WAR 12-10-2016-to-12-16-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Sorry for the delay Folks, the Meat World has been having a field day with me today.....

(245) 11-19-2016-to-11-25-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...25-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(246) 11-26-2016-to-12-02-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...02-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

(247) 12-03-2016-to-12-09-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...09-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

----------

At least 20 hurt in blast outside Istanbul soccer stadium
Started by geoffs‎, Today 12:21 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...hurt-in-blast-outside-Istanbul-soccer-stadium

US Sends 200 More Troops To Syria Days After Obama Lifts Ban On Arms Supplies To Rebels
Started by Possible Impact‎, Today 09:39 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...er-Obama-Lifts-Ban-On-Arms-Supplies-To-Rebels

Trump transition team reviewing military ROE AND Marine Coprs Will Review Women in Combat
Started by Be Well‎, Yesterday 06:32 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-AND-Marine-Coprs-Will-Review-Women-in-Combat

Russia tests Doomsday Weapon/100 megaton Drone Sub/Port Killer plus long-lasting RADS
Started by Medical Maven‎, 12-08-2016 07:19 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Sub-Port-Killer-plus-long-lasting-RADS/page2

Obama Urges Soldiers to Question Trump’s Authority, ‘Criticize Our President’
Started by thompson‎, Yesterday 03:46 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Authority-%91Criticize-Our-President%92/page2

Main Russia/Ukraine invasion thread - 8/11/16 Ukraine Military On "Combat" Alert
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ne-Military-On-quot-Combat-quot-Alert/page455

Is the US fighting with Turkey in Syria and Iraq? (Turkey now believes USA will attack)
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...q-(Turkey-now-believes-USA-will-attack)/page3

Reuters: U.N. General Assembly demands truce in Syria, end to Aleppo siege
Started by Possible Impact‎, Yesterday 12:28 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ly-demands-truce-in-Syria-end-to-Aleppo-siege

China Preparing for Anti-Satellite Missile Test
Started by Housecarl‎, Yesterday 02:38 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?507548-China-Preparing-for-Anti-Satellite-Missile-Test

Whitehouse: Waive Arms Export Control Act, Full Equipment & Services to Syrian Rebels
Started by Possible Impact‎, 12-08-2016 02:51 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Full-Equipment-amp-Services-to-Syrian-Rebels
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/66402

Kaliningrad and the Escalatory Spiral in the Baltics

Posted by: ANDREW A. MICHTA
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 09, 2016

Over the past twenty-five years, the Kaliningrad exclave has been a thorn in NATO’s side. A Russian military outpost wedged between Lithuania and Poland, it is a critical element of Russian military planning, especially when it comes to anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) systems over the Baltic Sea and Moscow’s ability to project power in the Nordic and Baltic regions.

Since Russia’s March 2014 annexation of Crimea and subsequent escalation of the war in Ukraine, Moscow has been pouring troops and weapons into Kaliningrad, most recently nuclear-capable Iskander missiles and S-400 surface-to-air batteries. Kaliningrad’s primary rail link to the Russian mainland runs through Lithuania, raising fears in Vilnius that Russia may leverage this vulnerability to create a confrontation at will.

The range of weapons deployed in Kaliningrad—the long-range systems there could now reach into the core of NATO—coupled with massive Russian snap exercises in the Baltics and frequent violations of the airspace and territorial waters of NATO and neutral Sweden and Finland has fed an escalatory spiral. Today, the risk is real and growing that a miscalculation on either side may trigger a crisis or spin out of control into a military conflict between NATO and Russia.

At its July 2016 summit in Warsaw, NATO vowed to respond to Russia’s military buildup along the alliance’s northeastern flank with planned deployments of four multinational battalions in the Baltics and Poland; a new regime of persistent military exercises; and the rotational deployment of a U.S. brigade to Europe, with its headquarters in Poland.

An arms race is on the way in the Baltics, one that is centered on Kaliningrad and plays out against the backdrop of a potentially devastating nuclear escalation. The Russians continue to up the ante by putting additional hardware into Kaliningrad and conducting more exercises. Such moves send a political message and test NATO’s response time. Meanwhile, NATO allies along the flank are frantically looking for ways to increase deterrence. To counter the increased Russian militarization of Kaliningrad, the Baltic states have accelerated their military modernization programs, including by acquiring antitank missiles. Reflecting a deepening concern about Russian deployments in Kaliningrad and along NATO’s Eastern flank, the U.S. government has agreed to consider supplying Poland with the JASSM-ER missile, a standoff weapon that can be launched from the F-16 fighter aircraft and has a range of up to 1,000 kilometers (621 miles).

There can be no resolution of the deepening polarization and strategic asymmetries in the Baltic region without the status of Kaliningrad being addressed head-on. Simply put, now is the time for the West to engage frankly and directly with Russia on the future status of the exclave.

At this point in NATO’s tense relations with Russia, any talk about demilitarizing Kaliningrad is a pipe dream. But the alliance and Russia urgently need a set of negotiated rules on notification, exercises, and operations in the Baltic Sea and along the littoral. The current escalatory pattern has acquired a disturbing rhythm of its own, with a tit-for-tat series of moves becoming the norm: each side claims to be simply responding to the actions of the other. Considering how narrow the risk margins have become over the past year in particular, this pattern is no longer acceptable.

There is another dimension to the Kaliningrad question that needs to be put squarely on the table: the situation in Ukraine cannot be settled unless NATO addresses the larger issue of military balance along its Eastern flank. Here, a resolution to Kaliningrad (and, increasingly, the growing militarization of Crimea) is the prerequisite for any comprehensive solution to the war in Ukraine. This is an ever more urgent issue, as the war in Ukraine’s eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk is anything but a frozen conflict.

Since the 2016 U.S. presidential election, there has been a lot of speculation about what the priorities of Donald Trump’s administration should be come January. But considering the rapidly shifting balance in the Baltics and the potentially devastating implications of a miscalculation, the West may not have the luxury of time to engage in a long-term strategic reflection. The situation in the Baltics should be at the top of the U.S. foreign and security policy agenda—especially given the level of disarray in the EU following Britain’s vote to leave the bloc and NATO’s fragmentation over defense spending.

As in the Cold War years, the West needs to look for points where its interests correspond with Russia’s, and finding a path to de-escalation in the Baltics is one of the items on which Western and Russian interests coalesce. It is premature to talk about a larger U.S.-Russian strategy, and the West should not waste its time and energy on another reset that would allegedly solve it all. Rather, engagement on the concrete matter of the escalatory spiral in Kaliningrad and the Baltics, where both sides are deeply invested, should be a starting point for a frank discussion with Russia. The aim should be to find a solution to a risk level that has become unacceptably high.


Andrew A. Michta is the dean of the College of International and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies. Views expressed here are his own.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
South Korean President Impeached
Started by Lone_Hawk‎, Yesterday 04:13 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?507554-South-Korean-President-Impeached

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aei.org/publication/south-koreas-political-crisis-could-become-a-regional-one/

Michael Auslin @michaelauslin
December 9, 2016 9:35 am | AEIdeas

South Korea’s political crisis could become a regional one

Foreign and Defense Policy

After weeks of massive public protests in downtown Seoul of up to one million people, South Korea’s parliament decisively impeached President Park Geun-hye today. The vote now propels South Korea into the next phase of its political crisis, which will culminate when the nation’s Constitutional Court ratifies or rejects the impeachment vote, within six months. Initially indicating during the run-up to the vote that she would resign if impeached, Park apparently has chosen to fight the parliament’s vote.

According to South Korean law, Park is now removed from power, pending the court decision. The Prime Minister, Hwang Kyo-ahn, now becomes acting president. Yet Hwang is seen as a loyal Park subordinate, and is himself unpopular with the protesters and Korea’s opposition parties.

This is a time of extreme uncertainty on the Korean peninsula, and the next months could see dangerous instability. Most importantly, North Korea may try to take advantage of the crisis, possibly by testing the caretaker president. An attack on South Korean territory or military facilities, as happened back in 2010, could result in a full armed conflict, if the caretaker government wants to show its power. Alternately, a lack of response would further embolden the North. A missile test could also spark a South Korean response, especially if one goes wrong. While they may see the end of their term looming, those in the Obama administration should be prepared for a crisis in their last six weeks in power; just as importantly, the incoming Trump team needs a policy immediately, for they may face an alliance challenge soon after taking power.

In addition, the impeachment of Park moves South Korea’s progressive party one large step closer to power. The next election will happen within 60 days of her resignation or the court’s ruling. A progressive government would likely tilt away from Washington and lead to a less effective alliance, as happened the last time a left-wing government was in power during the 2000s. The progressives could also chose to move closer to China, and even tilt towards Pyongyang. All of that would call into question the near-term future of the alliance, and give Beijing or Pyongyang an opportunity to try and reduce America’s role on the peninsula, and further isolate Japan in Northeast Asia.

Facing both these short- and medium-term challenges, Washington needs to reaffirm confidence in our democratic ally South Korea, and maintain the highest-level contact with the interim leadership. We should recommit to our alliance guarantees, and encourage a trilateral set of discussions among Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo over potential North Korean-inspired provocation and stability on the Korean Peninsula. The Obama and Trump administrations should keep Beijing informed of our discussions with our allies, so as to dispel any Chinese attempt to take advantage of a crisis.

Throughout history, the Korean peninsula has been the so-called “cockpit” of Asia, the nexus of great power competition, and the ground on which China, Japan, Russia, and the United States have battled for influence and power. Park Geun-hye’s impeachment has opened the door to another round of instability, and it will take calm and sober management to maintain security on one of the world’s tensest borders, and keep democratic South Korea in a beneficial partnership with the United States and other liberal nations.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well this is about to go full court press stupid.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...ident-rejects-loss-and-calls-for-new-election

In Reversal, Gambian President Rejects Loss And Calls For New Election

December 10, 20163:44 PM ET
JAMES DOUBEK

After publicly conceding electoral defeat last week, President Yahya Jammeh of Gambia has reversed course and is calling for a new election.

Jammeh has ruled the tiny West African country since seizing power in a coup in 1994, and his public concession to President-elect Adama Barrow on Dec. 2 led to hopes of the first peaceful transition of power in Gambia since it became independent from the U.K. in 1965.

On Friday, Jammeh said the Independent Electoral Commission made errors in vote tallies.

"In the same way that I accepted faithfully the results, believing that the IEC was independent and honest and reliable, I hereby reject the results in totality," Jammeh said in a televised speech.

He also said there were other irregularities and problems in the electoral process.

"Our investigations reveal that in some cases, voters were told that the opposition has already won and there was no need for them to vote," Jammeh said.

Last week, supporters of the opposition took to the streets to celebrate Barrow's win. Jammeh's allegations are now "plunging Gambia into confusion and uncertainty," NPR's Ofeibea Quist-Arcton reports.

President-elect Barrow responded, telling reporters, "The outgoing president has no constitutional authority to reject the result of the election and order for fresh elections to be held," Reuters reports. "I urge him to change his current position and accept the verdict of the people in good faith for the sake of the Gambia, our homeland, whose people deserve peace and freedom and prosperity," he added to The Associated Press.

The U.S. joined international bodies in condemning the announcement.

"This action is a reprehensible and unacceptable breach of faith with the people of The Gambia and an egregious attempt to undermine a credible election process and remain in power illegitimately," State Department spokesman Mark C. Toner said in a press release.

The Economic Community of West African States, the U.N. and African Union echoed the sentiment in a joint statement:

"They call on the government of The Gambia to abide by its constitutional responsibilities and international obligations. It is fundamental that the verdict of the ballots should be respected, and that the security of the president -elect Adama Barrow, and that of all Gambian citizen be fully ensured."

Wire services report the streets of the capital Banjul were calm Saturday, with a heavy presence of police and soldiers. Gambians closed down shops and stayed home out of fear of violence.

Human rights groups have criticized Jammeh for abuses during his 22-year rule. In its 2016 report, Human Rights Watch said his government "frequently committed serious human rights violations including arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, and torture against those who voiced opposition to the government," creating "a climate of fear within Gambia."

On Saturday, the organization retweeted a statement from deputy program director Babatunde Olugboji saying they were "deeply concerned."

Diplomats told Reuters that it's unclear what international organizations plan to do, but there is a precedent for military intervention. In 1981, they note, the surrounding country of Senegal sent in troops to stop a coup in Gambia.

Opposition leader Mai Ahmad Fatty urged calm. "We are working round the clock to restore sanity," he told the AP. "We have the full support of our people. The world is with us."
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-security-idUSKBN13Z0HS

WORLD NEWS | Sat Dec 10, 2016 | 11:39am EST

Suicide bomber kills at least 50 Yemeni troops in Aden

A suicide bomber killed at least 50 Yemeni soldiers at a base in the city of Aden, a local security official said, in another major attack claimed by Islamic State on forces allied to a Saudi-led military coalition.

The attacker blew himself up as the troops were waiting to collect their salaries, the government sources added, wounding around 70 others as they lined up to collect salaries at the entrance to the Sawlaban base on the outskirts of the city.

Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack in a message posted online.

The Yemeni branch of the militant group based in Iraq and Syria has carried out many deadly bombings around troops in the southern port city, which is under the control of the internationally recognized government in exile in Saudi Arabia.

The Kingdom intervened in Yemen's civil war in March 2015 to fight the government's foes in the Iran-allied Houthi movement but have failed to dislodge the group from the capital Sanaa despite thousands of air strikes.

Houthi forces were pushed out of Aden and much of Yemen's south last summer, but the government and coalition troops have struggled to enforce their control as Al Qaeda and Islamic State militants use the security vacuum to carry out attacks.

At least 10,000 people have been killed in the 20-month conflict, which has unleashed a humanitarian crisis on the impoverished country.

(Reporting By Mohammed Mukhashaf, editing by David Evans and Hugh Lawson)
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-attacks-france-idUSKBN13Z0OI

WORLD NEWS | Sat Dec 10, 2016 | 2:54pm EST

France arrests new suspect in foiled terror plot

French judicial authorities have arrested and charged a sixth suspect in a foiled militant plot to attack sites in the Paris region, a judicial source said on Saturday.

France has been under a state of emergency since a wave of Islamist attacks last year, giving police wider powers, and the arrests come at a sensitive time ahead of next spring's presidential elections in which security will be a major theme.

The 31-year old suspect has been placed in preventive detention and accused of cooperation with "criminal terrorists" and of having supplied weapons to his accomplices, the source said.

Five other men suspected of being part of the plot are in custody after simultaneous police swoops last month in the southern port city of Marseille and in Strasbourg in northeast France. Investigators uncovered a plan to attack a Paris metro station and the Disneyland theme park (EDLP.PA) east of Paris in the name of Islamic State, the judicial source said.

More than 230 people have been killed in Islamist militant attacks on French soil since January 2015, including 130 in coordinated gun and suicide bomb strikes in Paris in November 2015.

The French government on Saturday proposed extending the state of emergency for the fourth time until mid July. Under state of emergency conditions, imposed following the Paris attacks, police have wider powers of search and arrest.

