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

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/14/world/middleeast/ap-ml-islamic-state-weapons.html?_r=0

Middle East

Report: Islamic State Manufacturing Arms on Industrial Scale

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DEC. 14, 2016, 12:18 A.M. E.S.T.

IRBIL, Iraq — The Islamic State group was manufacturing weapons in and around Mosul on an industrial scale with products largely purchased in bulk from Turkey, according to a report published by an arms research group Wednesday.

The findings show that IS maintained a "robust and reliable" supply chain between Turkey and Iraq that allowed the fighters to produce tens of thousands of weapons, the London-based Conflict Armaments Research said. The group's researchers studied IS weapons found at manufacturing facilities and on the battlefield during the Iraqi operation to retake Mosul that is underway.

As Iraqi forces advance, the extremists are losing the physical capacity to manufacture weapons on an industrial scale, but the research group's executive director James Bevan warned that highly trained fighters will take their expertise with them as they retreat.

"Given that this group is so organized, they clearly see the writing on the wall in Mosul," Bevan told The Associated Press, saying he believes IS has already moved its highest trained bomb-makers out of Mosul and into Syria and southern Turkey.

"They place a very high value on technical capacity and they will do everything they can to preserve it," he said. Bevan added that IS fighters likely looked to Turkey to purchase weapons ingredients, knowing that their demand would outstrip what is available in Iraq.

Iraqi forces have been met with stiff resistance in Mosul, including waves of suicide car bombs, since launching an offensive to retake the city in October. They have retaken less than a quarter of the city since the operation began.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...-Russia-Are-Already-at-War-Small-Wars-Journal

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-united-states-and-russia-are-already-at-war

The United States and Russia Are Already at War

by Alexander Velez-Green
Journal Article | December 13, 2016 - 1:23pm

The United States and Russia are already at war. At least, that’s what many in Moscow seem to think. This war is not fought like past conflicts. It’s prosecuted today primarily by non-military means. But, the secondary role of military operations does not lessen the danger it poses to U.S. strategic interests. Moscow is targeting the United States in ways that sidestep America’s traditional understanding of warfare. Its seeks to cripple the United States, shatter NATO, and fill the void left by America’s absence. President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration may offer opportunities to de-escalate the confrontation. But doing so successfully will depend on Washington’s ability to adapt to Moscow’s novel way of war.

War By Other Means

U.S. policymakers tend to view war as being limited to the military arena. Their counterparts in Moscow increasingly see things differently. There is in Russia a rising awareness that non-military means can be used with devastating effect. These non-military tools range from cyber-attacks to information campaigns to economic sanctions. Russian strategists no longer define warfare solely—or even primarily—by the deployment, distribution, and maneuver of troops in the field. They see warfare instead as the combined use of political, diplomatic, informational, economic, and—to a lesser extent—military efforts to destabilize the enemy, undermine their ability to respond in a timely manner, and exploit asymmetries to nullify any adversary military advantages.

This premise informs Russia’s understanding of joint operations. That is, the Kremlin recognizes that all coercive operations, not just military ones, must be joint if they are to advance its strategic interests. This recognition is built into the structure of the Russian national security sector itself. Control over Russia’s security institutions—including political, military, intelligence, and other ministries—is highly-centralized. This is done in large part so that the Kremlin can bring all elements of its nation’s power to bear in a unified manner as threats arise.

The destructive potential of non-military tools is already all too apparent. Take as an example the Russia-directed Democratic National Committee hack. Moscow’s first objective was to damage Hillary Clinton’s chances of being elected president. Far more perniciously, however, the Russian Federation sought to undermine the American system of government. Russian President Vladimir Putin knows that American political polarization inhibits Congress’ capacity to govern, undercutting U.S. global competitiveness and credibility. The Kremlin knows too—critically—that Americans tend to favor retrenchment so long as domestic political strife keeps their eyes focused inward. By stoking partisanship and inflaming populism, Moscow believes that it can severely weaken the United States’ ability to fight Russian adventurism.

