superiority over any adversary, real or imagined,” said Fu.

Fu maintained China is not “shying away from the international nuclear disarmament process” and is prepared to discuss within the framework of the United Nations Security Council’s five permanent members all issues related to the reduction of nuclear risks.

Reporting by Yew Lun Tian; Editing by Christian Schmollinger and Lincoln Feast.

 

[Housecarl]

Opinion | Libya’s Foul Foretaste of the Post-American World

Amid the chaos, the EU, NATO and the Arab world are all divided over which warlords to support.

www.wsj.com

• Opinion
• Global View

Libya’s Foul Foretaste of the Post-American World
Amid the chaos, the EU, NATO and the Arab world are all divided over which warlords to support.

Opinion: Russia, the Taliban and President Trump
Journal Editorial Report: Paul Gigot interviews General Jack Keane. Image: Thomas Watkins/AFP via Getty Images

By Walter Russell Meade


July 8, 2020 1:10 pm ET

Does Libya show us the future of world politics?

U.S. engagement there has been minimal since a 2012 terrorist attack killed four Americans, including the ambassador, and traumatized the Obama administration. In America’s absence, over half a dozen powers are struggling to control Libya’s future, carving up its territory, and subsidizing militias and warlords as they compete for control over its oil and gas. No end to the war is in sight.
...

(Pay wall)

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

China’s Maritime Militia Vessels May Be Military Objectives During Armed Conflict

There is no universal definition for naval auxiliaries, but such ships are subject to the same treatment as warships during armed conflict.

thediplomat.com

China’s Maritime Militia Vessels May Be Military Objectives During Armed Conflict

There is no universal definition for naval auxiliaries, but such ships are subject to the same treatment as warships during armed conflict.

By James Kraska
July 07, 2020

Last year, outgoing Chief of Naval Operations Admiral John Richards warned his Chinese counterpart, Vice Adm. Shen Jinlong, that the United States was aware that China uses a militia fishing fleet to push its illegal claims in the East and South China Seas. Richards warned that the U.S. Navy would respond to aggressive acts by those ships as though they were part of the armed forces. Many of these fishing vessels are indistinguishable from China’s ordinary fishing fleet, as they engage in a variety of peacetime missions and receive military training to conduct operations during armed hostilities.

In the event of naval conflict in the region, the vessels of the Chinese maritime militia could be used to support some PRC military missions. Some of the maritime militia may be coastal fishing craft that are immune from capture during armed conflict but may be attacked if they assist the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) military effort in any manner. Most of the maritime militia vessels operate on high seas and are usually engaged in commercial fishing, but occasionally are called on to assist the PLAN or China Coast Guard (CCG). This class of ships may be captured as lawful prize during armed conflict and they also may be attacked for such time as assist the PLAN during hostilities. Finally, a third category of fishing vessels operate as de facto naval auxiliaries and operate in conjunction with the PLAN and CCG. There is no universal definition for naval auxiliaries, but such ships are subject to the same treatment as warships and during armed conflict may be sunk on sight outside of neutral waters. These ships are more formally incorporated into the operations of the PLAN. Distinguishing among the various units of the maritime militia and understanding their targetability during any naval war presents a challenge to naval intelligence collection and analysis to discern the nature of the vessels and their command and control structure.

Maritime Militia
The groundbreaking work of the China Maritime Studies Center (CMSI) at the Naval War College reveals that there is not one maritime militia in China, but rather a constellation of forces among localities and provincial governments that support national defense efforts. At the national level, militia policies are prescribed by the Central Military Commission chaired by Xi Jinping, yet the militia are under local and provincial leadership. Local PLA commands provide organization and training, sometimes in concert with the CCG and the Maritime Safety Administration. On the civilian side, the organization consists of the party-state administrative apparatus, while the military structure falls within provincial-level military districts. Broadly construed, these forces are styled as the People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia (PAFMM) and operate as a Third Sea Force of China.