(Reporting by Yves Clarisse; Writing by Geert De Clercq; Editing by Ros Russell)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archi...-islamic-state-oil-tanker-trucks-in-syria.php

Video: US destroys Islamic State oil tanker trucks in Syria

BY BILL ROGGIO | December 10th, 2016 | admin@longwarjournal.org | @billroggio

Video

On Dec. 8, Coalition aircraft reportedly destroyed 168 Islamic State oil tankers near Palmyra, Syria. CENTCOM released footage of some of the airstrikes. For the full context of the bombings, see FDD’s Long War Journal report, US bombs oil tanker trucks as Islamic State battles Syrian regime near Palmyra.

Below is the text from CENTCOM’s press release on the airstrike:

In the largest air strike of its kind to date, Coalition airstrikes destroyed a fleet of 168 ISIL oil tanker trucks near Palmya, Syria, Dec. 8, 2016.

“The Coalition continues to forcefully prosecute the air war on ISIL revenue capability,” said Col. John L. “JD” Dorrian, CJTF-OIR Spokesman. “When ISIL has access to large sums of money, they use it to conduct violent terror attacks against anyone who doesn’t share their barbaric ideology.”

The Coalition is systematically targeting ISIL-affiliated oil infrastructure to eliminate millions of dollars in potential revenue. This most recent strike resulted in estimated lost revenue of more than $2 million. Stopping or severely hampering ISIL cash flow degrades their ability to fund the war effort in Iraq and Syria and terrorist attacks around the world.

The destruction of ISIL oil tanker trucks and petroleum equipment is just one of the multiple targets the Coalition strikes to hasten the military defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria by, with and through partnered forces.

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of The Long War Journal.
 

northern watch

TB Fanatic
marqs ‏@MarQs__ · 6h6 hours ago

Russian Air Force heavily bombing ISIS in #Palmyra tonight. Reports of strategic bombers and helicopters used.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Europe on the brink: Streets 'will become war zones' as continent descends into crisis
Started by Be Well‎, Today 08:19 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...e-war-zones-as-continent-descends-into-crisis

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...mergency-law-as-terrorist-threat-remains-high

France Extends Emergency Law as Terrorist Threat Remains High

by Gregory Viscusi and Marie Mawad
December 10, 2016 — 4:45 AM EST

- Risks heightened ahead of 2017 elections, prime minister says
- Emergency law was imposed after last year’s Paris attacks


The French government will extend until July 15 the emergency anti-terrorism measures due to expire at the end of January, as threats persist and may intensify in the run-up to next year’s presidential election, Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said after a special cabinet meeting.

The state of emergency is “essential” and has proven efficient in thwarting attacks, he told reporters in Paris on Saturday. The terrorism threat risk remains at a “high level,” he said, and risks may increase as candidates campaign for office.

The measures, which give police greater powers to carry out searches, detain suspects and ban gatherings, were enacted after the Nov. 13, 2015, assaults by Islamic State militants that left 130 dead in and around Paris. The measures were extended for six months in July.

“The state of emergency is not permanent, it’s a lever we have to pull in the face of an imminent peril,” Cazeneuve said. The special measures have helped stop 17 potential terrorist attacks this year in France, he said.

Former Prime Minister Manuel Valls said in an interview with the BBC in early November that he expected the measures to be extended because of risks linked to next year’s presidential elections. Valls quit as prime minister this week after declaring his candidacy for president.
 
Last edited:

vestige

Deceased
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...mergency-law-as-terrorist-threat-remains-high

France Extends Emergency Law as Terrorist Threat Remains High

by Gregory Viscusi and Marie Mawad
December 10, 2016 — 4:45 AM EST

- Risks heightened ahead of 2017 elections, prime minister says
- Emergency law was imposed after last year’s Paris attacks


The French government will extend until July 15 the emergency anti-terrorism measures due to expire at the end of January, as threats persist and may intensify in the run-up to next year’s presidential election, Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said after a special cabinet meeting.

The state of emergency is “essential” and has proven efficient in thwarting attacks, he told reporters in Paris on Saturday. The terrorism threat risk remains at a “high level,” he said, and risks may increase as candidates campaign for office.

The measures, which give police greater powers to carry out searches, detain suspects and ban gatherings, were enacted after the Nov. 13, 2015, assaults by Islamic State militants that left 130 dead in and around Paris. The measures were extended for six months in July.

“The state of emergency is not permanent, it’s a lever we have to pull in the face of an imminent peril,” Cazeneuve said. The special measures have helped stop 17 potential terrorist attacks this year in France, he said.

Former Prime Minister Manuel Valls said in an interview with the BBC in early November that he expected the measures to be extended because of risks linked to next year’s presidential elections. Valls quit as prime minister this week after declaring his candidacy for president.


Profiling is your friend.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Well this isn't going to go down well in Seoul.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-southkorea-idUSKBN14004J

WORLD NEWS | Sat Dec 10, 2016 | 11:49pm EST

North Korea's Kim guides special operations drill targeting South

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un guided a special operations drill targeting the South, the North's media reported on Sunday, as rival South Korea remained on alert for any attempt by the North to take advantage of political turmoil in the South.

The North's KCNA state news agency report did not say when North Korean forces conducted the combat exercise, nor did it mention the South Korean parliament's vote on Friday to impeach its president, Park Geun-hye.

Pictures in a Sunday report on the exercise in the North's Rodong Sinmun newspaper showed what appeared to be a mockup of South Korea's presidential Blue House as a target.

Park will remain in the Blue House, though her powers have been suspended and assumed by the South's prime minister while the Constitutional Court weighs parliament's impeachment vote.

South Korean Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn has urged a high state of military alert in case of any provocation by North Korea, including possible cyber attacks.

"We are ready to retaliate if North Korea makes any provocations and we condemn its malicious threat," a South Korean military official told Reuters.

Tension on the divided Korean peninsula has been high this year after two North Korean nuclear tests and an unprecedented flurry of ballistic missile tests.

The North's tests have brought tighter U.N. Security Council sanctions but no indication North Korea and its young leader Kim are willing to compromise on its nuclear and missile programmes.

The Rodong Sinmun pictures included one of Kim observing the exercise through binoculars.

"Watching the brave service personnel independently and pro-actively perform their combat duty destroying specified targets of the enemy, he said with a broad smile on his face: 'Well done, the enemy troops will have no space to hide themselves, far from taking any counteraction'," KCNA cited Kim saying.

(Reporting by Ju-min Park and Yun Hwan Chae; Writing by Tony Munroe; Editing by Robert Birsel)

ALSO IN WORLD NEWS

Twin bombing outside Istanbul soccer stadium kills 29, wounds 166
Islamic State militants enter Palmyra after heavy fighting: monitor
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.breitbart.com/national-s...se-propaganda-build-nuclear-arms-fight-trump/

Chinese Propaganda: ‘Build More Strategic Nuclear Arms’ to Fight Donald Trump

by FRANCES MARTEL
9 Dec 2016
Comments 604

Video

The Chinese state propaganda outlet Global Times is urging China’s military to amass more nuclear weapons in response to Donald Trump’s election to the American presidency, after a week of sharply worded editorials predicting a war if Trump confronts the nation’s communist government.
“Trump obviously considers China a cash cow. There have been voices in the West that want China to do more since the US deemed that China took a free ride on US efforts to maintain world order,” a Global Times column published Thursday reads. “In this case, the best China can do is to return an eye for an eye.”

While President-elect Trump has issued stern words against China on its colonization of the South China Sea and shown a warm disposition towards the pro-independence government of Taiwan, the author of the Times column appears most concerned with Trump’s repeated assertions that China’s unfair trade practices must come to an end. For this, the author recommends building more nuclear weapons.

“China won’t pay into Trump’s protection racket. It should use the money to build more strategic nuclear arms and accelerate the deployment of the DF-41 intercontinental ballistic missile,” the article reads. “China’s military spending in 2017 should be augmented significantly.”

The article makes clear that China should prepare not only to fight the United States, but Taiwan, which has long relied on America for military assistance: “We need to get better prepared militarily regarding the Taiwan question to ensure that those who advocate Taiwan’s independence will be punished, and take precautions in case of US provocations in the South China Sea.”

Last week, Trump accepted a routine congratulatory call from Tsai Ing-wen, the president of Taiwan. China took the conversation as an implicit acceptance of Tsai’s status as a fellow head of state and, thus, acceptance of Taiwan as a sovereign nation.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry is still issuing outraged statements about the call a week later. “The U.S. side should cautiously handle the issue and not to turn back the wheels of history, so as to avoid disturbance to the China-U.S. relations,” Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang said on Friday. “China’s stance is consistent and clear, and well known to the international community.”

China’s state-run propaganda mills did appear somewhat placated by Trump’s choice of Iowa Governor Terry Branstad as U.S. ambassador to China. A Trump spokesman touted Branstad as “someone who has a lot of experience and great grasp of trade issues, agriculture issues, has a tremendous understanding of China and Chinese people.”

“He was referred to as an ‘old friend’ of China by the Chinese foreign ministry on Wednesday,” the Global Times wrote of Branstad following the announcement of his appointment. “His nomination at this time has indicated a lot,” the publication noted, adding that even tensions on other issues with Trump are “eased somewhat by the Branstad nomination.”

The People’s Daily, another Chinese state-run publication, did not appear as placated with Branstad as the Global Times (which, while complimentary towards Branstad, is still calling for further nuclear armament). The People’s Daily notes Trump’s “lack of political, diplomatic and military experience, as well as his poor understanding of China-U.S. ties” while dismissing any combative tweets from the President-elect as part of America’s “two-sided China policy.”

President Xi Jinping has personally refrained from anything but a conciliatory tone towards Trump. Following a conversation with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Xi said in a statement that he anticipated “sustained, stable and better growth of U.S.-China relations” during the Trump administration. The Global Times, meanwhile, urged the Chinese military to be “both mentally and physically prepared” for conflict.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
You appear so calm, though....I figured you have nerves of steel.

Well considering that I live and work in Si Valley, with three over due active faults and probably have at least 2 SS-18s/RS-28s with my name on them aimed at me what's there to worry about?

:whistle::vik::shk:
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1202245/nuclear-weapons-in-the-21st-century/

NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE 21ST CENTURY

by Michael Krepon | December 8, 2016 | 1 Comment

Ages ago, I was a Legislative Assistant on Capitol Hill, working for a member of the House Armed Services Committee. The most impressive person who testified before the Committee was Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger. His mind was like a steel trap. He personified cold logic, equanimity, and mental toughness. I disagreed with almost everything he said about nuclear weapons, but he forced me to rethink my assumptions, sharpen my arguments, and re-do the math, so to speak.

Reading Brad Roberts’s book, The Case for U.S. Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century (Stanford University Press, 2016) brought me back to those hearings – and forward to the deterrence challenges the United States now faces. Brad writes with authority, having served from 2009-2013 as Deputy Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. And he is downright Schlesingerian in raising questions about Red and Blue “theories of victory” in these troubled times. Arms control wonks willing to have their assumptions and policy preferences challenged would benefit from reading this book.

Brad focuses on the three countries that pose the greatest challenges to nuclear and extended deterrence: Russia, China, and North Korea. He weaves connecting threads around their ambitions to downsize U.S. influence and weaken alliance ties. The “theory of victory” he postulates for each challenger involves bluster, blackmail, and provocations. They all prefer to avoid a direct clash of arms, but if conflict arises, he postulates that the “Red” side is willing to cross the nuclear threshold, in which case the United States will be hard-pressed to succeed. And if the United States does not win, it loses.

While Brad acknowledges that the evidence for his thesis remains inferential and spotty – especially with regard to China – “The United States would be ill served by simply waiting for more evidence” until taking corrective steps. He writes,

“If the United States faces an adversary that believes that limited nuclear war against the United States can be won and thus can be fought, then the United States had better have a theory of victory of its own, one consistent with its interests and those of its allies and embedded in intellectually and politically defensible assumptions.”

This is a tall order, which makes this an ambitious as well as highly contentious book. Brad is up to the challenge of thinking the unthinkable – but only up to a point. Notably missing in his analysis is a defense of the military utility for large numbers of nuclear weapons. Nor does he tackle hard questions relating to the battlefield use of nuclear weapons: How does the United States “win” a limited nuclear war, other than to raise the ante? And what then?

Entering these domains would be redolent of Dr. Strangelove and Herman Kahn’s escalation ladders, which would leave most readers fleeing for the exits. Brad’s defense of over-sized nuclear force structure isn’t based on military utility. Instead, it is based on political or perceptual grounds: that having strategic forces “second to one” would send the wrong signals to Vladimir Putin and U.S. allies in Europe, while reducing U.S. strategic forces within sight of China could encourage Beijing to reach for parity.

The absence of military rationales for the current size of the U.S. arsenal is an indicator of how far we have traveled since the days when Schlesinger, Paul Nitze, Albert Wohlstetter and others postulated theories of victory even in massive nuclear exchanges. Practitioners of nuclear deterrence are still duty-bound to assign mushroom clouds to a few thousand operational warheads on nuclear-weapon delivery systems, but it must be extremely difficult to apply true belief to war plans involving this many detonations. Large targeting sets can only be squared with just war principles of discrimination and proportionality by wearing blinders. Brad doesn’t attempt to do so; his theories of victory are modest, by comparison. His focus is on preventing and, if necessary, limiting the use of nuclear weapons, even though he acknowledges that escalation control and escalation dominance become a cosmic crapshoot once the nuclear threshold is crossed.

Brad does not endorse new, low-yield warhead designs or the reintroduction of tactical nuclear weapons into South Korea, whether for military, political, or perceptual reasons. He does, however, endorse a full-bore recapitalization of the U.S. triad and its appurtenances, forward-deployed missile defenses, proceeding with new dual-capable aircraft, and not pursuing unilateral reductions in force structure as long as Putin’s behavior is so problematic. Other add-ons might be proposed by incoming Trump Administration officials. Pitched battles over earth-penetrating warheads and “robust” national missile defenses may be in the offing.

Brad’s unsettling book asks readers to address hard questions. I give him high marks for doing so. Those seeking an escape from nuclear orthodoxy will be very dissatisfied with this book. But it’s not enough to be dismissive of Brad’s arguments; hard work is needed to deconstruct the military and political rationales for nuclear force structure. The Obama Administration didn’t make much headway in this regard. Instead of pursuing a strategy of substitution to reduce the political utility of nuclear weapons, it chose an additive approach: theater missile defenses and other conventional means were layered on top of deployed or readily deployable nuclear capabilities.

It doesn’t take many nuclear weapons to deter a clear-thinking foe from crossing the nuclear threshold. But a great many nuclear weapons are still presumed necessary to convey messages of resolve and to cover an extremely large number of targets. Deep cuts require not only extending the record of non-battlefield use, but also purposeful strategies to reduce the presumed political utility of nuclear weapons.

Filed Under: Uncategorized
COMMENTS
J_kies (History)
December 9, 2016 at 9:08 am
Unfortunately; Mr Roberts other recent publication the “Ballistic Missile Defense Review” available free as a PDF from DoD causes me to question the value of buying a book penned by the gentleman. If his official work product has the number of errors, superficialities and false assumptions as that document had, it makes me question the innate thought processes applied.

Reply
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Aha, "location, location, location"!