Importantly, some might argue that this expanded definition of “warfare” is theoretically unsound and does little to capture the present state of U.S.-Russian relations. U.S. military scholars will remember that Carl von Clausewitz defined “war” as “an act of violence intended to compel [one’s] opponent to fulfill [their] will.” The Russian Federation’s intent to compel NATO to accede to its demands is self-evident. The veracity of this expanded definition therefore hinges on what constitutes “violence.” If non-military means can be used to cause suffering of such strategic consequence—measured in enemy deaths, economic ruin, or state collapse—then Russian advocacy for a broader definition may be well-founded.

A System in the Crosshairs

Russian military thought diverges from American on more than just the tools of modern warfare. How Russian strategists plan for war is also different. The U.S. Joint Staff’s operational planning construct—used to build American war plans—is designed for one-on-one contingencies. It treats both sides of an engagement as monolithic entities. The implications of such narrow thinking are evident in the U.S. counterterrorism effort. American initiatives against al Qaeda and ISIS nodes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere were conducted in earnest. But, Washington failed to devise an operational plan that treated these groups less as singular entities and more as parts of a complex, multi-theater movement. Conceptual missteps like this left space for the global jihad to adapt, persist, and grow.

Moscow’s policies suggest that it has adopted a different, more nuanced paradigm for war planning. According to this paradigm, the United States and NATO are not so much a compilation of states bound by mutual interest as one highly-interdependent system. And, that system is not just the Atlantic Alliance. It is the liberal order that underpins Western solidarity. To impose its will on the United States or other NATO members, Moscow is targeting these states directly. But it is also targeting the system. If the system can be unraveled, the polities within it will not only drift from one another. The nations will fall apart from within, accelerating that drift, and creating space for Russian maneuvering.

Russia’s unconscionable weaponization of the Syrian refugee crisis represents this paradigm in action. For instance, Moscow’s initiative may yet undermine the Hungarian liberal establishment and push the country towards a more permanently xenophobic political footing. If that happens, it will be like one of the twenty-eight screws holding NATO together unwinding just enough to weaken neighboring screws. The ongoing uptick in nationalism in Europe—aided by Russia-backed far-right European political parties—suggests that this is not an idle fear. Left untended, this unwinding could shatter the Alliance’s unified front.

Moscow’s use of the Syrian refugee crisis to destabilize Europe underscores Russian strategists’ view that the U.S.-Russia security competition is not a binary affair. It shows as well Moscow’s related understanding that the U.S.-Russia competition is not even itself just one conflict. It’s the summation of multiple ongoing and interacting conflicts. As Robert Kaplan writes, Russian policymakers see their “near abroad” as a single operational theater—a single “conflict system,” as Kaplan has described it—with ongoing operations in one area directly affecting campaigns elsewhere. This allows them to use efforts in Syria, for instance, to affect NATO politics in Brussels and the corresponding correlation of resolve in the Baltics. This can be seen as a collision of systems wherein Moscow uses events in its own conflict system to help scuttle European liberalism.

The Best Defense is a Good Offense

Russia’s efforts to derail liberalism reflect Moscow’s growing anxiety about the evolving security environment. They reflect in particular Russian strategists’ belief that the line separating offensive and defensive action no longer exists, or at least is no longer relevant.

Top Russian military thinkers indicate that Russia’s geographic proximity to NATO will leave Moscow with little time and few options for responding in the event of a NATO attack. Likewise, the United States’ ability—at least as perceived by Moscow—to launch a successful strategic first-strike using ballistic missile defense and prompt strike capabilities imperils Russia’s nuclear deterrent. That peril will only grow as new cyber and counterspace threats come online in the coming years. So not only will Moscow not have space for maneuver in the event of crisis. It won’t have time to respond either.

In this context, defensive—or even retaliatory—options have little real merit. Russian strategists have stressed this point for many years in Military Thought, the journal of the Russian General Staff. Once the United States has initiated an attack, that attack will be so swift and effective that the Russian Armed Forces will have little left to defend or retaliate with. As a result, Moscow increasingly believes that offensive action is required to protect the Russian state.