The problem in analyzing their legal status arises from the disparate nature of the PAFMM. Many of the fishing cooperatives that are part of the PAFMM are ordinary fishing organizations that operate as commercial fishing ventures, and then only occasionally conduct operations for the PLAN. Other components are more professionalized and better equipped for direct action missions, operating as a maritime vanguard of naval auxiliaries to enforce “rights protection” of maritime claims, rather than fishing. Activities are also initiated by the local and provincial authorities, albeit with PLA approval. The different missions of the various components of the PAFMM during peacetime and armed conflict further complicates how to think about them. The variation within the PAFMM has aided the Chinese regime’s effort to intentionally try to obfuscate the status of the PAFMM: “putting on camouflage they qualify as soldiers, taking off camouflage they are law abiding fishermen.” China’s policy is to hide its maritime militia by operating it as a sort of “dark fleet.”

The PAFMM appear to be a driving force behind the decade-long expansion in the Chinese fishing fleet. The world’s fishing fleet is over-capitalized. Too many hulls are chasing too few fish, which has led to fisheries depletion and exacerbated illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. China has the largest fishing fleet in the world. In 2015 it had some 370,000 non-powered and another 672,000 motorized fishing vessels. Perhaps unsurprisingly, China is world’s worst IUU offender. China was reducing its fishing capacity up until 2008, it then reversed course, undergoing a fleet expansion since then. The fishing fleet expansion is linked to the rise of the PAFMM, which has received new steel-hulled boats, China’s Beidou navigation satellite system, which can track and report text messages on the position of other afloat units, and paramilitary training. Their vessels conduct military exercises with the PLAN and CCG, while receiving compensation, including subsidies, social benefits and pensions from localities. Yet not being a direct subcomponent of the PLA provides the PAFMM with greater flexibility in taking action and escalation of maritime interests and claims without the reputational or deterrent risk of involving the PLA.

Peacetime Roles
During peacetime, the PAFMM plays a central role in advancing China’s maritime claims and position through coercion, fulfilling General Secretary Xi Jinping’s vision to mobilize civilians for military operations. This reserve force aids in search and rescue missions, critical infrastructure protection of ports and oil rigs, presence missions and “rights protection” operations to assert China’s unlawful maritime claims, and harassment and expulsion of foreign civilian and government vessels, including warships, in waters claimed by China. PAFMM vessels also have engaged in direct-action, unconventional operations in support of the PLA-N and CCG encounters with U.S. naval vessels and those of regional states in the South China Sea and the East China Sea.

Continued.....

 

[Housecarl]

Continued.....

In 2009, for example, maritime militia encircled the USNS Impeccable as it was conducting military surveys in waters beyond China’s territorial sea. The Chinese ships included a combined force of maritime militia trawlers and Chinese government vessels that attempted to disrupt U.S. Navy operations by threatening to cut the towed array that trailed behind the U.S. naval auxiliary ship in international water. In 2012, Chinese fishing vessels in coordination with the CCG were the vanguard of China’s taking sovereign control of Scarborough Shoal – a tiny islet feature in the South China Sea. In 2016, an arbitration tribunal determined that Chinese vessels had unlawfully prevented Filipino fishermen from engaging in traditional fishing at Scarborough Shoal (para. 814). The tribunal also found that Chinese fishing vessels engaged in destructive IUU fishing, including harvesting endangered giant claims, corals and sea turtles, as recounted in para. 764 of the arbitration award.

In May 2014, PAFMM vessels supported China’s emplacement of the massive Haiyang Shiyou-981 oil rig south of Triton island in areas long regarded as Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) – igniting a standoff that involved over one hundred ships on both sides. The Fugang Fisheries organization dispatched a 29-trawler militia flee to protect the oil rig, in support of the Guangzhou Military Region and Hainan Military District. For over two months, the fishing vessel militia arrayed in protective rings around the Chinese oil rig – illustrating a layered “cabbage strategy, driving away Vietnamese vessels attempting to enforce their EEZ, and sinking three.

In May 2015, Jiangmen Military Sub-district in Guangdong Province organized a military exercise for maritime militia elements focusing on their wartime missions. Exercises involved assembly and mobilization, maritime rights protection, patrolling, logistics, and emergency repair of piers damaged during combat. In March 2016, some 100 Chinese fishing vessels appeared around Malaysia’s Laconia Shoals off the coast of Sarawak and within the Malaysian EEZ. These ships flew no flag and had no evident registration and were accompanied by two CCG vessels. In 2019, PAFMM vessels approached within half a nautical mile from the Philippine outpost on Loaita Cay in the Spratly Islands. The Philippines deployed a former U.S. Navy LST-542-class tank landing ship to monitor the two Chinese trawlers.