Yup!

------

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://wgntv.com/2016/12/11/blast-near-cairo-cathedral-kills-at-least-25/

Blast near Cairo cathedral kills at least 25

POSTED 9:30 AM, DECEMBER 11, 2016, BY CNN WIRE

CAIRO, Egypt — An explosion near a key Coptic cathedral in the Egyptian capital has left at least 25 people dead and 31 others injured, local media reported.

The blast occurred in Cairo’s Abbassyia district early Sunday morning, according to the government-sponsored Al-Ahram news outlet, citing the health ministry.

“Security forces are searching and screening the area,” Al-Ahram’s website reported.

The explosion took place in the small church of St. Peter and St. Paul attached to the St. Mark’s Coptic Orthodox Cathedral, said the Coptic Church’s official spokesperson, Rev. Paul Halim, according to Al-Ahram.

The attack targeted one of the most symbolic religious sites for Copts, an ethno-religious group centered in Egypt. The Coptic Orthodox Church released a statement on its Facebook page, saying in part:

“As we are bereaved by this violence and terrorism that attacks worshipers, we pray for these martyrs and for the wounded. The Egyptian church stresses on persevering national unity that keeps all Egyptians on Egypt’s blessed land.”

Swift condemnations

President Abdel Fattah El Sisi condemned the attack and declared a three-day period of national mourning.

The Grand Mufti, the highest official of religious law in Egypt, condemned the “deplorable terrorist attack” on the cathedral.

“Attacking churches whether by demolition, bombing, killing those inside, or terrifying … secure people are prohibited in Islamic Sharia,” Sheikh Shawky Ibrahim Abdel-Karim Allam said.

He called for unity against “black terrorism that tries to instigate sectarianism and sedition among the two wings of Egypt — Muslims and Christians — in a bid to weaken the nation.”

The Grand Mufti also extended his condolences to Pope Tawadros ll of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

Sunday’s explosion came just two days after two bombs killed six police officers and a civilian in Giza’s Haram district, on the street leading to the city’s famed pyramids.

Copts face persecution in Egypt

Copts face persecution and discrimination that has spiked since the toppling of Hosni Mubarak’s regime in 2011. Dozens have been killed in sectarian clashes. There is also little Christian representation in Egypt’s government.

Coptic Christians make up about 10 percent of Egypt’s 80 million residents, according to the CIA’s World Factbook. They base their theology on the teachings of the Apostle Mark, who introduced Christianity to Egypt, according to St. Takla Church in Alexandria, the capital of Coptic Christianity.

CNN’s Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-palmyra-idUSKBN13Z073

WORLD NEWS | Sun Dec 11, 2016 | 10:49am EST

Syrian official says Palmyra falls again to Islamic State

By Suleiman Al-Khalidi | AMMAN
The governor of Syria's Homs province told state television on Sunday that the army was fighting to regain control of the ancient city of Palmyra after Islamic State had captured earlier in the day.

In the government's first official admission that Palmyra had fallen once again to the militants, Ikhbariyah TV quoted Governor Talal Barazi as saying the army had pulled out of the city.

"The army is using all means to prevent the terrorists from staying in Palmyra," he was quoted as saying, hours after IS and a Britain-based monitoring group both said the militants had full control of the city in his eastern province.

Earlier on Sunday, Islamic State militants and Syria's Russian-backed army both claimed they had the upper hand in the fight for the city.

Russia said its jets had helped force the militants out of the city center overnight and its allies in the Syrian army were now fighting off another assault by the hardline Islamists.

But a news agency linked to Islamic State then said it had only briefly retreated and was now back in control of Palmyra, an account backed by the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which monitors the conflict.

Palmyra, the site of a Roman-era city and spectacular ruins in the center of Syria, has become an emblematic battleground in a civil war now in its sixth year.

Forces allied to Syria's government first recaptured the city from Islamic State in March, a victory held up as a major turning point in the war and the biggest reversal for the militants since Russia's intervention to support Damascus.

But Islamic State militants launched a surprise advance on the city on Thursday, taking control of nearby oil and gas fields and pushing towards an airbase used by Russian forces, the Observatory said.

Russia's defense ministry said its jets had launched 64 strikes and killed more than 300 militants overnight, helping the Syrian army push the main force back.

More than 4,000 Islamic State militants had since regrouped and launched a second attack on Sunday, Russian news agencies cited Moscow's monitoring center in Syria as saying.

"Despite heavy losses in manpower and equipment, the terrorists are trying as hard as possible to secure a foothold inside the city," Interfax quoted a statement from the center as saying. "Syrian troops are fighting to defend Palmyra."

Syria's army acknowledged there was a large offensive by the militants from several fronts near a major grain silo 10 km (6 miles) east of the city.

An Islamic State recapture of Palmyra would be a major reversal for Syria's government and its Russian backer, which hailed the city's capture in March, sent troops to protect it and even staged a concert there.

(Additional reporting by Jack Stubbs in Moscow; Editing by Tom Heneghan)

RELATED COVERAGE

-Governor of Syria's Homs says Islamic State has captured Palmyra
-Islamic State captures Palmyra castle overlooking ancient Syrian city: Amaq news agency
-Islamic State militants capture most of Palmyra: Syria monitor, rebels
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show....S.-not-necessarily-bound-by-one-China-policy

Well this is going to disturb a few people who wanted the "status quo".....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-china-idUSKBN1400TY

POLITICS | Sun Dec 11, 2016 | 10:09am EST

Trump says U.S. not necessarily bound by 'one China' policy

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump questioned whether the United States had to be bound by its longstanding position that Taiwan is part of "one China" and brushed aside Beijing's concerns about his decision to accept a phone call from Taiwan's president.

"I fully understand the 'one China policy,' but I don't know why we have to be bound by a 'one China policy' unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade," Trump said on an interview with Fox News Sunday.

The congratulatory call that Trump accepted from Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen was the first such contact with Taiwan by a U.S. president-elect or president since President Jimmy Carter switched diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to China in 1979, acknowledging Taiwan as part of "one China."

Taiwan is one of China's most sensitive policy issues, and China generally lambastes any form of official contact by foreign governments with Taiwan's leaders.

In the Fox interview, Trump criticized China over its policies on issues such as currency, the South China Sea and North Korea and said it was not up to Beijing to decide whether he should take a call from Taiwan's leader.

"I don't want China dictating to me and this was a call put into me," Trump said. "It was a very nice call. Short. And why should some other nation be able to say I can't take a call?"

"I think it actually would've been very disrespectful, to be honest with you, not taking it," Trump added.

(Reporting By Caren Bohan; Editing by Phil Berlowitz)

-----

Trump talks to president of Taiwan. China could get mad.
Started by mzkitty‎, 12-02-2016 02:23 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...esident-of-Taiwan.-China-could-get-mad./page2
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...mies_in_europe_on_the_edge_of_war_110473.html

http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/09/eastern-europe-is-a-powder-keg-ready-to-explode/

Security News

The 2 Largest Land Armies in Europe Tiptoe to the Edge of War and Back

Nolan Peterson / @nolanwpeterson / December 09, 2016 / comments

KYIV, Ukraine—A planned missile test over the Black Sea spurs a Kremlin threat to shoot down the missiles and possibly target the launch sites.

An eleventh-hour compromise is reached, defusing an act of brinkmanship, which could have sparked an all-out war.

An episode between NATO and Moscow during the Cold War? Or, perhaps, the latest chapter in the contemporary conflict between NATO and Russia, which some have dubbed a “new” Cold War?

Rather, the aforementioned sequence of events was the most recent episode in a nearly 3-year-old conflict, in which Russia and Ukraine—the two countries with the largest land armies in Europe—have repeatedly tiptoed to the edge of all-out war.

“Ukraine does not want to be someone’s post-Soviet reintegration project,” Serhii Plokhy, a Ukrainian history professor at Harvard University, told New Eastern Europe, a news magazine.

On Dec. 1, Ukraine announced it had successfully tested 16 medium range surface-to-air missiles within a designated airspace over the Black Sea.

Ukraine’s missile test met the airspace requirements mandated under international law, providing a buffer of at least 19 miles from Russian airspace extending from the Crimean Peninsula, a territory Russia illegally annexed from Ukraine in 2014.

But as tensions with Russia neared a boiling point, Ukrainian officials shifted the airspace further away from Crimea.

The test ultimately went off without starting a war (or, more correctly, without escalating the one that’s already ongoing in eastern Ukraine), and both Ukraine and Russia sheathed their well-rattled sabers.

Just three months prior, in early August, Ukraine and Russia had gone to the brink of war after several sabotage attacks and skirmishes in Crimea, which Russia said were organized by Ukraine’s armed forces.

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Ukraine of provoking a conflict and pursuing a “policy of terror.”

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko denied the allegations, calling them “insane.”

In Crimea, some of the 45,000 Russian troops stationed there began to concentrate in the north near the Ukrainian border.

Ukrainian military units went on the “highest level of alert,” and Poroshenko ordered the deployment of heavy weaponry near the Crimean border, according to Ukrainian government statements at the time.

And on Aug. 12, Russia deployed S-400 Triumph surface-to-air missiles to Crimea. The missiles’ range covers about 60 percent of Ukraine’s territory, according to an analysis by IHS Markit.

“These fantasies pursue only one goal,” Poroshenko said in a statement emailed to journalists in August. “A pretext for more military threats against Ukraine.”

Eastern Europe is no longer a geopolitical no man’s land over which NATO and Moscow jockey for control.

The region is a multipolar powder keg perpetually ebbing and flowing to the brink of regional war as Russia harasses post-Soviet states from the Black Sea to the Baltics in a gambit to reassert influence over what the Kremlin considers its “near abroad.”

A War by Any Other Name

More than 10,000 soldiers and civilians have already died in the ongoing war in eastern Ukraine, where Ukrainian troops are squared off in static, trench warfare against a combined force of pro-Russian separatists and Russian regulars.

It is Europe’s only ongoing land war, comprising the two largest standing armies on the Continent. It is also a war in which one of the players, Russia, wields the world’s largest nuclear weapons arsenal.

The two sides continue to trade artillery and mortar shots and engage in small arms gunfights every day across hundreds of miles of front lines in the Donbas, Ukraine’s embattled southeastern region on the border with Russia.

The U.S. role in the conflict is limited to a training mission for the Ukrainian military in the western part of the country about 800 miles from the front lines, as well as various advisory missions.

The U.S. has provided Ukraine with nonlethal military hardware and supplies, including Humvees, Raven drones, counter battery radar systems, and meals ready to eat (MREs).

Lethal military aid for Ukraine is an ongoing topic of debate in Washington.

When U.S. lawmakers debate whether to arm Ukraine, they typically focus on how an influx of U.S. weapons will affect the current conflict in the Donbas. There are concerns that U.S. weapons could worsen the conflict, or spur the Kremlin to supply more arms to the separatist side.

But Ukraine isn’t asking for U.S. military assistance to fight trench skirmishes in the Donbas—it wants anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank weapons to stop a Russian invasion.

“Our enemy is the country, the territory of which is equal to one-ninth of the land area on the Earth, and a military budget a dozen times higher than ours,” Poroshenko said during a speech at Ukraine’s Independence Day parade in Kyiv in August.

Fight or Flight

Ukraine now has the second-largest standing army in Europe; Russia has the largest.
After a two-year crash course to rebuild its military, Ukraine has increased its active-duty ranks from 150,000 to 250,000 troops.

(France has about 209,000 active troops, Germany has about 176,750 active troops, Spain has about 133,000, Poland has about 101,500, and the U.K. has about 153,600.)

Ukraine rebuilt its army “almost from scratch within two years,” Poroshenko said in the Independence Day speech.

Today, “Ukraine is capable of defending itself, but requires further support,” Poroshenko said.

Ukraine has also increased its defense budget to about $6 billion, representing roughly 5 percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Military spending is set to increase by about 10 percent annually.

Russia, which has three times the population of Ukraine and 10 times the GDP, has an active-duty force of about 800,000 with a reserve force of 2 million. Russia’s 2015 defense budget was about $65 billion—roughly 10 times that of Ukraine and on par with the United Kingdom.

Ukraine’s annual defense budget is still a fraction of Western military powers, such as France (about $36 billion), Germany (about $37 billion), and the United Kingdom (about $65 billion).

Ukraine’s military strength, however, lies in the size of its army, and the quantity of military hardware at its disposal.

Ukraine, for example, currently operates more than 2,800 tanks—compared with 423 in France, 407 in the U.K., and 408 in Germany.

And Ukraine’s arsenal comprises 625 multiple launch rocket systems—compared with 44 in France, 42 in the U.K., and Germany’s 50.

Yet, while Ukraine maintains a numerical advantage over other European nations in terms of troops and conventional weapons, its military needs to modernize. Much of Ukraine’s arsenal dates from the Cold War.

Arms Race

Eastern Europe is rapidly militarizing.

According to Ukrainian military reports, combined Russian-separatist forces in the Donbas now wield about 700 tanks, 1,200 armored vehicles, 1,000 pieces of artillery, and 300 multiple launch rocket systems.

This puts the combined Russian-separatist forces in control of more tanks, multiple launch rocket systems, and artillery pieces than the armed forces of France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

Among EU countries, only Poland controls more tanks than combined Russian-separatist forces possess in the Donbas.

According to Ukrainian military reports, as well as reports from civilian intelligence firms, there are about 1,500 to 5,000 Russian regulars currently operating in the Donbas in tandem with a separatist force of about 40,000 troops.

Russia also has about 55,000 military personnel forward deployed to bases on the Ukrainian border, Ukraine’s military said.

Russia has also built up a heavy military presence in Crimea. The Ukrainian military says Russia has about 45,000 military personnel inside the occupied peninsula.

Since 2010, Russian military spending has gone up by 80 percent, according to NATO.

Russian military spending surged by 28.6 percent in 2015 alone. Russia’s initial 2016 military budget called for an 8 percent reduction in overall military spending, but a late budget addition this year boosted overall military spending to about 3.89 trillion rubles (about $62.4 billion)—a 14 percent jump from 2015 spending, in real terms, according to a NATO report published on the alliance’s website.

Russia is about midway through a 10-year military modernization project, called the State Armaments Program. From 2010 to 2020, the Kremlin’s military overhaul project plans to spend 19 trillion rubles, about $647 billion at the average exchange rate in 2011, across all branches of the Russian armed forces.

Despite a 3.7 percent fall in GDP in 2015, and a projected 0.8 percent decline this year, Russia is still on track to meet 17.5 trillion of its pledged 19 trillion rubles for the overhaul.

Russia’s military adventures in Ukraine rattled the former Soviet countries of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—all NATO members. Military spending across the Baltic countries has consequently surged.

In 2020, the combined defense budgets of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are projected to have increased by 226 percent over 2005 levels—from $930 million to $2.1 billion.

Latvia and Lithuania have had the two fastest growing defense budgets in the world since 2014, according to IHS Jane’s. And by 2018, the three Baltic states will have each doubled or tripled their budgets from 10 years ago, said Craig Caffrey, principal analyst at IHS Jane’s.

“This growth is faster than any other region globally,” Caffrey said.