That’s already obvious in some cases, like the Russia-led DNC hack, weaponization of Syrian refugees, and investments in European nationalism. It’s less obvious in others. Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, for instance, was first and foremost an effort to forestall the West’s installation of a client on Russia’s border. But, Moscow also ably manipulated the Ukraine crisis to weaken the Atlantic Alliance, especially by revealing some members’ hesitance to assume risk in deterring further Russian aggression.

So long as the U.S. threat looms in Moscow’s vision, Russia will likely continue to take offensive action to weave chaos in and among the United States and its allies. That will be done using an array of non-military tools, complemented by select military operations. Russian actions will target individual states. But they will be best understood as part of a broader effort to undermine the Western system—the liberal order—itself.

Adapt and Overcome

President-elect Donald Trump has stated his desire to normalize ties with the Kremlin. Mr. Trump may be uniquely positioned to realize this goal. He and President Putin have long indicated substantial respect for one another. Moreover, Mr. Trump’s business background may allow him valuable insight into the set of interests and values influencing Putin’s behavior. And, his noteworthy political acumen may equip him to manage Putin’s machinations in surprisingly effective ways.

But, U.S.-Russian enmity is rooted not solely in personalities but in longstanding, often divergent visions for the future of Europe and the surrounding regions. To reconcile those visions is a tall order. Some elements of the U.S. position may be open for compromise. Mr. Trump may elect, for instance, to remove support for Syrian rebels or allow Russia greater freedom of operation in its periphery. But, there is only so far Washington can go without jeopardizing core interests, like its ability to reassure and protect allies in Europe. That fact is surely not lost on Putin, who has nonetheless already issued calls for President-elect Trump to press NATO to withdraw troops from Russia’s borders.

The coming years promise to be trying. So, too, will those that follow. The Kremlin is playing a long game. President Putin and his advisors recognize that American politics can be volatile. They know as well that U.S. skepticism of Russia runs deep in both parties. And—setting aside the question of U.S. intentions—they know Washington will likely continue investing in missile defense, prompt strike, cyber, and counterspace systems that could hold their nuclear deterrent at risk. Russian policymakers are therefore unlikely to abandon efforts to throw U.S. and European politics into disarray. Given the turbulent 2016 U.S. presidential election, they may even see working with President-elect Trump as an opportunity to further exacerbate political disunity in the United States and Europe. Perversely enough, Moscow may view helping Mr. Trump succeed—or at least be seen to succeed—as a way to further polarize American politics and encourage the election of like-minded populist candidates elsewhere.

The United States should therefore hedge its bets. That means investing in ways to deter Russian attacks on the very heart of Western society. U.S. policymakers must start by understanding Russia’s game. That includes recognizing Russia’s intent to cripple the United States, tear NATO apart, and take control of its periphery. It requires as well appreciating the devastative potential of non-military weapons, their important role in Moscow’s evolving conception of warfare, and the ways they—and their military complements—are being used to erode the liberal order. The successful deterrence of further aggression—and de-escalation of that which has already transpired—will ultimately rely on U.S. strategists adapting to overcome Moscow’s innovative way of war.

--

Alexander Velez-Green

Alexander Velez-Green*is a Research Associate with the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program and Future of Warfare Initiative at the Center for a New American Security. *His research focuses on Russian military doctrine and thought, the impact of emerging technologies on U.S.-Russian strategic stability, and Middle East security challenges.

Mr. Velez-Green has co-authored several CNAS reports. He has also published in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Defense One, The Hill, Lawfare, The National Interest, Quartz, War on the Rocks, and other outlets.

Mr. Velez-Green graduated *** laude from Harvard University. He is proficient in Arabic and Spanish and traveled extensively in the Middle East and Africa.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-india-set-drive-10-121153143.html

China and India set to drive a 10-year global arms race

David Reid
CNBC
December 12, 2016

Emerging global powers China and India are set to drive stronger defense spending over the next decade, according to a new report released by IHS Markit.

Global military spending rose in 2016 to $1.57 trillion and annual budgets should return to pre-financial crisis levels by 2018.

There is now a risk of an arms race as Asia Pacific nations increase their military spending as they move their focus from territorial defense to power projection, analysts believe.