It is the same story in the East China Sea. Since the Japanese government purchased three of the Senkaku Islands from a private Japanese citizen in 2010 to prevent them from being occupied, Chinese fishing vessels and CCG ships routinely enter the territorial sea and the contiguous zone as a way to harass Japan and destabilize the status quo. In 2020 China has escalated these presence operations near the Senkaku Islands to pressure Tokyo. China claims the Senkaku Islands are disputed, although they were under U.S. military control during its occupation of Okinawa until 1971 and reverted to Japan based on its 1895 claim when the islands were unoccupied and terra nullius.

Roles During Armed Conflict
The militia fishing vessels are a primary instrument to change “facts on the ground” in peacetime, such as construction of artificial islands in the South China Sea, while exercising and training a paramilitary naval force that may be employed during armed conflict. The dual military-civilian structure of the PAFMM poses operational challenges for China’s adversaries. In their debut during armed hostilities, the maritime militia were involved in the 1974 seizure of the Western Paracel Islands from Vietnam. Beijing learned that using fishing vessels to prosecute the invasion was less likely to bring the United States into the conflict, even when they threatened a U.S. ally.

Today the most capable units of the PAFMM are prepared to wage a guerilla war style “People’s War at Sea,” armed with sea mines and anti-air artillery and missiles. The ships are also trained to conduct intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and potentially relay data to facilitate the PLAN kill chain. This distributed network, estimated to be as many as 20,000 vessels and hundreds of thousands of militia constitutes a “maritime reconnaissance network” that complicates force planning for a potential adversary.

In the run-up to a conflict, the maritime militia may employ coercive tactics, such as ramming vessels to goad an adversary into striking back, while CCG and even PLAN forces wait over the horizon to rush to the scene and “teach a lesson.” The United States, Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia have all confronted China’s maritime militia, raising the risk that the situation could escalate. Yet failing to confront the PAFMM normalizes Beijing’s presence and reach in other nations’ territorial seas and EEZs. This scenario exemplifies the “Three Warfares” asymmetric strategy to employ disorienting psychological warfare, media warfare and legal warfare to circumvent traditional and especially Western notions of armed conflict.

Targeting Considerations
The PAFMM is comprised of a variety of unit, and during armed conflict, vessels from each type of organization would have to be analyzed separately as part of the targeting process. Fishing vessels of the PAFMM potentially fall into one of three categories for purposes of targeting during armed conflict. Furthermore, unlike the law of land warfare, at sea the decision to use force against a target is not a binary choice between protected civilian targets and objects and lawful military targets and objects. A third option is open to naval belligerent forces – capture of enemy merchant ships to be adjudicated in court as a lawful prize. Each of these three options is available for addressing PAFMM ships, depending on the unit they are attached to and their conduct during the war.

First, coastal fishing vessels are immune from capture and attack unless they assist the PLAN during hostilities. Small coastal fishing vessels are immune from attack during armed conflict if they are used exclusively for fishing along the coast or are employed in coast trade. This rule was recognized in the 1900 case of the Paquete Habana, and codified in article 3 of Hague XI. The rule is also reflected in article 47(g) of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea and para. 8.6.3.2(4) of the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations. Such vessels are also immune from capture as naval prize, as reflected in article 136(f) of the San Remo Manual. The PAFMM generally will not qualify as small coastal fishing vessels and small boats engaged in local coastal trade, however, as they routinely operate on the high seas. Furthermore, these craft are subject to the inspection, and must comply with the regulations of the adversaries’ on-scene commander.

Second, ordinary, ocean-going fishing vessels of the maritime militia may not be attacked unless through their conduct they become military objectives. Under rule 40 of the San Remo Manual, such vessels are those that by their nature, location, purpose and use make an effective contribution to military action by inserting themselves into the conflict. To be targeted, these vessels must make an effective contribution to military action, and their total or partial destruction must offer a definite military advantage. Such vessels may be targeted if they engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy, such as laying mines, act as an auxiliary, such as by ferrying troops, are integrated into the enemy’s kill chain through ISR or early warning and command and control, actively resist the belligerent right of visit and search, being armed beyond what is required for personal safety, such as carrying anti-aircraft weapons, or otherwise making an effective contribution to the military action, such as by carrying military supplies, as reflected in rule 60 of the San Remo Manual. This conduct makes such vessels lawful military targets that may be destroyed in armed conflict, as reflected and section 8.6.2.2 of the Commander’s Handbook.