The Military-Industrial Complex

Ukrainian society and industry are becoming more martial due to the conflict with Russia.

For one, Ukraine has embarked on a piecemeal reconstitution of its military-industrial complex. This revival has, however, been fraught with accusations of corruption and bureaucratic resistance to change.

Ukraine has the legacy industrial infrastructure to be a major arms producer. According to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Ukraine was the world’s ninth-largest arms exporter in the period from 2011 to 2015.

During the Soviet era, Ukraine was an industrial hub for producing weapons and military hardware. The Soviet model, however, required production to be scattered across different Soviet countries, so that no one country was exclusively relied upon to produce vital military hardware.

The Soviet military-industrial complex was a collective effort across the USSR. Today, Ukraine is consequently left with production gaps from the Soviet era.

An example: Antonov, Ukraine’s largest state-owned aircraft producer, had previously relied on parts from Russian suppliers. Due to the war, however, those suppliers have been cut off.

Antonov now produces about three aircraft a year, according to Ukrainian news reports. The company needs to produce about 12 aircraft annually to be profitable.

In a statement published to its website, Ukroboronprom, Ukraine’s nationalized defense production conglomerate, said it was operating at less than half its production capacity due to “underfunding of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, which occurred due to the lack of legislative changes.”

The Ukrainian government allocated 13.5 billion hryvnias (about $500 million) in 2016 to repair, modernize, and produce new weapons for its armed forces.

Ukroboronprom said it received only 32.6 percent of this amount—4.4 billion hryvnias, or about $163 million—from the government. Out of that payment, 1.6 billion hryvnias ($59 million) went to repair military equipment, and 2.8 billion hryvnias ($104 million) to produce new weapons.

Ukrainian society has also adapted to the state of perpetual conflict with Russia.
Across the country, civilians regularly meet on the weekends for military training. They comprise a network of partisan forces called territorial defense battalions.

These civilian volunteer paramilitary units, which can be rapidly mobilized to defend against a Russian invasion, are not official military units. But they receive training, equipment, and in some cases, arms from the regular military.

This grassroots defense mindset—a throwback to partisan groups in World War II—promises a protracted guerrilla conflict should Russia ever invade Ukraine.

“When Putin encounters the possibility of fighting territorial defense battalions, militias, or even students, it acts as a deterrent,” Serhiy Yanchuk, an associate professor at Taras Shevchenko National University, told The Daily Signal in an earlier interview.

Yanchuk is coordinator of the university’s Students Guard, a volunteer militia comprising students and faculty.

NATO Standards

Ukraine’s military is in the process of a top-to-bottom overhaul to bring it in line with NATO standards by 2020.

Even the colors of symbols denoting friendly versus enemy forces on military maps have been flipped to match NATO maps. (Friendly forces were marked red and the enemy was blue on Soviet military maps, a color arrangement still used by Russia.)

In 2015, the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense launched a special reform office, spearheaded by 39-year-old businessman Andriy Zagorodnyuk.

Ukrainian news reports have documented the bureaucratic headwinds Zagorodnyuk has faced while trying to reform the military.

“This year, we had a huge bureaucratic backfire from the system,” Zagorodnyuk told the English-language Kyiv Post newspaper in November. “Bureaucratic, probably corrupt. … Very rarely someone tells you to your face that he wants to keep things the old way. Usually people come up with a million different excuses.”

On May 20, Poroshenko, Ukraine’s president, signed into law a comprehensive military reform plan called the Strategic Defense Bulletin.

The document calls for a total revamp of Ukraine’s military doctrine, training, and operations to ultimately achieve the “criteria necessary for the full membership in NATO.”

It also singles out Russia as Ukraine’s No. 1 national security threat.

Ukraine is not vying for regional influence over Russia. Rather, many Ukrainian soldiers and politicians say the current conflict is for Ukraine’s independence from Moscow.

Yet, tensions are inflamed to such a degree between Ukraine and Russia that there is scant leeway to absorb the shock of an unexpected event without it leading to total war.

“Ukraine is mobilizing around another idea—the idea of a political nation, that would one day find its place in European political, economic, and security structure,” Plokhy, the Harvard University professor, said.

Plokhy added: “It is not only a state-political divorce, as it was in 1991. It is a mental, psychological breakup of Ukrainians and Russians.”

This report has been modified to correct the amount of Russia’s total 2016 military spending in dollars.


@nolanwpeterson
Nolan Peterson
Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal’s foreign correspondent based in Ukraine. Send an email to Nolan.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/12/12/a_decade_into_mexicos_war_on_drugs_110475.html

A Decade Into Mexico's War on Drugs

By Reggie Thompson
December 12, 2016

Analysis

Yesterday marked the 10th anniversary of Operation Michoacan, and to many, the start of Mexico's deadly war on drugs. But a decade later, the country's prospects for security and peace don't seem much better than they did when the massive crackdown on Mexican cartels began in 2006.

Most people point to Felipe Calderon's presidency as the moment when things began to go wrong for Mexico. In the face of rising crime, and under mounting pressure from the United States to stem the flow of drugs across its southern border, Calderon sent 5,000 soldiers and federal police officers into the streets of Michoacan state, firing the first shots of what would become a long and bloody struggle. But it is neither fair nor accurate to pin the blame for the conflict that ensued on a single decision. Crime-related violence plagued Mexico long before Calderon took office, albeit at a lower level than in the years that followed his declaration of war on the country's cartels. Moreover, Calderon was not the first president to deploy Mexico's armed forces against drug lords and their assets; he was just the first to do so on such a tremendous scale.

Cartels in the Crosshairs

Operation Michoacan signaled the beginnings of a concerted effort by Mexico City to tackle organized crime. Though day-to-day security tasks normally fell to local police agencies, corruption had become so pervasive at the lower levels of Mexican law enforcement that their federal counterparts — the army, marines and federal police — had to step in to maintain law and order in some areas. Under Calderon's orders, some 45,000 troops were deployed throughout Mexico each year to combat crime, more than twice the average manpower that Calderon's predecessor, Vicente Fox, had dedicated to the same cause. Upticks in arrests and killings of cartel members began to noticeably disrupt trafficking activities as crime groups' capabilities steadily eroded.

But the military's success came at a price. As Mexican crime groups came under greater pressure from law enforcement, they began to fight back against the government and among themselves, vying for the trafficking routes, recruits and resources that were left. Violence skyrocketed in several of the cities and regions that were vital to the drug trade and other illegal activities.*

Treating the Symptoms

Ten years on, the future of Mexico's security environment looks no more promising than it did at the start of Calderon's campaign. Still, the intervening decade has brought some positive changes. From a tactical perspective, public safety has visibly improved in the areas that the government targeted because of their rampant violence, such as Ciudad Juarez and parts of Tamaulipas and Nuevo Leon. Meanwhile, most of the large cartels that once controlled swaths of Mexican territory have splintered*as military operations have left them leaderless and riven by infighting.

mexico-cartels-01-23-201616.png

https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defa...mexico-cartels-01-23-201616.png?itok=HFuJPVBq

What has not changed is Mexico's proximity to the massive market for drugs*that lies just north of its border. Despite the heavy blows Mexican officials have dealt to major drug trafficking organizations, the smaller fragments left in their wake have picked up where their predecessors left off. Driven by persistently high demand for the drugs they have to offer, Mexican traffickers have kept supply chains to the United States and beyond running, even as state security forces try to shut them down. Though the power of individual crime groups has faded in the face of continued law enforcement efforts, the scope, location and intensity of violence has ebbed and flowed over the years, rather than declining permanently.

This reality is unlikely to change so long as there are profits to be made. Since the United States and its foreign partners began cracking down on cocaine smuggling routes through the Caribbean in the 1980s, Mexico — situated between Central America and the United States and blessed with well-developed transportation infrastructure — has proved ideally suited to serve as a land bridge*for northbound drugs. Though the use of cocaine has sharply declined since the mid-2000s, heroin and methamphetamine have taken over bigger and bigger shares of the U.S. drug market, and both are increasingly produced and transported by Mexican cartels. The emerging preference for heroin and methamphetamine has even hiked up profit margins, since the cartels do not have to buy these drugs from South American producers.

A War With No End in Sight

With foreign demand propping up Mexican crime, it is unlikely that Mexico City will retreat from its drug war anytime soon. The country's cartels pose a threat to national security that is far too great for the government to address on its own. Consequently, Mexico City will continue to rely on Washington's help, in the form of security training and intelligence sharing, to target cartel members and criminal networks. Perhaps even more important, Mexico's enduring effort to quash drug trafficking across its borders is a fundamental part of its relationship with the United States. Any attempt to scale down its operations against cartels would immediately meet with pushback from Washington.*

Lacking other means of going after the country's criminal groups, Mexico's government will keep tasking federal forces with protecting the Mexican public. Over the past three years, Mexico City has tried to create new law enforcement bodies*to bridge the gap between the military and local police, since soldiers do not have the writ or capacity to conduct criminal investigations and combat low-level crime. But forming and implementing these organizations*will take years, leaving Mexico City with little choice in the meantime but to count on the military to protect its citizens from the criminals in their midst.

In all likelihood, Mexico's decadelong drug war will continue for decades to come. Fueled by geography and the economics of the illegal drug trade, trafficking and violence will remain a thorn in Mexico's side and a blemish on U.S.-Mexico relations. Though crime may not linger at the heights the country has seen over the past 10 years, Mexican cartels are central to the global drug market, and for now they have made it clear that they are here to stay.

This article appeared originally at Stratfor.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://warisboring.com/the-kremlin...-just-getting-started-a252f6221baf#.30by6etj6

War Is Boring Follow
We go to war so you don’t have to
2 days ago

The Kremlin’s ‘New Generation Warfare’ Is Just Getting*Started

Wait for the*sequel

by ROBERT BECKHUSEN

Whether or not you believe the CIA’s claim that Russia hacked into the Democratic Party’s servers to help Donald Trump get elected — and you should be skeptical of anonymous sources — it should be blindingly obvious that we’re in the middle of a new kind of conflict.

This kind of conflict doesn’t rely on bullets or conquest of territory, but control of information. So be skeptical, but also remember the Kremlin barely hides its embrace of propaganda-driven hybrid warfare, expounded at length in Russian military publications, and which has accelerated in intensity during the past several years.

And don’t just take the CIA’s word for it.

According to the German BfV domestic intelligence agency, Russian tactics have extended to “automated opinion-shaping” methods via social networks.

Methods include “propaganda and disinformation, often executed as ‘false flags,’” the BfV noted. “This methodology represents a previously unobserved MO in campaigns that are controlled by Russia. In these cases government agencies execute cyber-attacks under the false cover*… of alleged hacktivists.”

Alternatively, read the Russian Defense Ministry’s own policy papers which discuss similar tactics under the heading “New Generation Warfare.”

“The Russian view of modern warfare is based on the idea that the main battlespace is the mind,” Janis Berzins of the National Defense Academy of Latvia wrote in a 2014 paper. “And, as a result, new-generation wars are to be dominated by information and psychological warfare.”

“In other words, the Russians have placed the idea of influence at the very center of their operational planning and used all possible levers to achieve this: skillful internal communications; deception operations; psychological operations and well-constructed external communications.”

The Latvians know a thing or two about these tactics. The Kremlin honed them in the Baltic States, but have only recently expanded them westwards on a large scale, according to experts.

Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia’s intelligence services at New York University, described the shape of Russia’s strategy in similar terms. “The Putin regime evidently believes that it is at war with the West — a geopolitical, even civilizational struggle — and is thus mobilizing every weaponizable asset at its disposal,” Galeotti wrote at War on the Rocks.

“This extends to mining society as a whole for semi-autonomous assets, from eager internet trolls and ‘patriotic hackers’ to transnational banks and businesses to Cossack volunteers and mercenary gangsters.”

It’s almost comical how this popped up in the 2016 U.S. election. One interesting anecdote came from when reporter Adrian Chen noticed that pro-Russian separatist Twitter accounts he collected during the Ukrainian war switched in late 2015 to passing themselves off as pro-Trump Americans.

Clever, clever.

Not that the Kremlin cares. Trolls will still flood online discussion boards, and the reputations of Russian dissidents abroad still go up in smoke from targeted disinformation campaigns. Basically: “You are completely screwed,” is how cybersecurity expert Jeffrey Carr explained to the New York Times about what happens if the Russian state decides to **** with you.

But most people don’t live on Twitter, and it’s unclear whether these tactics can determine the outcome of an election. It’s an impossible counter-factual question, especially given the Clinton campaign’s shocking ignorance of its problems in the Rust Belt — let alone Hillary’s unpopularity — until it was too late. And center-left parties like the Democrats have bled badly across the Western world.

Still, I don’t think these tactics end here, and if I can make a prediction, it’s that we’ll begin seeing it escalate in different contexts — and by a wider variety of actors. Bear with me on this, but there’s a dangerous scenario which may well be possible. Consider it a warning.

First, take the Americans who oppose Trump. They now face the distinct possibility that over the next four years, the Russian intelligence services might well continue its tradecraft but directed at Trump’s domestic opposition.

Why wouldn’t the Kremlin do it? They haven’t paid a price for it thus far. And look — I’m not trying to single out Russia as a particularly bad actor here. The CIA has long sought to undermine the domestic opponents of friendly governments around the world. It would be surprising if Russia doesn’t do it.

It also depends on what the Kremlin thinks of Trump in a few months. “I’m not your friend, I’m not your bride or your groom, I am the president of the Russian Federation,” Putin said in 2016 during an interview with German journalists.

For Putin, relationships between states are not like ones between individuals. Being a personal “friend” is irrelevant. And it’s exceedingly likely America’s entrenched foreign policy and national security institutions will attempt to stymie unwanted ideas pushed by Trump administration officials, because it’s what they always do to some extent under every presidency.

Meanwhile, Trump’s opponents may decide that since the president does not play by normal political rules, they shouldn’t either. This also depends on Trump’s actions in the White House, but it could be uncontrollable given the country’s increasingly polarized urban-rural politics.

Now I’ll point you to a scenario sketched out by John Robb at the forward-looking Global Guerrillas blog. He described Trump’s campaign as a flexible, technology-empowered “open-source insurgency” well before he had the nomination wrapped up, and sharply observed last winter that Trump could win a general election.

“Trump is in the White House,” Robb wrote after the election, “and the success of open source insurgency guarantees we will see more of them in the future… Perhaps sooner rather than later.”

Robb then predicted a “Tahrir square moment” in the United States. I believe there is a chance something like this is possible.

Or even more provocative — Euromaidan. When protesters concentrated in Ukraine’s urban centers, who could plausibly claim to represent a majority, went outside the “normal” political process to topple a pro-Kremlin billionaire president.

That couldn’t happen in America, could it? Anything could happen.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKBN1410LA

Edition: United States

World News | Mon Dec 12, 2016 | 1:54pm EST

Syrian general says Aleppo offensive in final stages

Syrian army says battle for Aleppo is "at its end" (01:20)
Replay

By Laila Bassam and Lisa Barrington | ALEPPO, Syria/BEIRUT

The Syrian army and its allies are in the "final stages" of recapturing Aleppo after a sudden advance that has pushed rebels to the brink of collapse in an ever-shrinking enclave, a Syrian general said on Monday.