"This is new for the region and is likely to increase military-to-military contact between states," Craig Caffrey, principal analyst at IHS Jane's, said in a release Monday.

"Rising defense spending could therefore be indirectly responsible for increased tension within the region which in turn could spur faster budget growth," he said.

IHS said China's defense budget is on track to almost double within 10 years, from $123 billion in 2010 to $233 billion by 2020.

At that 2020 level, China's defense budget would be about four times bigger than the UK's and more than the combined spending of Western Europe.

For its part India spent more than $50 billion on its military might in 2016, pushing Russia out of the top five biggest spenders.

The South Asian country is in the grip of a modernization drive and is tipped to leap past the U.K. into third spot by 2018, should sterling remain at relatively weak levels.

Caffrey said procurement spending has recently been constrained by rising personnel costs but that is set to change.

"India needs new equipment to fulfill its modernization drive. Over the next three years, India will re-emerge as a key growth market for defense suppliers," he said.

The United States remains far and away the world's biggest buyer of military goods and services, spending $622 billion in 2016, according to IHS Janes.

That figure is more than four times larger than China and represents about 40 percent of global spend.

"Since 9/11, over $9.35 trillion has been allocated to the US defense budget, with the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) accounting for $1.62 trillion or 17.3 percent of the total US Department of Defense (DoD) budget," said Guy Eastman, senior analyst at IHS Jane's.

"US DoD investment levels going forward were to decrease by 1.1 percent in real terms, but with the election of Donald Trump, the expectation is that both investment and readiness will receive injections of much needed funds," Eastman said.

Western Europe's defense budget rose for the first time since 2009 and IHS Janes' believes that trend will continue, estimating that roughly $10 billion will be added across the next 5 years.

The IHS Jane's Defense Budgets team produces the annual Jane's Defense Budgets Report every December. The report examines and forecasts defense expenditure for 105 countries and claims to capture 99 percent of global defense spending.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Tired of abductions, Mexican townsfolk kidnap drug boss' mom
Started by*Millwright‎,*Yesterday*07:27 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ctions-Mexican-townsfolk-kidnap-drug-boss-mom

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/13/w...war-violence-donald-trump-wall.html?ref=world

Americas

Mexico Grapples With a Surge in Violence

By KIRK SEMPLE
DEC. 13, 2016

CIUDAD JUÁREZ, Mexico — Five men shot dead in a barbershop, their bodies slumped near the doorway. A decapitated body dumped next to a housing development. Three others killed behind a pool hall and several more in a bar called Tres Mentiras, or Three Lies.

By the end of October, at least 96 people had been killed in the border city of Ciudad Juárez. It was the highest monthly tally since 2012, sowing fears of a return to the gangland mayhem that once earned this city the title of the most violent place in the world.

Back then, the bloodshed in this city was in a class of its own. But now it has company, with other Mexican cities that are as bad or worse. In the last year, the number of homicides around Mexico has soared to levels not seen in several years.

In the first 10 months of this year, there were 17,063 homicide cases in Mexico, already more than last year’s total and the highest 10-month tally since 2012. The relapse in security has unnerved Mexico and led many to wonder whether the country is on the brink of a bloody, all-out war between criminal groups.

“It’s a trauma, it’s a kind of fear, among all of us who saw a killing, who heard gunshots,” said Carlos Nájera, an activist in Juárez. “Everyone’s worried about a slide to the past.”

The surge in violence around Mexico reflects an increasingly volatile criminal landscape and the limitations of North America’s counternarcotics strategy, and it has contributed to the plummeting approval ratings of President Enrique Peña Nieto.

A longstanding cornerstone of the Mexican government’s fight against organized crime — backed by hundreds of millions of dollars in American aid — has been to aim at the kingpins, on the theory that cutting off the head will wither the body. But the tactic has helped to fragment monolithic, hierarchical criminal enterprises into an array of groups that are more violent and uncontrollable, analysts said.

The rising insecurity poses a problem for President-elect Donald J. Trump, who has offered few insights into how he intends to approach the battle against narco-trafficking and crime in the hemisphere.