Even if these vessels may not be targeted unless through their action they become military objectives, they are still subject to capture anywhere outside neutral waters under rule 135 of the San Remo Manual.

Third, some professionalized PAFMM vessels may be directly targeted as de facto naval auxiliaries, outfitted to facilitate the operations of the PLA, regardless of their conduct. These maritime militia vessels are not warships, and only warships are entitled to conduct belligerent operations. Warships must belong to the armed forces of a state, bear marks of nationality, be under command of a commissioned naval officer and manned by a crew subject to military discipline, as reflected in articles 2-5 of Hague VII, article 8(2) of the 1958 High Sea Convention, and article 29 of the 1982 UN Convention on Law of the Sea. Naval auxiliaries are always military objects, as reflected in rule 40 of the San Remo Manual. There is no treaty that contains a definition of military definition of “military objective” in naval warfare, nor is there a universal definition of a “naval auxiliary.” While naval auxiliaries may not lawfully conduct attacks, like warships they may be targeted during armed conflict, even if they are unarmed.

These three categories require adequate intelligence collection and analysis to discern among them – commanders must know what they are shooting at, and they must evaluate the PAFMM in terms of these three categories to comply with the law of naval warfare.

James Kraska is Chair and Charles H. Stockton Professor of International Maritime Law in the Stockton Center for International Law at the U.S. Naval War College. The views presented do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the U.S. Navy or Department of Defense.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

The UK loans Estonia four armoured vehicles to support counter-terror mission in Mali

The United Kingdom will loan the Estonian Special Forces deploying to Mali four Jackal armoured vehicles to equip them as they join the international fight against Islamic terrorism in the Sahel region of Africa.

estonianworld.com

The UK loans Estonia four armoured vehicles to support counter-terror mission in Mali
By Sten Hankewitz / July 10, 2020 / 0 Comments / Security

https://estonianworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/A_Jackal_Armoured_Vehicle_is_put_through_its_paces_in_the_desert_at_Camp_Bastion_Afghanistan_MOD_45148137-1024x680.jpg

The United Kingdom will loan the Estonian Special Forces deploying to Mali four Jackal armoured vehicles to equip them as they join the international fight against Islamic terrorism in the Sahel region of Africa.

The British minister for the armed forces, James Heappey, confirmed the loan, plus a three-week training package, for elite soldiers of the Estonian Armed Forces.

“Having served with the Estonians in Afghanistan, I’ve seen first-hand the excellence of their armed forces and the depth of the friendship between our two nations,” Heappey said in a statement by the UK ministry of defence.

“With the Jackal 2, the Estonian Armed Forces will be equipped with a proven, battle-winning vehicle as they join the international effort to tackle terrorism.”

The Jackals will help the Estonians navigate unpredictable terrain in the Sahel, where their presence will add to the UK’s impact on the international effort to fight the illegal migration routes into Europe, and terrorist groups that operate in the region, the UK ministry of defence said.

Boasting a unique air-bag suspension system allowing rapid movement across the roughest terrain, the Jackal has been extensively used by British forces in Afghanistan. Designated as a “high mobility weapons system”, it is designed to protect personnel against roadside explosions and mine attacks but also has an “open” crew compartment and a gun-ring with 360-degree sweep for excellent observation and agility.
A British Army Jackal armoured vehicle at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. Photo by Cpl Ian Houlding/MOD, shared under the Open Government License. A tight-knit defence relationship between the UK and Estonia

“Armed with a general-purpose machine gun for crew protection, it can also carry either a heavy machine gun or a grenade machine gun as the main weapons system in the fire support role,” the UK defence ministry asserted.

“Following three years of close collaboration between the UK and the Estonian Armed Forces on NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence, this loan points to the strength of the two nations’ militaries’ shared objectives and ability to work together,” the ministry added.

The UK and Estonia have forged a tight-knit defence relationship in recent years, with the UK having led a multinational battlegroup in the country as part of NATO’s enhanced Forward Presence since 2017, according to the ministry.

“Over 800 British troops deployed in Estonia build understanding and share expertise with their local EDF counterparts on a daily basis with the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers currently providing the bulk of the combat capable force.”