A Reuters journalist in the government-held zone said the bombardment of rebel areas of the city had continued non-stop overnight, and a civilian trapped there described the situation as resembling "Doomsday".

"The battle in eastern Aleppo should end quickly. They (rebels) don't have much time. They either have to surrender or die," Lieutenant General Zaid al-Saleh, head of the government's Aleppo security committee, told reporters in the recaptured Sheikh Saeed district of the city.

Rebels withdrew from all districts on the east side of the Aleppo river after losing Sheikh Saeed in the south of their pocket in overnight fighting, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said.

It meant their rapidly diminishing enclave had halved in only a few hours and Observatory director Rami Abdulrahman described the battle for Aleppo as having reached its end.

"The situation is extremely difficult today," said Zakaria Malahifji of the Fastaqim rebel group fighting in Aleppo.

An official from Jabha Shamiya, a rebel faction that is also present in Aleppo, said the insurgents might make a new stand along the west bank of the river.

"It is expected there will be a new front line," said the official, who is based in Turkey.

The rebels' sudden retreat represented a "big collapse in terrorist morale", a Syrian military source said.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, backed by Russia, is now close to taking back full control of Aleppo, which was Syria's most populous city before the war and would be his greatest prize so far after nearly six years of conflict.

The Russian Defence Ministry said that since the start of the Aleppo battle, more than 2,200 rebels had surrendered and 100,000 civilians had left areas of the city that were controlled by militants.

"People run from one shelling to another to escape death and just to save their souls ... It's doomsday in Aleppo, yes doomsday in Aleppo," said Abu Amer Iqab, a former government employee in the Sukkari district in the heart of the rebel enclave.

State television footage from Saliheen, one of the districts that had just fallen to the army, showed mounds of rubble and half-collapsed buildings, with bodies still lying on the ground and a few bewildered civilians carrying children or suitcases.

Related Coverage
VIDEO Syrian army evacuates Palmyra after Islamic State assault
VIDEO Syrian rebels offered secret U.S.-backed deal to leave Aleppo
VIDEO Syria's Assad attends prayers as Aleppo battle rages
FACT BOX Combatants fighting in Aleppo

REBELS
While Aleppo's fall would deal a stunning blow to rebels trying to remove Assad from power, he would still be far from restoring control across Syria. Swathes of the country remain in rebel hands, and on Sunday Islamic State retook Palmyra.

Tens of thousands of civilians remain in rebel-held areas, hemmed in by ever-changing front lines, pounded by air strikes and shelling, and without basic supplies, according to the Observatory, a British-based monitoring group.

In the Sheikh Saeed district, an elderly couple stood lamenting their fate.
"May every son return to his mother. I have suffered that loss. May other women not endure the same," said the woman, her arms raised to the sky. "I have lost my three children. Two died in battle and the third is kidnapped," she added, as an army officer attempted to calm her.

Rebel groups in Aleppo received a U.S.-Russian proposal on Sunday for a withdrawal of fighters and civilians from the city's opposition areas, but Moscow said no agreement had been reached yet in talks in Geneva to end the crisis peacefully.

The rebel official blamed Russia for the lack of progress in talks, saying it had no incentive to compromise while Assad was gaining ground. "The Russians are being evasive. They are looking at the military situation. Now they are advancing," he said.

The U.S. National Security Council also said, in a message passed on by the American mission in Geneva, that Moscow had rejected a ceasefire. "We proposed an immediate cessation of hostilities to allow for safe departures and the Russians so far have refused," it said in a statement.

FIGHTING
The Syrian army is backed by Russian war planes and Lebanese and Iraqi Shi'ite militias supported by Iran. Its advances on Monday were aided by a militia of Palestinian refugees in Syria, the Liwa al-Quds or Jerusalem Brigade, the general said.

The mostly Sunni rebels include groups backed by the United States, Turkey and Gulf monarchies as well as hardline jihadists who are not supported by the West.

A correspondent for Syria's official SANA news agency said the army had taken control of Sheikh Saeed, and more than 3,500 people had left at dawn.

A Syrian official told Reuters: "We managed to take full control of the Sheikh Saeed district. This area is very important because it facilitates access to al-Amariya and allows us to secure a greater part of the Aleppo-Ramousah road." The road is the main entry point to the city from the south.

Riad Hijab, Syria's chief opposition coordinator, said the rebels' defeat in Aleppo would not weaken the resolve of Assad's opponents, or push them to water down the demand that he quit.

Related Coverage
Timeline: The battle for Syria's Aleppo city
Pope appeals to Syria's Assad to respect humanitarian law, let aid in
Syrian Observatory reports suspected gas attack in Islamic State area near Palmyra
Syrian opposition says won't make concessions despite Aleppo's fall

"If Assad and his allies think that a military advance in certain quarters of Aleppo will signify that we make concessions, then (I say) that will not happen," he told reporters after meeting French President Francois Hollande.

The loss of Palmyra, an ancient desert city whose recapture from Islamic State in March was heralded by Damascus and Moscow as vindicating Russia's entry into the war, is an embarrassing setback to Assad.

The Observatory reported that the jihadist group carried out eight executions of Syrian soldiers and allied militiamen in Palmyra on Monday while warplanes bombarded their positions around the city.

Still, Islamic State made further advances around Palmyra, it and the Observatory said on Monday, including coming close to a military air base.

Another four people, including two children, were shot dead while the jihadists cleared the city, the Observatory said.

It said at least 34 people had died in air raids on an Islamic State-held village north of Palmyra, and that local officials said poison gas had been used. Islamic State accused Russia of the attack. Both Russia and Syria's military deny using chemical weapons.

CIVILIANS
The Russian Defence Ministry said on Monday that 728 rebels had laid down their weapons over the previous 24 hours and relocated to western Aleppo. It said 13,346 civilians left rebel-controlled districts of Aleppo over the same period.

"Displaced people are moving," said an Aleppo resident. Some were moving from areas controlled by the army to opposition areas, while others were going in the opposite direction. Some were staying at home waiting for the army.

The Observatory said that four weeks into the army offensive at least 415 civilians, including 47 children, had been killed in rebel-held parts of the city.

The Observatory said 364 rebel fighters had been killed in the eastern sector. It said rebel shelling of government-held west Aleppo had killed 130 civilians including 40 children.

(Reporting by Laila Bassam in Aleppo, Lisa Barrington and Tom Perry in Beirut, Suleiman al-Khalidi in Amman, Stephanie Nebehay in Geneva and Vladimir Soldatkin in Moscow; Writing by Angus McDowall; Editing by Giles Elgood)

Next In World News

Portugal's Guterres sworn in as next U.N. secretary-general
UNITED NATIONS Former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Guterres was sworn in on Monday as the ninth United Nations Secretary-General, pledging to personally help broker peace in various conflicts and reform the 71-year old world body to become more effective.

Iraqi police say ready to join assault on east Mosul
BAGHDAD Several thousand Iraqi federal police are ready to join the assault against Islamic State in east Mosul, a spokesman said on Monday, reinforcing troops who have faced weeks of fierce counter-attacks from the militants.

China warns Trump against ignoring its Taiwan interests
BEIJING China expressed "serious concern" on Monday after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said the United States did not necessarily have to stick to its long-held stance that Taiwan is part of "one China", calling it the basis for relations.

MORE FROM REUTERS
Trump: No more 'war' on Christmas
Exclusive: Syrian rebels get proposal to quit Aleppo, jihadists retake Palmyra
Syrian opposition appears resigned Aleppo will fall
Russia deploys warships near Crimea for Ukrainian missile tests: RIA
From wintry Lithuania, NATO sends Russia a signal of resolve

Watch More Video

Egyptian Christians bury bomb victims

China warns Trump on Taiwan comments

Trial of IMF's Lagarde begins in Paris

Syrian army says battle for Aleppo is "at its end"
01:20
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...tiate-the-Iran-deal-Much-harder-than-it-looks

Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.lawfareblog.com/want-renegotiate-iran-deal-much-harder-it-looks

OMPHALOS

Want to renegotiate the Iran deal? Much harder than it looks

By Richard Nephew Monday, December 12, 2016, 4:30 PM

Editor's Note: This piece originally appeared on Markaz.

Donald Trump’s election places in immediate peril the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reached by Iran and the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States). We don’t know what Trump will do with the JCPOA, nor do we know for certain how he will approach Iran more broadly. During his campaign, Trump’s comments on the issue were all over the map.

Not for nothing, the old debates around the JCPOA and Iran in general have reheated. Some have urged Trump to leave the JCPOA in place, to be enforced fully and serve as a foundation for future engagement with Iran to address regional issues. Others have suggested “rolling back” the JCPOA as fast as possible—one of them is Mike Pompeo, Trump’s nominee for director of the CIA. Still others have suggested renegotiating the JCPOA, which could mean leaving the deal in place for a time while building additional leverage against Iran, including through non-nuclear sanctions.

Assumptions and arguments underlying renegotiation

But can the deal be renegotiated, especially after the United States expands dramatically the pressure that it can apply on Iran with non-nuclear sanctions and other tools? The concept sounds reasonable, and would align with Saudi and Israeli preferences. Plus, it fits with Trump’s purported plan to cut deals around the world.

As I have written elsewhere, I think an attempt to renegotiate will likely fail, thus dealing a significant blow to the JCPOA itself. I also think that those advancing this argument dramatically overestimate the ability of the United States to renegotiate the deal and underestimate the difficulty of avoiding killing it in the process. There are three core assumptions that undergird the renegotiation argument itself:

1. The JCPOA is failing, with Iranian compliance already in doubt (so there is little to risk);
2. Sanctions leverage can deliver a better deal and better Iranian behavior outside of the nuclear track (and, in fact, would have if the Obama administration had not retreated from the pressure track in 2013); and
3. International partners will have no choice but to go along with the United States.

Through these assumptions, Trump’s administration may conclude that the risk of this approach is slight and/or worth taking. After all, walking away from a failing, fatally flawed deal sounds better and is more reassuring than a decision to bet the farm on a roll of the dice. The trouble, though, is that each of those three assumptions has major problems.

The JCPOA is not failing

Iran is fulfilling its commitments under the JCPOA and so are the United States and its partners. All parties to the JCPOA are getting what they paid for, even if they are not yet in receipt of the bonuses that they may have anticipated and desired.

Iran’s compliance with its nuclear provisions is a central question motivating calls for reconsidering the deal—but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified, three times now, that Iran has fulfilled the terms of the JCPOA. Add that to the monthly reports of Iranian compliance with the JCPOA’s predecessor arrangement, the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), and we now have a record of nearly three years of Iranian compliance with its voluntarily assumed international nonproliferation obligations.

All parties to the JCPOA are getting what they paid for, even if they are not yet in receipt of the bonuses that they may have anticipated and desired.
This alone is a cause worth celebrating: for the first time since 2005, Iran has suspended nuclear activities pursuant to an international agreement; for the first time since 2005, additional transparency and monitoring is in place in Iran’s nuclear facilities; for the first time since 2005, we do not face the prospect of a reactor at Arak capable of producing 1 to 2 weapons’ worth of weapons-usable plutonium per year; and for the first time since 2007, the number of installed centrifuges at Natanz has stabilized and amount of enriched uranium being produced halted. The IAEA’s confirmation of these facts has been clear and consistent.

It is true that there have been some implementation problems: Iran has twice now held stocks of heavy water that slightly exceeded the 130 metric tonnes threshold established in the JCPOA, but agreed subsequently to ship out amounts exceeding what was necessary to stay under the threshold. And in both cases, the verification and detection systems of the JCPOA—and the IAEA—worked perfectly. And it is true that some questions about the JCPOA still exist: For example, what is the current definition of recoverable low enriched uranium in the country, and what kinds of research and development may Iran engage in? The JCPOA is itself ambiguous and, though press reports suggest that the Joint Commission has made decisions about these matters, JCPOA participants have not presented this information publicly.

Some have pointed out that it’s impossible to independently confirm IAEA reports of Iranian compliance, since the IAEA reports are not fully public. There has even been the implication that the IAEA has been politicized and that its judgments are no longer its own, but rather those of the P5+1. These comments are perilous, both in their weak foundation and in the consequences of the unnecessary delegitimization of the IAEA. First, the IAEA has an obligation to keep confidential some aspects of what it knows about the Iranian nuclear program. Second, a relative paucity of news on Iran’s program is not necessarily bad news, particularly when clear statements about Iranian compliance are being offered. It is worth noting that a similar mindset persisted with Iraq in 2002-2003, to our common lament. The incoming Trump administration should take seriously what the IAEA and, indeed, what the intelligence community provides, rather than start with the assumption that the absence of smoke means a fire is being carefully hidden or baselessly undermine the conclusions both reach, as Trump did during his campaign. And what intelligence has shown, whether it fits Trump’s perceptions or not, is that the JCPOA did achieve its purposes and, as of this writing, Iran is meeting its terms. To undermine or damage the JCPOA because of what Iran may do in the future is simply not sensible. Moreover, it helps to create a sense that Iran can never be trusted, no matter what the IAEA or intelligence community reports, which ultimately would be inimical to any renegotiated deal Trump might produce.

U.S. sanctions leverage cannot automatically deliver a better deal—it is finite and the leverage it affords is limited

Though the United States has considerable economic power, its power—and its leverage— remains limited. There are practical limitations to what the United States can achieve in wielding its economic might, and there are costs to the wielding.

Some have argued that the United States gave up leverage in seeking the JPOA when it did. They point to Iran’s cratering economy in 2011-2013; its insolvent financial sector; and high unemployment and inflation rates. They also contend that Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s mandate for economic reform, stemming from his election, would have made him bend eventually.

But I, and others, think that sanctions leverage had reached its zenith, or near enough: Iran made an economic rebound in 2013, with inflation, unemployment, and GDP growth having stabilized before JPOA sanctions relief; oil prices were high; there were no reasonable new targets for sanctions imposition, with most of Iran’s banks, its primary export industries, and service industries under sanctions; and there were few indications that real economic dislocation was going to lead to regime-damaging pressure.

It is inconceivable that, in the face of the Rouhani government’s willingness to seek a deal via the P5+1, the United States would have been able to stay away. Had the United States held out for an ideal outcome (demanding that there be no uranium enrichment in Iran for a considerable length of time, for instance), then international opinion might soon have turned against Washington, identifying it, not Iran, as the intransigent party and damaging a possible sanctions effort. This isn’t to say that the United States had to accept a deal the moment negotiations began, but once a reasonable deal was on the table, the costs of walking away naturally went up.

Iran has not become invulnerable in the past three years.
This same principle is in play for JCPOA skeptics. They can choose to walk away, but they will have to pay the cost of what would probably be incomplete implementation of sanctions internationally. This would sap the overall effectiveness of the strategy and JCPOA opponents have already begun spinning a story to address this problem, arguing that the JCPOA reduced the potency of any future sanctions effort by giving Iran sorely needed relief. Iran has not become invulnerable in the past three years. At best, Iran received two years’ worth of oil revenues previously held up and one year’s worth of oil sales at reduced prices, as well as some limited other trade. JCPOA opponents can try to paint this as immunizing Iran from future pressure (which, of course, also lessens their sense of the burden for failure of their preferred strategy), but the real problem they will face is in getting partners to support their efforts as the Obama administration did through real investment in engagement and negotiations.