His campaign language suggested a strategy of containment, its centerpiece being the construction of a wall along the American border to thwart drugs and illegal immigration. Some analysts worry that, as part of this approach, Mr. Trump may withdraw the limited American support for initiatives in Mexico that seek to strengthen the rule of law, fortify state institutions and repair communities damaged by crime.

But a hands-off American approach may only give more space to violent criminal groups in Mexico and elsewhere, destabilizing the region, analysts said.

“A fortress America response is probably going to prove insufficient very quickly,” said Alejandro Hope, a leading security analyst in Mexico.

He noted that all the heroin consumed annually in the United States, most of which comes from Mexico, “would fit into 1,800 to 2,000 pieces of luggage.”

“You don’t stop that with a wall,” he said.

The Mexican government has been battling drug traffickers for decades, but the fight acquired new intensity in 2006 when the president at the time, Felipe Calderón, declared “war” on organized crime.

The Mexican military was partly successful in that approach, capturing or killing many of the most-wanted drug traffickers in the country. Monthly tallies of homicide cases, after climbing to a peak of 2,131 in May 2011, eventually began to fall.

Juárez saw some of the worst of the violence, becoming a symbol of Mexican dysfunction and tragedy: At the peak of the bloodshed, in October 2010, the city suffered 359 homicides, according to the Security and Justice Working Group in Juárez, an independent task force that includes representatives of civil society and government. But an intensive response — including the saturation of the city by government security forces and a robust engagement by civil society — helped turn things around.

The national kingpin strategy, however, fell short in one important respect: Drug trafficking continued to flourish. And as leaders fell, the large drug organizations splintered into smaller criminal gangs, which waged battles of succession that led to greater violence.

“These groups, if you just kind of leave them alone, they’re very powerful,” said Steven Dudley, co-director of InSight Crime, a foundation that studies organized crime in the Americas. “And if you mess with them and they fragment, they’re multiple, unwieldy beasts.”

Since late 2014, the homicide numbers have trended upward, an increase that Eduardo Guerrero, a security consultant in Mexico City, has named “the second wave of violence.”

September — with 1,976 homicide cases around the country — was the deadliest month in Mexico since May 2012, and one of the deadliest on record, according to Mexico’s Interior Ministry.

And while the violence that was a part of Mr. Calderón’s presidency was mostly concentrated in a few places, like Juárez, the recent rise in homicides has been dispersed. Violence has erupted in places that had experienced relatively little of it until recently, including Colima, a once-tranquil Pacific Coast state, and the state of Guanajuato, a growing hub of the automotive industry and the location of San Miguel de Allende, a popular tourist destination for foreigners.

In September 2015, for instance, only two states had more than 100 homicide victims over the course of the month. In September 2016, 11 states suffered more than 100.

Though the clashes between remnant drug groups are widely thought to be a significant cause in the rising violence, analysts and government officials also point to other factors, including changes in political control of state and municipal governments after recent elections.

As old political power structures make way for new ones, cooperation between the corrupt authorities and criminal groups fall apart, analysts said.

“Groups try to mobilize themselves to have a better position to negotiate with the incoming government,” Mr. Guerrero said. “The uncertainty of the criminals is very high, so their best weapon in the negotiations is to ‘heat up the plaza.’”

In addition, criminal organizations have diversified their business models, branching out into extortion, theft, kidnapping, prostitution, illegal gambling, intellectual property piracy and fuel theft, analysts said.

“What you have is a transition in the criminal underworld that is from large-scale, relatively identifiable, hierarchically structured criminal organizations whose business was mainly about smuggling drugs to the United States, to diversified, smaller gangs, more local in scope, more predatory in nature,” Mr. Hope said.

But while the nature of Mexico’s criminal operations has shifted, the government response has not, he said. “They’re great at capturing El Chapo but not so good at addressing the extortion of mom and pop stores in Guerrero,” he said, referring to the captured drug kingpin Joaquín Guzmán Loera.