Cover: A British Army Jackal armoured vehicle at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan. Photo by Cpl Ian Houlding/MOD, shared under the Open Government License.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Jihadists in the Sahel threaten west Africa’s coastal states

Thousands of soldiers are struggling to stem the violence

www.economist.com

War south of the Sahara
Jihadists in the Sahel threaten west Africa’s coastal states
Thousands of soldiers are struggling to stem the violence
Middle East & AfricaJul 11th 2020 edition

Jul 11th 2020
OUAGADOUGOU AND PARIS
“YOU MAY think you’re safe,” says a 57-year-old resident of Doropo in northern Ivory Coast. “But jihadists are like ants, they can come in without being noticed.” On June 11th, just three weeks after Ivory Coast’s army reassuringly declared that its northern frontier with war-torn Burkina Faso was “under control”, a band of armed insurgents proved it wrong. Some 20 men on motorbikes descended on an army-and-police outpost near the border at Kafolo. The attackers killed 14 soldiers before roaring away into the bush.

The attack was the worst since 2016, when gunmen killed 19 people in a beach resort in Grand-Bassam, east of Abidjan, Ivory Coast’s commercial capital. It shows that even west Africa’s most populous countries, along the Atlantic coast, have become vulnerable to the predations of jihadists spilling out of the failing states farther north in the Sahel, the vast.... (pay wall)

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

How Islamic State Could Utilize COVID-19 Woes for African Resurgence

Islamic State is utilizing security and economic gaps caused by the COVID-19 pandemic to launch resurgence in Africa.

www.thedefensepost.com

How Islamic State Could Utilize COVID-19 Woes as Catalyst for African Resurgence
Geebio Gargard July 9, 2020
4 minutes read

As a safety precaution, the Islamic State (IS) warned its fighters against traveling to Europe during the COVID-19 pandemic and specifically disclosed in the group’s al-Naba newsletter that fighters should “stay away from the land of the epidemic for the time being.” Africa, though, has not been spared.

While life in much of the Western world seems to have stood still, IS’ affiliates have continued to conduct deadly attacks throughout Africa. In March alone, the Islamic State in West Africa Province (ISWAP) attacked a Nigerian army convoy in Gorbe, Yobe State, killing 47 military personnel. In Mozambique, another IS’ affiliate stormed the seaport and claimed it as part of its caliphate.

The terrorist group appears to have rebounded from its defeat in the Levant and are utilizing security and economic gaps caused by the pandemic to launch a resurgence in Africa.

Islamic State’s Resurgence in Africa
Since its defeat in the Middle East, IS has refocused its attention to Africa intending to establish provinces, Islamic States, and eventually, an Islamic Caliphate to mirror its lost caliphate in the Levant.

The terrorist group’s affiliates in Africa have established bases in regions with prolonged security instabilities, poor governance, and massive socio-economic problems.
Predictably, the economic crises from the COVID-19 pandemic could jolt IS as a legitimate governing alternative due to the group’s ability to raise massive capital. In 2014, for instance, IS generated $1 billion from sales of illegal oil and artifacts.

With its command of the black-market and dark web, along with the plethora of natural resources in Africa, IS can establish a caliphate in the continent that is far deadlier and more sophisticated than the one it controlled in the Levant.

Faced with daunting economic challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, African nations will eventually have to cut back on their spending on security, which would further enable extremists in their pursuit of including wider territories under their control in Africa. Photo: AFP

To avoid such a disastrous scenario, international financial institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund must guarantee developing countries debt relief so African countries can brace for the pending economic crises and adequately address security and socio-economic needs.

If debt relief is not provided, African countries battling violent extremism will have no option but to cut funding for their security forces to focus on the pandemic’s socio-economic disruptions.

The World Bank argues that the crisis will push some 40 to 60 million people into extreme poverty. From a health perspective, Sub-Saharan Africa has been plagued less by the virus but will be hit the hardest in terms of increased extreme poverty that could affect 23 million people.

Preventing Violent Extremism
Economic hardships in Western countries supporting counterterrorism missions in Africa will look to cut costs by reducing military spending, redirecting the funds to pay for trillion-dollar financial bailouts meant to revamp their respective economies. These changes will undeniably hamper anti-terrorism efforts, which IS will exploit to foster violent extremism similar to when President Barack Obama ended US military operations in Iraq in 2008.

Research on the prevention of violent extremism shows that the lack of economic prosperity is one of the main catalysts that perpetuates radical terrorism.