Of course, with a lesser sanctions effort, the Trump administration would be hard-pressed to recreate even the JCPOA, let alone something stronger or covering non-nuclear issues.

If we walk, we likely walk alone

It is here that JCPOA opponents, now giddy about the possibility of reversing or renegotiating the JCPOA, have their work cut out. Most of the world is satisfied with the JCPOA and the results of its implementation and does not want to see the JCPOA endangered either to improve its terms now or address other issues. The Trump administration would have to convince countries first to join in a renegotiation effort or embrace a strategy that might imperil the JCPOA to get at non-nuclear issues; and, second, if that stalls or fails, to reimpose sanctions against Iran or accept U.S. sanctions to restrict the business activities of their banks and companies.

In the right context (such as Iranian cheating), the United States could regather the coalition of states necessary to reimpose costs on the Iranian government and perhaps compel compliance. In such a context though, I doubt international sanctions pressure would shift Iranian decisionmaking and bring it back into compliance, judging that an Iranian decision to walk away from the JCPOA would—in effect—be an Iranian decision to restart its nuclear weapons program, come what may.

The United States won’t be able to snap its fingers and compel cooperation from countries, banks, and companies.

Trump would have few allies in a decision to abandon the JCPOA. Some JCPOA skeptics apparently agree, hoping to get Iran to back away from the deal instead by amping up the pressure on Iran for non-nuclear issues. Unless there is Iranian cheating, they judge that there is insufficient global support for a renewed pressure campaign.

The United States won’t be able to snap its fingers and compel cooperation from countries, banks, and companies. Instead, it would be fighting an uphill struggle, all while Iran either divides the international community by playing the victim or by expanding its nuclear program, putting at risk the stability and security of the Middle East.

Conclusion

JCPOA opponents who will soon take power ought to think long and hard before they make precipitous decisions about the deal’s future. On balance, leaving the JCPOA alone and pursuing a regional agenda in ways compliant with the JCPOA’s provisions would be the best policy.

However, should they choose to forge their own path, observers should hold them accountable for the arguments they promulgate about why such a course had to be pursued in the first place. The case against the JCPOA is modest, to say the least, and suffers from flawed assumptions. But, they will be compelling if the JCPOA is seen as an inevitable failure, flawed at the outset and in its execution.

The JCPOA is working well. It is achieving its objectives and arguments against both its negotiation and implementation are hardly inviolate. It can be improved upon and, as I set out separately in a piece with Bob Einhorn, it should serve as a foundation for a stronger, more durable, more stable nuclear order in the Middle East. But, to get to that order, the JCPOA must first survive. It merits that chance and the honesty of its opponents.

--

Richard Nephew is a nonresident senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Program and affiliated with the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Initiative housed within the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence. He is also a research scholar and program director at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University. During his career, Nephew served as the principal deputy coordinator for sanctions policy at the U.S. State Department and director for Iran at the National Security Council. Nephew also served as the lead sanctions expert for the U.S. team negotiating with Iran.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/12/12/syria-rebels-retreat-in-aleppo-amid-terrifying-collapse.html

Syria rebels retreat in Aleppo amid 'terrifying' collapse

Published December 12, 2016
Associated Press

BEIRUT – Syrian rebels retreated from former strongholds in eastern Aleppo in a "terrifying" collapse Monday, holding onto a small sliver of territory packed with fighters and thousands of civilians as government troops pressed on with their rapid advance.

The Syrian military said it had gained control of 99 percent of the former opposition enclave in eastern Aleppo, signaling an impending end to the rebels' four-year hold over parts of the city as the final hours of battle played out.

"The situation is very, very critical," said Ibrahim al-Haj of the Syrian Civil Defense, volunteer first responders who operate in rebel-held areas. He said he was seeking shelter for himself and his family, fearing clashes or capture by the government.

Retaking Aleppo, which has been divided between rebel- and government-controlled zones since 2012, would be President Bashar Assad's biggest victory yet in the country's civil war. But it does not end the conflict: Significant parts of Syria are still outside government control and huge swaths of the country are a devastated waste-land. More than a quarter of a million people have been killed.

On Sunday, the Islamic State (ISIS) group re-occupied the ancient town of Palmyra, taking advantage of the Syrian army and its Russian backers' preoccupation with the fighting in Aleppo. On Monday, the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said ISIS fighters were on the verge of imposing a siege on a nearby army base known as T4.

The ISIS recapture of Palmyra nine months after it was retaken by Syrian government and Russian troops led to mutual recriminations between Western officials and Moscow.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault accused Russia of "pretending to fight terrorism" while it concentrated on Aleppo, leaving room for the militants to retake Palmyra. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov lashed back, accusing the U.S.-led coalition of orchestrating the Palmyra takeover "in order to give a respite to the bandits sitting in eastern Aleppo."

In Aleppo, staff members of the last remaining clinic in rebel-held territory huddled in a shelter as Syrian government forces pushed in. "Those killed and wounded are left on the streets," said the clinic's administrator, Mohammed Abu Rajab.

"The collapse is terrifying," said Bassam Haj Mustafa, a rebel spokesman in contact with fighters in the city. Opposition fighters were "doing their best to defend what is left," he said.

Rami Abdurrahman, who heads the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said more than 60 civilians and fighters were killed in rebel-held neighborhoods of Aleppo on Monday alone.

Russia, a key ally of Assad, refused an American proposal for a temporary halt to the fighting to allow the safe departure of those remaining in rebel-held areas, said a U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The proposal came during weekend talks in Geneva between U.S. and Russian experts that had been billed as an 11th-hour attempt to ease Aleppo's endgame.

Osama Abo Zayd, a legal adviser to the Free Syrian Army rebel coalition, said some fighters had agreed to evacuate but that the Russians had demanded that all militants surrender, something he said was impossible.

"This pushes us to fight to the last breath despite what we have to face," he said.

Live footage aired Monday on Syrian state TV showed scores of people waving Syrian flags and posters of Assad in the streets of the city's government controlled sector, celebrating what they called "the victories of the Syrian Arab army against terrorism."

The loss of Aleppo would mark the greatest defeat for the rebels since the conflict began in 2011. The insurgents still control northwestern Idlib province as well as scattered patches of territory elsewhere in the country.

Earlier Monday, Syrian troops and allied Shiite militiamen from Lebanon, Iraq and Iran captured Sheikh Saeed, a sprawling neighborhood in eastern Aleppo. The military also claimed to have retaken al-Fardous, one of the most populous districts.

Tens of thousands of civilians have fled to government-held western Aleppo since the offensive began last month, but tens of thousands of others are believed to remain in the city's east.

A rebel fighter, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals, said most of the remaining civilians were massed in two or three neighborhoods, raising the specter of mass casualties if they are targeted by airstrikes or artillery. He said the collapse of the Sheik Saeed neighborhood meant the loss of the rebel enclave's last mill and grain warehouse.

A map distributed by the Syrian military showed rebel control limited to a small sliver of territory spread across six neighborhoods in the city center.

The offensive began on Nov. 26, and followed an intensive aerial campaign that knocked out most of the medical facilities in eastern Aleppo, which has been besieged by government forces since July.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2016/12/13/0301000000AEN20161213000600315.html

Amb. King: New administration expected to continue to deal with N.K. human rights issue

2016/12/13 06:31

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 (Yonhap) -- The U.N. special envoy on North Korean human rights issues said Monday he expects the incoming administration of Donald Trump will continue to deal with Pyongyang's human rights abuses because it's a bipartisan issue.

"When you're looking at North Korea's human rights record, there is a remarkable consistency of views from the right to the left, and I think that probably suggests this reflects the concern of the American people and it's unlikely to lead an administration to get off in a different direction, Amb. Robert King said.

"I would expect that concern about the North Korean human rights situation is going to continue to be an issue that will be dealt with by the incoming administration," King said during a Brookings Institution discussion on U.S. policy toward the North.

King said the North Korean human rights issue isn't something that can be resolved "this week or next."

"There isn't a silver bullet to take care of the problem and I think more than anything, we've got to be consistent and continuous in our efforts to press the North Koreans on the human rights issue," he said.

The envoy also rejected suggestions that the U.S. should go soft on the human rights issue in order to make progress in the nuclear standoff.

"There is a link between human rights and security," King said. "A country that is willing to oppress its own people has even fewer qualms about using force against its neighbors. A regime that puts the welfare and well-being of its own people well below its acquisition of nuclear weapons will not hesitate to use those nuclear weapons against others."

The U.S. has significantly increased pressure on Pyongyang over its human rights record, imposing first-ever sanctions on North Korean leader Kim Jong-un earlier this year for his roles in the country's human rights abuses.

North Korea has long been labeled as one of the worst human rights violators. The communist regime does not tolerate dissent, holds hundreds of thousands of people in political prison camps and keeps tight control over outside information.

But Pyongyang has bristled at such criticism, calling it a U.S.-led attempt to topple its regime.

jschang@yna.co.kr

(END)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/12/s...-straight-through-kim-jong-uns-office-window/

Seoul Deploys ‘Bunker Busters’ Capable Of Flying Straight Through Kim Jong-un’s Office Window

RYAN PICKRELL
11:22 AM 12/12/2016

South Korea has reportedly deployed 40 bunker buster bombs to the Korean peninsula to counter threats from North Korea.

News of the deployment broke one day after pictures of a North Korean raid on a replica of the Blue House, the office of the South Korean president, were published in the Rodong Sinmun, according to NK News.

The raid on the Blue House replica was carried out by Unit 325 of the Korean People’s Army (KPA). The images showed camouflaged paratroopers descending on the office of the president. Fire and smoke poured out of the house as the soldiers rushed into the fight.

Kim Jong-un personally oversaw the operations. The photos were released Sunday, however, the exact date of the staged assault is unknown.

Since South Korean lawmakers voted to impeach South Korean President Park Geun-hye Friday, defense officials have been on guard against possible provocations from Pyongyang.

“There is a high possibility that North Korea’s military could make provocative acts,” explained South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Chairman General Lee Sun-jin, according to the Yonhap News Agency.

The North Korean drill may have been a probing act rather than an actual threat. Some experts argue that Pyongyang is unlikely to engage in provocations amidst the current political crisis in South Korea, since it does not want to give the conservatives, which are currently in the hot seat, political fire power.

While the South Korean Ministry of National Defense (MND) has yet to confirm the deployment of new weaponry, multiple Korean news agencies, some citing the South Korean Air Force, claim that 40 Taurus KEPD 350 “bunker buster” missiles were delivered earlier in December and sent to the K-2 Taegu Air Force Base.

Experts say these missiles are accurate enough to be dropped through Kim Jong-un’s office window, NK News revealed.

A total of 170 Taurus KEPD 350 missiles are expected to be deployed to the peninsula by next year. The missiles will reportedly be loaded onto F-15s.

The missiles have a range of about 300 miles and are one of the best weapons the South has against North Korea’s underground facilities.

South Korea’s MND released its bunker buster bomb deployment plan in March. The missiles are a part of a $28 billion defense plan to counter North Korea’s nuclear program. The Taurus KEPD 350 can be used in surgical strikes against hardened, high-value targets.

There are three critical stages to the South Korean defense strategy: the Kill Chain, the Korea Air and Missile Defense (KAMD) system, and the Korea Massive Punishment and Retaliation (KMPR) plan.

Stage one involves eliminating North Korean nuclear and missile facilities before a nuclear weapon can be fired once a preemptive strike is detected. Stage two focuses on intercepting incoming missiles. Stage three involves surgical strikes and special forces operations against the North Korean leadership and key assets.

North Korea has published numerous criticisms of South Korea’s purchase of bunker buster weaponry.

----

From August of this year....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/08/sout...ssiles-capable-of-hitting-all-of-north-korea/

South Korea to Add More Missiles Capable of Hitting All of North Korea

South Korea’s military will greatly increase the number of Hyunmoo ballistic and cruise missiles in its arsenal.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
August 19, 2016

South Korea’s military is planning to add an unknown number of Hyunmoo ballistic and cruise missiles to its arsenal to counter the growing missile threat stemming from North Korea, according to unidentified government sources interviewed by Yonhap News Agency.

According to the sources, Seoul is working on a plan to simultaneously eliminate all North Korean missile bases in the event of a conflict. “To accomplish this, the South needs more ballistic missiles at its disposal,” a government official said in August.

South Korea will add new variants of the Hyunmoo (현무, which literally means “Guardian of the Northern Sky”) missile family including the Hyunmoo 2A and 2B ballistic missiles, as well as the Hyunmoo 3 cruise missile—in all likelihood the two latest 3B and 3C variants.

The Hyunmoo 2A surface-to-surface missile has an estimated range of 300 kilometers, whereas the more advanced Hyunmoo 2B—first test-fired in June 2015—has an approximate maximum range of 500 kilometers (310 miles) and is capable of carrying a payload of up of up to 997 kilograms (2,200 pounds).

The Hyunmoo 3B and 3C surface-to-surface cruise missiles have an estimated range of 1000 and 1,500 kilometers (932 miles) respectively. While Hyunmoo cruise missiles have a higher accuracy, the destructive capability of the ballistic variant is substantially greater.

All of the Hyunmoo missiles were developed by the state-run Agency for Defense Development (ADD). As I explained previously (See: “South Korea Tests New Ballistic Missile”):

Ever since 2012, Seoul has been developing a new ballistic missile after the United States and South Korea concluded an agreement to extend the range of those weapons by up to 800 kilometers (about 500 miles) and carry warheads heavier than the pre-2012 limit of 500kg (1,102 pounds).

However, the agreement stipulates that the payload of missiles with a 500 miles range is limited to 1,100 pounds or below, in order to avoid a regional missile arms race with South Korea’s neighbors – China and Japan (shorter range ballistic missiles can carry up to 4,400 pounds under the rules).

Furthermore, I explained that the Hyunmoo ballistic and cruise missiles “will be a pivotal element in South Korea’s burgeoning preemptive deterrence strategy against the North Korean missile threat, based on the ‘Kill Chain’ – an integrated information, surveillance, and strike system, as well as the Korea Air and Missile Defense (KAMD) systems.”

As I noted elsewhere (See: “South Korea to Develop Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile”), Seoul has also been working on a submarine-launched ballistic missile for its burgeoning fleet of KSS-III (aka Jangbogo III)-class diesel-electric attack submarine and other boats. However, up until now, no official test of submarine-launched ballistic missile has been confirmed.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
China official says Trump's Taiwan comments cause 'serious concern'
Started by Dennis Olson‎, Today 07:56 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Trump-s-Taiwan-comments-cause-serious-concern

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20161213000168

China could use N. Korea card if Trump uses Taiwan card: expert

Published : 2016-12-13 09:45
Updated : 2016-12-13 09:45

China could exercise a veto against any new UN sanctions on North Korea, ignore existing sanctions and even accept the communist neighbor as a nuclear state if the incoming administration of Donald Trump plays the "Taiwan card," a US expert said.