In August, the administration of Mr. Peña Nieto announced a plan to reinforce security in 50 municipalities that account for 40 percent of the country’s homicides. The government has yet to name the municipalities and for months offered few details about the strategy. But in response to written questions this week, the Interior Ministry said the plan involved the coordination of local, state and federal authorities and included the deployment of quick-reaction forces in each of the 50 municipalities, among other measures.

Even while acknowledging the increase in homicides, officials have apparently sought to play it down. At a news conference last month, Renato Sales Heredia, the national security commissioner, dismissed the increase as “not substantial.” His office later clarified in an interview that he had not been referring to this year’s surging violence, but to the smaller increase from 2014 to 2015.

Officials have also denied that the problem is widespread. In its responses to questions this week, the Interior Ministry said that 42 percent of homicides in Mexico were concentrated in 2 percent of the nation’s municipalities, though it did not provide a time frame for that statistic.

The responses have left many analysts to conclude that the administration lacks a coherent strategy to address the problem.

“The only thing they do is to confront the consequences but not the causes, and they do so in a very marginal way,” said Francisco Rivas, director of the Observatorio Nacional Ciudadano, a group that studies security and justice issues in Mexico.

Still, administration officials privately express deep concern about the rising numbers and even the possibility of a return to an all-out drug war.

In Juárez, that possibility is palpable. This year’s increase in homicides has aggravated a kind of communal post-traumatic stress disorder, even if the numbers are still well off the peak of the violence that engulfed this city several years ago — dropping to 33 in November from 96 in October, according to El Diario de Ciudad Juárez.

“They say Juárez is reborn, it’s new. Horrible lies!” said Sergio Meza de Anda, director of Plan Estratégico de Juárez, a community-based organization. “The underlying causes persist.”

He rattled off problems as much national as local, including corruption, impunity, weak public institutions, poverty, income inequality and insufficient development.
“The state is an accomplice to the disorder,” he said.

The Rev. Mario Manríquez, a prominent priest in Juárez, has seen the cost of neglect on the streets and in the homes of his parish in a southern neighborhood of the city — the broken families, the lives cut short.

“The violence never went away,” he said.

On the edge of the park in front of his church, he has built a monument to the victims of the city’s drug war. It is covered with plaques bearing the names of some of those who have been killed. The memorial is only three years old, but he is already running out of space for new names.

Azam Ahmed and Paulina Villegas contributed reporting from Mexico City

Related Coverage:

Report Criticizes Mexican Officials for Ignoring 2011 Massacre OCT. 9, 2016

Opinion Op-Ed Contributor
A Decade of Failure in the War on Drugs OCT. 9, 2016

MEXICO CITY JOURNAL
These Walls Speak, Recalling Victims of Violence AUG. 22, 2013

MEMO FROM MEXICO CITY
Mexico Anticrime Plan Challenged by Unabated Violence FEB. 18, 2013
 

vestige

Deceased
#42:

Good article.

This jumped out at me:

If non-military means can be used to cause suffering of such strategic consequence—measured in enemy deaths, economic ruin, or state collapse—then Russian advocacy for a broader definition may be well-founded.

IOW: The Russkies will use far more than "sanctions" so often discussed in U.S. circles of power.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art..._partnerships_on_russias_doorstep_110486.html

Eurasian Partnerships on Russia's Doorstep

By Stratfor
December 14, 2016

regional-cooperation-in-eurasiaw.png

https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defa...nal-cooperation-in-eurasiaw.png?itok=IOR8Ivrb

The states that lie between Russia and Europe will no doubt feel the impact of the political upsets occurring outside their borders in the West. Countries that once belonged to the Soviet Union have watched the changes with growing unease, and they are likely re-evaluating their stances toward the competing giants looming on their eastern and western flanks. All of them, from those in Eastern Europe to those in the Caucasus, will have to prepare for a new geopolitical environment in which Russia may no longer be able to be ignored and the West may no longer be able to be counted on.