Looking at a data set on foreign recruits of IS, the World Bank concluded that the factors most strongly associated with foreign individuals’ joining IS had to do with a lack of economic and social inclusion in their home of origin.

IS’ affiliates have already exploited economic disparities and weak governance throughout Africa and are currently operating in 20 African states with little to no disruption.

Combatting Terrorism in Africa
In early 2013, before France’s intervention in the Sahel and the UN peacekeeping mission that followed, Islamist Jihadists affiliated with IS and al-Qaeda ruled northern Mali along with a significant portion of the Sahel.

Had the Jihadist groups not attacked Malian capital Bamako and threatened French interests, the former French President François Hollande would have never authorized the French military into Mali, and the Jihadist groups would have continued to govern northern Mali and expand further into the Sahel.

Even before COVID-19, global responses to combatting terrorism in Africa seemed to diminish. The US government planned the withdrawal of critical support assets to French military operations to refocus the resources to respectively counter Russia and China activities in Europe and the Far East, which clearly exhibited the US no longer considered Africa as a strategic interest.

In early February, to alleviate concerns of the French government and African partners, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said the US military would not conduct a full troop withdrawal from Africa, and an ongoing review could result only in troop reductions.

However, the French President Emmanuel Macron asked the US government to reconsider the withdrawal or reduction of American troops due to the dire situation that will ensue if the US military leaves or curtails its support to the mission.

To date, Operation Barkhane and the UN peacekeeping mission in the Sahel have not been up to the task. Although French forces have progressively managed to eliminate Jihadist leaders operating in the Sahel, Islamic Jihadist groups continue to grow exponentially as the economic situation in the region worsens.

The UN mission in Mali is now considered the deadliest UN mission in history, with 204 peacekeepers killed. Thus far, the Sahel lacks any opportunity for economic growth to act as an alternative to radicalization. Consequently, the economic crisis from the pandemic will add to the cascading situations in the region, which could lead to the displacement of 2.5 million people and escalate the violence.

IS’ Caliphate in Africa
In northern Nigeria, a high poverty rate (87 percent) and regional climate change issues along with ineffective policies and corruption in certain parts of Cameroon and Chad have enabled ISWAP to gain a foothold in the region as it continues to terrorize the local populace.

In spite of the pandemic, IS’ affiliates are striving in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Mozambique, Somalia, and Northern Uganda, and its DRC-based fighters and their Mozambican counterparts have taken advantage of weak governance and security instabilities to establish safe havens for their operations that have led to dozens of attacks and raids on security forces and local communities.

Over the last few years, jihadist attacks have displaced hundreds of thousands of people and created entire communities of refugees in Africa. Photo: AFP

With the Africa continent currently embattling a 60 percent youth unemployment rate and high number of Africans facing poverty, the conditions are adequate for non-state actors such as IS to galvanize disenfranchised youth to their cause and push the Africa continent further into despair.

Unlike Iraq and Syria, an IS caliphate in Africa will be difficult to eradicate due to the complex demographics, vast uninhabitable and ungoverned regions, and the lack of formidable fighting force similar to the Kurds in Iraq and Syria that can defeat IS without Western forces committing more troops.

Regardless of post-COVID-19’s economic outlook, an IS’ caliphate in Africa will be catastrophic for African and Western countries alike.

 

[Housecarl]

Posted for fair use.....

Mexico cartel behind brazen attacks emerges as ‘most urgent threat’ to country’s national security

A drug cartel with a penchant for launching brazen attacks -- including a recent assassination attempt on Mexico City’s police chief – has now emerged as the most powerful criminal organization in Mexico following the fall of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, officials are warning.

www.foxnews.com

Mexican Cartel Violence
Published 2 days ago
Mexico cartel behind brazen attacks emerges as ‘most urgent threat’ to country’s national security
The Jalisco New Generation Cartel is now the most powerful in Mexico, officials say

By Greg Norman | Fox News

• Comments

Mexican drug plane catches on fire after making illegal landing on rural highway
Mexican police found an alleged drug plane on fire and a truck full of cocaine nearby.
A drug cartel with a penchant for launching brazen attacks -- including a recent assassination attempt on Mexico City’s police chief – has now emerged as the most powerful criminal organization in Mexico following the fall of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, officials are warning.