Trump sparked China's anger by accepting a call from Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen earlier this month in breach of the decades-long diplomatic tradition that the US has kept under its "One China" policy since severing ties with Taiwan and normalizing relations with Beijing.

China considers Taiwan a renegade province that must be unified with the mainland and rails against any support for Taiwan's independence or the notion that the island is not part of the country. Despite the absence of formal diplomatic ties, the US has maintained friendly relations with Taiwan.

On Sunday, Trump went a step further, saying he doesn't understand "why we have to be bound by a One China policy unless we make a deal with China having to do with other things, including trade." The remark suggests Trump could use the Taiwan card in dealings with Beijing.

Analysts have raised concern that any change to the "One China" policy would upend US relations with China and seriously undermine cooperation between the two sides on a number of issues, including the North Korean nuclear standoff.

"If the United States is willing to play the Taiwan card in order to bring the Chinese down a peg, it is in incomprehensible that Beijing would take such humiliation lying down," Daniel R.

DePetris, an analyst at Wikistrat, said in an article in the National Interest.

"In fact, China could very well escalate in response by playing the North Korea card ?- a problem that Washington has shown itself powerless to tame without some buy-in from the Chinese political leadership," he said.

China could first use its status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

"If Washington begins to regularize the invitation of Taiwanese ministers to official US government functions, authorizes the travel of senior US officials to Taiwanese soil, or even arranges?let alone holds?face-to-face meetings between Trump and Tsai on the sidelines of various Asian summits, the Chinese will have no compunction or hesitancy in using their veto power to block more sanctions packages against North Korea," he said.

"One could call such retaliation a childish eye-for-an-eye, but that doesn't make it any less effective. Throwing sand in the gears at the UN on anything and everything related to the DPRK could be just the right amount of tough medicine to get Washington to back off," the analyst said.

DePetris also said China would also ignore existing sanctions on Pyongyang altogether, including the latest package that puts a significant cap on North Korea's exports of goal, the single biggest export item and source of hard currency for the impoverished nation.

Moreover, China could even recognize Pyongyang's nuclear weapons, he said, adding that China has already been coexisting with a nuclear North Korea for the past 10 years, and that Pyongyang's nuclear program has provided Beijing with more leverage over the US, rather than hurting Chinese interests.

"Although official acceptance of North Korea as a nuclear-weapons state would certainly be a complete 180-degree turn for the Asian superpower, a more extensive and formalized US-Taiwanese relationship would be perceived as such a dire threat to China's national security that a policy reversal on the DPRK wouldn't be out of the question," DePetris said. (Yonhap)
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.stripes.com/news/china-s-bombers-may-not-be-as-nuclear-capable-as-reported-1.444071

China’s bombers may not be as ‘nuclear-capable’ as reported

By ERIK SLAVIN | STARS AND STRIPES
Published: December 13, 2016

YOKOSUKA NAVAL BASE, Japan — If America straps a warhead to a Chevy Silverado, does it own a nuclear-capable truck?

Technically yes, though the United States arguably has far more efficient ways of maintaining its nuclear deterrent.

The same might be said for the “nuclear-capable” Chinese H-6K bombers that flew around Taiwan and over disputed areas within the South China Sea, according to some analysts.

Fox News first reported the flights earlier this month, citing unidentified U.S. officials in each case.

Many security experts interpreted the flights as a Chinese show of strength in light of President–elect Donald Trump’s overtures to Taiwan.

However, the H-6K’s description as a nuclear weapons carrier touched off a debate over the reports Tuesday.

“No, China’s H-6 bomber is not nuclear-capable,” wrote Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies in Monterey, Calif., on Twitter.
*
Jeffrey Lewis

@ArmsControlWonk
No, China's H-6 bomber is not nuclear-capable. A tweetstorm about why it matters for signaling and stability. (1/25)
https://
twitter.com/FoxNews/status
/807800830011314176*

9:51 AM - 12 Dec 2016 · Monterey, CA
186
186 Retweets
141
141 likes

Lewis cited a report that China retrofitted an H-6 variant in 1965 to deliver an atomic bomb but said the program never got beyond the test phase.

He then pointed to the 2016 China Military Power Report prepared by the Pentagon for Congress. The report cites Chinese publications and officials talking of China’s intentions to build a long-range “strategic” bomber, as well as a strategic deterrence mission reportedly assigned to China’s air force in 2012.

image.jpg

https://www.stripes.com/polopoly_fs...e.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_900/image.jpg

A Chinese H-6K bomber, shown here in CCTV footage, flew missions around Taiwan and the South China Sea in recent weeks, according to a Fox News report. Some analysts are disputing the Fox News story's characterization of the bombers as "nuclear capable."
Courtesy of CCTV+/YouTube

But for now, the report concluded that China doesn’t have a nuclear-capable bomber.
“These media reports and Chinse (sic) writings suggest China might eventually develop a nuclear bomber capability,” the report stated.

China could possibly have developed a nuclear bomber capability after the Pentagon report’s release. However, the report makes no mention of any imminent capability, as it does in other areas where China is advancing its weapons development.

The H-6K is a newer variant of the Cold War-era H-6 bomber. It can complete longer-range missions and carry up to six land-attack cruise missiles, or LACMs, according to a Congressional Research Service report in March.

related articles

China reportedly responds to Trump’s Taiwan call by flying nuclear-capable bomber

China says Trump's Taiwan comments cause 'serious concern'
article continues below*

Some responding to Lewis’ tweet argued that air-launched cruise missiles can be adapted to carry nuclear warheads, which would make the bomber nuclear-capable.
However, there is no publicly known instance of China currently doing that.

The CRS report’s section on China’s nuclear capabilities talks extensively about China’s land-based ballistic missile stockpile, as well as its emerging submarine-launched capability.

There is no mention of the H-6K or any other bomber as nuclear capable by CRS.

Even conventionally armed, the H-6K does concern the military. The Pentagon report to Congress described China’s long-range missile development as “extraordinarily rapid.”

The Pentagon views the U.S. territory of Guam as a potential H-6K target in its myriad war scenarios and notes that China launched H-6K flights into the Western Pacific for the first time in 2015.

“If [China] is sending any signal, it is one of conventional readiness, the ability to conduct LACM strikes,” Lewis said. “We are interpreting the signal as a nuclear threat. That reinforces a series of concerns I have about signaling and misperception.”

slavin.erik@stripes.com
Twitter:@eslavin_stripes
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...d-marine-vessels-after-U.S.-violation-of-deal

For those who don't see the significance of this, the only "legitimate" use of weapons grade HEU or Pu is for marine/naval propulsion per the Non-Proliferation Treaty....Instant "break out" capacity, same as Brazil with its nuclear submarine program and full fuel cycle....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-iran-nuclear-deals-idUSKBN14212X

WORLD NEWS | Tue Dec 13, 2016 | 10:38am EST

Iran to work on nuclear-powered marine vessels after U.S. 'violation' of deal

By Bozorgmehr Sharafedin and Shadia Nasralla | BEIRUT/VIENNA
Iran ordered its scientists on Tuesday to start developing systems for nuclear-powered marine vessels in response to what it calls a U.S. violation of its landmark 2015 atomic deal with world powers.

Nuclear experts however said that President Hassan Rouhani's move, if carried out, would probably require Iran to enrich uranium to a fissile purity above the maximum level set by the nuclear deal to allay fears of Tehran building an atomic bomb.

Rouhani's announcement marked Tehran's first concrete reaction to a decision by the U.S. Congress last month to extend some sanctions on Tehran that would also make it easier to reimpose others lifted under the nuclear pact.

Rouhani described the technology as a "nuclear propeller to be used in marine transportation," but did not say whether that meant just ships or possibly also submarines. Iran said in 2012 that it was working on its first nuclear-powered sub. reut.rs/2gVr80g

Rouhani's words will stoke tensions with Washington, already heightened by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's vow to scrap the deal, under which Iran curbed its nuclear fuel production activities in exchange for relief from economic sanctions.

Rouhani also ordered planning for production of fuel for nuclear-powered marine vessels "in line with the development of a peaceful nuclear program of Iran".

But under the nuclear settlement Iran reached with the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China, it is not allowed to enrich uranium above a 3.67 percent purity for 15 years, a level unlikely to be enough to run such vessels.

"On the basis of international experience, were Iran to go ahead with such a (nuclear propulsion) project, it would have to increase its enrichment level," said Mark Hibbs, nuclear expert and senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

CIVILIAN VERSUS MILITARY ENRICHMENT

"That's the point, because Iran would be looking for a non-weapons rationale to provocatively increase its enrichment level in the case that the deal with the powers comes unstuck."

He pointed out that countries with more advanced navies and nuclear programs have been working on propulsion reactors for decades. Such technology might need uranium enriched to around 20 percent purity.

A Russian Foreign Ministry source told RIA news agency that a careful reading of Rouhani's order showed he was talking only about developing power-supply units for nuclear-powered marine vessels, but not higher-enriched uranium itself, so "strictly speaking" this would not contravene the nuclear deal.

But the source acknowledged that such vessels typically ran on higher-enriched uranium prohibited by the accord.

Edwin Lyman, a nuclear expert at the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists, said developing a reactor suited for higher-grade nuclear vessel fuel would take at least a decade.

"(But) these are unfortunate developments. We are very concerned about the future of the (nuclear deal) under the Trump administration and any signs of erosion ... must be taken very seriously and immediately addressed by the international community," Lyman told Reuters.
Rouhani accused the United States in a letter published by state news agency IRNA of not fully meeting its commitments under the nuclear deal.

"With regard to recent (U.S. congressional) legislation to extend the Iran Sanctions Act ... I order the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to ... plan the design and construction of a nuclear propeller to be used in marine transportation."

Members of the U.S. Congress have said the extension of the bill does not violate the nuclear deal that was struck last year to assuage Western fears that Iran was working to develop a nuclear bomb. The act, Congress added, only gave Washington the power to reimpose sanctions on Iran if it violated the pact.

Washington says it has lifted all the sanctions it needs to under the July 2015 deal between major powers and Iran.

Rouhani's move followed recent remarks by Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his hardline allies harshly criticizing the deal's failure to yield any swift economic improvements in Iran. Khamenei said last month the U.S. Congress's prolongation of some sanctions was a clear breach and the Islamic Republic would "definitely react to it".

There was no immediate comment from the Vienna-based U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iran's nuclear program.

(Additional reporting by Alexander Winning in Moscow and Parisa Hafezi in Ankara; editing by Mark Heinrich)

ALSO IN WORLD NEWS

Aleppo could fall 'at any moment', U.N. reports civilians killed
Iraqi Shi'ite forces aim to clear border strip with Syria
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/12/congress-presses-for-a-deeper-us-india-defense-partnership/

Congress Presses for a Deeper US-India Defense Partnership

The commercial imperative for the U.S.-India defense partnership is considerable.

By Benjamin Schwartz
December 12, 2016

Congress just sent an important message to President-elect Trump’s incoming national security team via the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): treat India as a “major defense partner.” While India is not a U.S. treaty ally and Indian soldiers are not fighting alongside American forces in today’s hotspots, both Democrats and Republicans recognize the national security and commercial imperatives of conducting U.S.-India defense relations at the highest level. This is the Ivory-billed Woodpecker of U.S. politics — an extremely rare, nearly extinct phenomenon — an issue of agreement among #NeverTrump national security Republicans, the Obama administration, and, by all indications, the President-elect.

Echoing legislation first introduced by Congressman George Holding (R-N.C.), the Obama White House adopted the “major defense partner” designation in June, but the NDAA goes further. It mandates actions to institutionalize the U.S. national security bureaucracy’s focus of India. They include sustaining the Pentagon’s one-of–a-kind “India Rapid Reaction Cell,” increasing military officer exchanges and requiring the Department of Defense (DoD) and State Department to assess India’s capabilities to perform military missions that are in the mutual interest of both India and the United States.

India borders both the U.S. Central Command and Pacific Command’s geographic areas of responsibilities. These combatant commands have daunting requirements, tasked to prepare for a wide range of military contingencies from war to humanitarian assistance. The assessment requirement in the NDAA is Congress’ way of telling the DoD to equip the Indian military in a manner that decreases the burdens and risks for American soldiers in these commands. This is why the assessment will be used to inform the sale of defense articles and services to India.

The intent of the law is clear. India is the only democracy with the demographic weight, economic growth and social linkages to America that can serve as the predominant security provider in the Indian Ocean Region. This is especially apparent as the growing gap between Chinese military power and that of its neighbors increases the risk of instability in Asia. This gap is provocative and dangerously so in a region that contains the world’s most important trade corridors.

The commercial imperative for the U.S.-India defense partnership is also considerable. Around 70 percent of Indian military equipment is of Russian origin and much of it is in need of replacement. American companies are well positioned to partner with Indian private and public sector manufacturers to fill the gap. These partnerships generate interoperability with U.S. forces and strengthen the U.S. defense industrial base by expanding sales in a manner that decreases procurement costs for American military forces.

Despite an unusually broad bipartisan consensus for deepening defense cooperation, this has not always translated into executive branch policies necessary to implement this vision. While there has been recent progress made under the Defense Technology and Trade Initiative, the U.S. export licensing process, end-use monitoring requirements, and the complicated intersection of government and private industry approvals required to engage in defense trade do not put American companies at a competitive advantage in India. Too often it appears easier for Indians to work with the Russians, French, and Israelis than to cooperate with Americans.

An important priority of the President-elect should be to reverse this perception. The next National Security Advisor should conduct a comprehensive review of the policies and procedures that weaken U.S. competitiveness in the Indian defense and aerospace market. For instance, if there are defense technologies that the United States has refused to sell to India on national security or counter-proliferation grounds, but which India can now purchase from other foreign suppliers, then these policies should be revised. The United States does not have the monopoly it once did in many defense technologies and our policies needs to adapt to this reality. When the United States restricts the export of defense technologies that are similar or only marginally superior to the offerings of foreign manufactures those other countries fill the vacuum. This not only deprives American industry of critical markets, but also prevents the U.S. government from the opportunity to cooperate and even shape how these weapons are employed. It’s a dangerous and self defeating approach to counter proliferation. From both a commercial and national security perspective, it is advantageous that a country like India purchase advanced defense equipment from America than from our foreign competitors.

Many problems are too contentious to solve in our politically polarized capital, but fortunately this isn’t one of them. This should be an easy win for the next President and an important win for the country.

Benjamin Schwartz is the director for defense and aerospace at the U.S.-India Business Council and previously served as director for India in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Hummm.....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/201...drums-war-north-korea/133828/?oref=d-topstory

Washington’s Dangerous Drums of War on North Korea

BY JOEL S. WIT
FOUNDER OF THE 38NORTH WEBSITE
READ BIO

RICHARD SOKOLSKY
SENIOR ASSOCIATE AT THE CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE
READ BIO
DECEMBER 12, 2016

Bombing North Korea’s missile sites would be a ‘monumental act of folly.’