The Jalisco New Generation Cartel, centered around the fentanyl and methamphetamines trades, has seized power and influence by killing more than 100 public servants in its home state, ranging from mayors to soldiers, local officials tell The Wall Street Journal.
“These people have the firepower and the money to challenge the Mexican state,” Renato Sales, one of Mexico’s former security commissioners, said in an interview with the newspaper. “The Jalisco New Generation Cartel is the most urgent threat to Mexico’s national security.”

An abandoned vehicle that is believed to have been used by gunmen in an attack against Mexico City's chief of police is sealed off with yellow tape and guarded by responding officers on June 26. Heavily-armed gunmen attacked and wounded Omar Garcia Harfuch in a brazen operation that left an unspecified number of dead, Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum said. (AP)

MEXICO DRUG REHAB CENTER SHOOTING LEAVES 26 DEAD

Mexican intelligence officials attribute the cartel’s growing strength to its unity – as it has not been weakened by internal conflicts among members. Other cartels in Mexico also have come under siege internationally – most notably the Sinaloa Cartel, which “El Chapo” used to run before being imprisoned in the U.S.

The Wall Street Journal reports the Jalisco cartel killed a federal judge and his wife last month and Mexican authorities have intercepted their telephone calls to compile a list of who may be targeted next. Separately, the cartel is waging war against gangs in the central Mexican state of Guanajuato over control of a $3 billion market in stolen gasoline, the newspaper adds.

Members of the Mexico national guard walk near an unregistered drug rehabilitation center after a shooting in Irapuato, Mexico, on July 1. The violence occured in a region where the Jalisco New Generation Cartel reportedly is fighting for control of a $3 billion market in stolen gasoline. (AP)

“This is an example of the challenge the Mexican state is being confronted with,” Enrique Alfaro, the governor of Jalisco – who is reported to be on the list – was quoted as telling local media. “What we are seeing is a threat to institutions.”

The Jalisco cartel is run by Nemesio Oseguera, whom the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has a $10 million reward out for information leading to his capture. Oseguera, a former Mexico police officer, once was jailed in the U.S. for distributing heroin and is now believed to be hiding somewhere in the mountains of Jalisco state, according to The Wall Street Journal.

MEXICAN DRUG LORD WANTED IN US AGENT’S DEATH IS PLEADING POVERTY IN HOPES OF AVOIDING ARREST

Last year, the DEA labeled the Jalisco cartel “the most well-armed" in Mexico and said it is dealing its drugs in American cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston.

Nemesio Oseguera, the leader of the Jalisco cartel. (DEA)
Five years ago, the cartel blasted a Mexican Air Force helicopter out of the sky with a rocket-propelled grenade, killing eight soldiers and a policewoman in what was the first time ever that an organized crime group downed a military aircraft in the country, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Now, security analysts that spoke to The Wall Street Journal believe the cartel is launching attacks in response to recent setbacks it has suffered, like the February extradition of Oseguera’s son to the U.S. to face drug charges. The federal judge that had been killed in Colima state served in one of the cases against him.

TEARFUL MEXICAN CARTEL BOSS THREATENS GOVERNMENT FOR ARRESTING MOTHER

The relatives of a woman killed during the assassination attempt of Mexico City's Chief of Police Omar Garcia Harfuch react near the crime scene on June 26.

In March, U.S. authorities arrested 600 people believed to be linked to the cartel north of the border, while in June, Mexico’s Finance Ministry froze nearly 2,000 bank accounts tied to their operations, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“I feel that the Jalisco cartel is on a crusade of vengeance for the injuries they feel they have suffered,” Eduardo Guerrero, a Mexican security analyst, told the newspaper. “We are at the beginning of a wave of massacres and assassinations of police and judicial officials. It’s part of a strategy to show strength to the government.”

The Jalisco New Generation Cartel is also putting Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador in a “conundrum,” says Falko Ernst, a security analyst with nonprofit International Crisis Group.

Lopez Obrador in the past has vowed to push back against cartel violence with a “hugs not bullets” strategy.

“If he acts boldly, he would be undermining his own rhetoric,” Ernst told The Wall Street Journal. “If he doesn’t act, the cartels would see it as a message of impunity.”

 

[danielboon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1281908388683747328

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1281908388683747328

 

[danielboon]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1283011134061150209

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/cnni/status/1283011134061150209