The drums of war are starting to beat in Washington over North Korea. On Dec. 1, retired Gen. Walter Sharp, former commander of U.S. Forces Korea, said that President-elect Donald Trump’s administration must be ready to launch a pre-emptive strike on North Korean missile sites the next time Pyongyang is preparing to conduct a test of a long-range rocket capable of hitting the U.S. mainland. A Council on Foreign Relations task force report, issued in mid-September, warned that the United States might have to consider military actions against North Korea’s nuclear and missile capabilities. And now the Pentagon is revising its contingency plans for military strikes on these missile sites.

All of them should holster their weapons.

Under the Obama administration U.S. efforts have failed to halt and reverse the growing North Korean nuclear and missile threat—in fact, it has grown worse over the past eight years. As a result, the Trump administration will find itself in a real pickle once it takes office. Progressively tougher economic sanctions have failed and will continue to fail to slow down the North’s progress on nuclear-armed ICBMs. Nor will it inherit an ongoing diplomatic process that might slow-down the North’s sprint to the finish line. Continuing the policies of the past eight years will guarantee the situation will be much worse and the options available to the United States even more narrow and dangerous four years from now.

It would not be surprising if Washington comes to the conclusion that the United States has no other choice than to launch a pre-emptive military strike against the North before the situation gets out of control. But when? The real moment of truth would arrive if Washington sees North Korea preparing to test one of its true ICBMs, the KN-08 road mobile missile. Experts believe testing could begin as early as next year and Pyongyang could begin deploying this new weapon by 2020.

Pre-emptive strikes, however, would be a monumental act of folly.

First, such an attack would face a number of significant operational and diplomatic problems. It might be possible to destroy an ICBM that is launched from an above ground pad. But it would be extremely difficult to wipe out the North’s entire ICBM infrastructure because much of it is deeply buried or in unknown locations. Even if an initial attack were successful, the North Koreans could recover from the damage and just test again, perhaps in ways that would make it difficult to destroy the missile.

Read more: Can Trump Make a Deal With North Korea?
See also: North Korea Is Not Afraid of the International Community

Second, the North would almost certainly retaliate against South Korea, most likely by launching limited attacks against South Korean ships or on targets just above the Demilitarized Zone. But there is also a danger the North could target Seoul, especially with rocket and artillery barrages, which would cause larger-scale destruction and mass civilian casualties. The inevitable South Korean retaliation—they repeatedly warn they would do so—and resulting North Korean escalation could spiral into a catastrophic second Korean War.

Third, because of the danger of a North Korean response and the possibility of escalation, South Korea and Japan are unlikely to support such strikes. A U.S. decision to launch over their opposition could damage our two most important alliances in the Asia-Pacific region.

Fourth, an unprovoked U.S. attack against the North would almost certainly draw China into the emerging conflagration on the Peninsula. Beijing would likely view such a strike as a serious threat to Chinese national security as well as the start of a concerted campaign to topple the North Korean regime. It is entirely possible that Beijing would take military measures to support its sovereign neighbor and prevent such a destabilizing crisis.

Finally, the drive to launch a preemptive strike may be based on a false assumption, namely that one day Kim Jong-un on a whim will roll out his ICBMs and attack the United States. He may be unpredictable but there’s no reason to think that he has a death wish. Most experts agree that Kim would only use nuclear weapons against the continental United States in the most extreme circumstances, when the country’s survival was threatened.

The United States is approaching a critical juncture in its policy towards North Korea. Most experts on North Korea have given up hope that sanctions and diplomacy will change the regime’s ways and by default have become increasingly resigned to military strikes against missile deployments. However, throwing in the towel on diplomacy is premature until it has been seriously tested, particularly since the downsides of military action are enormous. Washington has never tried an approach that seeks to secure its long-term goal of denuclearization in a larger framework of negotiating a comprehensive peace on the Korean Peninsula. Such a step-by-step process would be designed to secure the immediate U.S. objectives of capping and reversing the North’s nuclear and missile programs.

It is no means certain that the United States can achieve its preferred outcomes with North Korea following this approach. If it fails, the Trump administration’s only alternative short of triggering a second Korean War, should be to use the Nuclear Posture Review and the 2017 Ballistic Missile Defense Review as the basis for additional steps to deal with the North Korean threat and to bolster deterrence. These could include increasing deployments of ground-based intercepters on U.S. soil, enhancing detection and conventional strike capabilities in the region intended to target and destroy Pyongyang’s mobile missiles and considering periodic deployments of nuclear-capable U.S. bombers to South Korea.

--

Joel S. Wit is a Senior Fellow at the U.S.-Korea Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and founder of the 38North website. FULL BIO

Richard Sokolsky is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From 1990-97, he was the director of the State Department’s Office of Strategic Policy and Negotiations. FULL BIO
 

vestige

Deceased
Fourth, an unprovoked U.S. attack against the North would almost certainly draw China into the emerging conflagration on the Peninsula.

...and there lies the danger where everything could go to hell really fast.

The Gelbe Gefahr was not a German fairy tale.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://38north.org/2016/12/instability121316/

Instability and Regime Change: Why and How Are Regimes Ruined?

By 38 North
13 December 2016

Despite expectations from many observers that the North Korean regime would collapse after the Cold War, it has survived two leadership changes, decades of international sanctions and economic crises. Even as other authoritarian regimes have collapsed or are struggling with political and social upheaval—seen most recently in the wave of protests and popular revolutions that brought down long-standing dictators in the Middle East and North Africa—Pyongyang continues to remain relatively stable.

This paper explores the various factors influencing state instability and regime change as well as the typical outcomes of political upheaval in order to draw conclusions about the future of North Korea and how, despite its current durability, a regime change scenario might play out.

Download the report “Instability and Regime Change: Why and How Are Regimes Ruined?” by CHA Du-hyeogn.

Find other papers in The North Korea Instability Project series.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Assad Retakes Aleppo: The Military Operation Is Over - Russian Envoy
Started by*Possible Impact‎,*Today*11:25 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-The-Military-Operation-Is-Over-Russian-Envoy

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-is-fighting-in-syria/?utm_term=.c07f5f75e77d

Checkpoint

New battlefield video shows how Russia’s elite KSO military unit is fighting in Syria

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff December 13 at 6:00 AM

Video

On Sunday, Russian state-run television ran a segment showing what appears to be one of Russia’s most elite military units fighting in Syria, putting an often secretive Special Operations detachment*in the limelight, albeit briefly.

Footage of Russian troops in Syria is extremely uncommon. The nine-minute segment is composed of various clips, some of it focused on training, likely in Russia, while other parts take place in Syria. The unit is probably Russia’s Special Operations Command, or KSO, a group akin to the U.S. military’s elite Delta Force that has existed for only a few years.

[How Russian special forces are shaping the fight in Syria]

While Russian Special Operations forces are commonly known as Spetsnaz, those troops often operate attached to*large units, acting more as elite infantry detachments*than anything else. The KSO is different, according to Michael Kofman, an analyst at the Center for Naval Analyses, because it is a dedicated military Special Operations unit, created*after the Russians had watched the U.S. military’s success with its own Special Operations Command over the past two decades.

During the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and more recently against the Islamic State, U.S. Special Operations forces have taken*advantage of their small numbers, high-tech communication gear and extensive training to achieve battlefield successes often reserved for conventional*forces many times their size. Having gleaned this lesson from their American counterparts, the Russians are now implementing such forces for the first time Syria.

But much like Russia’s lone and problematic aircraft carrier — the Admiral Kuznetsov — steaming off Syria’s coast, the KSO is also another way for Russia to demonstrate its burgeoning post-Soviet defense capabilities in a combat environment.

“Russia is demonstrating a nascent capability similar to what we have in the United States,” Kofman said of the video. “Special Operations forces are a tool of national power and there are very few countries that can field units like this.”

[Here’s what an advanced Russian tank looks like after getting hit with a U.S.-made missile]

While the KSO is billed as a command, it is only one unit and is composed of somewhere between 500 and 1,000 of Russia’s best troops that hail from traditional Spetsnaz and airborne units. According to Kofman, the KSO is relatively junior, and its first operations involved security for the Sochi Olympics in 2014 and shortly after helping secure Crimea’s parliament building with 50 or so troops when Russia helped annex the Ukrainian peninsula in 2014. As a byproduct of*Russia’s military reforms that began in 2008, the KSO has benefited from individual equipment upgrade programs that*have provided*Russian soldiers with modern communications gear and weapons.

In the video that ran Sunday, some of the Russian Special Operations troops can be seen with red-dot weapon sights, thermal imaging devices, laser range finders, and modern bolt-action sniper rifles, including what appears to be a late 2000s Austrian SSG-08 rifle (this rifle was documented in August in Syria by an independent arms research*group). Also, one of the Russian soldiers is wearing a Peltor noise-reducing*communication headset. Peltor is*owned by the U.S.-based company 3M. Its gear is also a staple for U.S. Special Operations troops.

While modeled similarly*to*the West’s elite military units, one of the key differences between the KSO and say, SEAL Team Six, is that the KSO was not created to conduct counterterrorism missions, Kofman says. Instead, the KSO focuses on more traditional Special Operations missions, including disrupting enemy forces, coordinating and calling in airstrikes and collecting battlefield intelligence.

In the video, the Russian Special Operation officer who goes by “Col. Vadim” discusses*these types of operations, adding that Russian Special Operations units also target enemy commanders and support Syrian government forces during key*operations.

A Col. Vadim Baikulov was awarded Russia’s highest honorary title known as the Hero of Russia in March for “special missions in Syria,” according to the Interfax news agency. Open-source intelligence researchers from the Russia-based Conflict Intelligence Team have also pointed to*Baikulov as*the Col. Vadim from Sunday’s video.

The Russian Ministry of Defense first discussed*the KSO’s operations in March*when the Syrian military took the ancient city of Palmyra back from the Islamic State, even singling*out one soldier’s death after he reportedly called in airstrikes on his own position after being surrounded by fighters from the militant group. On Monday, the Islamic State retook Palmyra from Syrian government forces.

[The unusual difficulty of tracking Russia’s dead in Ukraine and Syria]

Though well-outfitted, Russian Special Operations such as the KSO, are faced with the same difficulties that plague their western counterparts when operating away from larger friendly forces, including the availability and skill of search-and-rescue units. U.S. Combat Search and Rescue will often position in hostile territory to support aircraft and Special Operations Units. In November 2015, when a Russian Su-24 was shot down by a Turkish F-16 after it had crossed into Turkey’s airspace, Russian rescue teams had difficulty finding one of the crew members, losing a helicopter in the process.

Video

With Russia slow to announce its war dead, it is unclear how many troops the KSO has lost since Russia officially entered the Syrian conflict in fall 2015 when Russian aircraft started conducting airstrikes in support of embattled Syrian government forces. Open-source investigations have attempted to prove that KSO soldiers have indeed died in Syria, while other media outlets have highlighted the deaths of Russian contract soldiers in the country.

Andrew Roth contributed to this report.

Read more:*
Syria shows that Russia built an effective military. Now how will Putin use it?
In Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State is in retreat on multiple fronts
Putin announces Russia will pull most of its military from Syria


74 Comments
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-china-analysis-idUSKBN1430J8

World News | Wed Dec 14, 2016 | 2:15am EST

Too big to fail: China maps out its Trump strategy

By Ben Blanchard and Christian Shepherd | BEIJING

When Donald Trump becomes U.S. president next month, one issue above all others could force his new administration to work closely with China and underscore why he and Beijing need each other - North Korea.

A nuclear armed North Korea, developing missiles that could hit the U.S. west coast, is clearly bad news for Washington but also Pyongyang's sometimes-reluctant ally Beijing, which fears one day those missiles could be aimed at them.

"There is enormous space for the two countries to cooperate on North Korea. The two must cooperate here. If they don't, then there will be no resolution to the North Korean nuclear issue," said Ruan Zongze, a former Chinese diplomat now with the China Institute of International Studies, a think-tank affiliated with the Foreign Ministry.

"It's no good the United States saying China has to do more. Both have common interests they need to pursue, and both can do more," he added.

North Korea is a tricky proposition even at the best of times for China, and simply easing up on U.N. sanctions as a way to express displeasure at Trump's foreign policies could backfire badly for China, said one China-based Asian diplomat.

"They can't really do that without causing themselves problems," the diplomat added, pointing to China's desire to denuclearize the Korean peninsula.

TAIWAN TENSION

From North Korea to Iran to a closely entwined business relationship worth $598 billion in 2015, the two countries have broad common interests, and China expects Trump to understand that.

While China was angered by Trump's call this month with Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, and then casting doubt over the future of the "one China" policy under which the U.S. recognizes Taiwan as being part of China, it was also quite restrained, said a senior Beijing-based Western diplomat.

"China's game now is to influence him and not antagonize him," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

China believes the two countries need each other, and as Trump is a businessman he understands that, the People's Daily's wrote last month.

"The importance of the China-U.S. relationship goes without saying, and can be said to be too big to fail," the communist party mouthpiece wrote in a commentary.

China also expects a transactional relationship with the deal-making Trump, especially on trade, even if for Beijing Taiwan is completely off limits for negotiation.

"Trump is a businessman. He wants a deal," a source with ties to the Chinese leadership told Reuters, requesting anonymity. "He wants the biggest benefit at the smallest cost."

On the campaign trail, Trump threatened punitive tariffs on China, and has recently repeated his criticism of Chinese trade policy, dovetailing with his Taiwan comments.

"This is provocation, but war is unlikely," a second Chinese source with leadership ties said of Trump's Taiwan moves.

"The Chinese side will not easily yield," the source said. "We expect tensions."

TRADE INTERESTS

Wang Huiyao, head of the Centre for China and Globalisation and a government adviser, said China should invite the United States to join the Beijing-lead Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

"He will pursue U.S. interests and to do so he cannot ignore the huge benefits that come from China-U.S. trade relations," Wang said.

The Asian diplomat said some Chinese officials had expressed "euphoria" at Trump's election, believing it marked the end of U.S. dominance in the world and represented China's chance to seized the initiative.

But Trump's unexpected move to put the Taiwan issue center stage in relations with China had put an end to that.

"They're not as happy now," he said.

To be sure, there are voices in China seeing opportunity in a Trump presidency.
Huo Jianguo, former head a trade policy body under China's Commerce Ministry, said Trump is likely to reduce the United States' engagement with the world, presenting an opening for China.

"Under Obama, China-U.S. relations had already deteriorated to their worst possible level. Trump will not continue to ratchet up what were clearly ideological attempts to suppress China," Huo said.

"China should not seek to immediately take the lead in global governance. They should first lead RCEP to become successful, then from here China's global influence can take root," Huo said, referring to a Southeast Asian-backed free trade deal China has championed.

Even the Global Times, an influential and normally stridently nationalistic tabloid, has sought to temper expectations on how China could use a Trump presidency to its advantage.

"China still cannot match the U.S. in terms of comprehensive strength," it said in an editorial. "It has no ability to lead the world in an overall way, plus, neither the world nor China is psychologically ready for it. It's beyond imagination to think that China could replace the U.S. to lead the world."

(Additional reporting by Benjamin Kang Lim; Editing by Lincoln Feast)

Also In World News
Aleppo evacuation may be delayed until Thursday
U.S. ready to confront Beijing on South China Sea: admiral
 
Top