As these countries reassess their situations, they will likely turn to each other for help. Ukraine will be particularly important to watch: For the past three years, it has relied on the West's backing in its spat with Russia over the eastern region of Donbas. But now, Ukraine cannot be sure that Western economic, political and defense aid will continue. Of its neighbors, neither Poland nor the Baltic states are in a position to fully replace EU or NATO forces, but they could form a supplemental alliance of sorts with Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine has already begun to*ramp up its joint training and military exercises*with Poland and Lithuania, and it will probably continue to do so. Ukraine, which is also working to reduce its dependence on Russian energy by reversing natural gas flows from Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, will likely try to join their burgeoning energy network in the years ahead as well.

Like Ukraine, Georgia has become concerned by the potential withdrawal of Western aid. Tbilisi is currently engaged in a dispute with Moscow over the breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and it has tried to integrate more closely with the European Union and NATO. Both organizations, however,*have repeatedly put off Tbilisi's requests*for membership plans. Georgia will respond to the West's distraction by cozying up to two of its key neighbors and allies, Azerbaijan and Turkey. Tbilisi has already forged sturdy economic and energy ties with Baku and Ankara that will likely grow stronger. The three countries, meanwhile, now hold trilateral military exercises that will probably increase in scope and frequency, with the biggest exercises the three nations have ever held taking place in 2017.

The Ukrainian and Georgian blocs will undoubtedly encounter challenges in the months ahead.*Turkey's reluctance to directly challenge Russia*will influence the political dynamics of the Caucasus, while volatility in Ukraine could hamper Kiev's efforts to form a Baltic alliance. At the same time, Europe and NATO will by no means halt their activities in the region. But as the West becomes a more reluctant partner to the Eurasian states on Russia's doorstep, they will have little choice but to lean on each other for support.
*
This article appeared originally at Stratfor.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/

Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative

China’s New Spratly Island Defenses

Published: December 13, 2016

China appears to have built significant point-defense capabilities, in the form of large anti-aircraft guns and probable close-in weapons systems (CIWS), at each of its outposts in the Spratly Islands. AMTI began tracking the construction of identical, hexagon-shaped structures at Fiery Cross, Mischief, and Subi Reefs in June and July. It now seems that these structures are an evolution of point-defense fortifications already constructed at China’s smaller facilities on Gaven, Hughes, Johnson, and Cuarteron Reefs.

Gaven Reef

gaven-large

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/gaven-large/

gaven-1

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/gaven-1/

gaven-2

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/gaven-2/

gaven-3

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/gaven-3/

gaven-4-11-10-16

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/gaven-4-11-10-16/

Hughes Reef

hughes-large

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/hughes-large/

hughes-2

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/hughes-2/

hughes-3

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/hughes-3/

hughes-4

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/hughes-4/

hughes-1

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/hughes-1/

China has built nearly identical headquarters buildings at each of its four smaller artificial islands. The two smallest of the islets, Hughes and Gaven Reefs, feature four arms built off of these central structures. The end of each of these arms sports a hexagonal platform, approximately 30 feet wide. The northeastern and southwestern arms host what are most likely anti-aircraft guns (roughly 20 feet long when measured to the tip of the barrel). The other two platforms hold smaller (roughly 10-foot-wide) objects without clearly visible barrels. These cannot be definitively identified, but are likely CIWS to protect against cruise missile strikes, according to the Center for Naval Analyses’ Admiral Michael McDevitt (Ret.) and RAND’s Cortez Cooper in a new podcast.

Podcast: https://soundcloud.com/csis-57169780/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses

Johnson Reef

johnson-large

https://amti.csis.org/chinas-new-spratly-island-defenses/johnson-large/

(For the rest of the imagery please go to article...HC)

China modified this blueprint for its facility on Johnson Reef. There the central facility has only two arms, with the southern one sporting the same anti-aircraft gun (which is covered by a tarp in recent imagery but was previously visible) and the northern one an apparent CIWS. Another gun and probable CIWS, along with a radar, were constructed on a separate structure, consisting of three hexagonal towers on the eastern side of the artificial island. This structure seems to be a less complex precursor to those built more recently at Fiery Cross, Mischief, and Subi Reefs.

Cuarteron Reef

At Cuarteron Reef, the last of the four smaller artificial islands completed, the point-defense systems have been completely separated from the central headquarters building. The northeastern and southwestern ends of the islet each host a structure identical to the one built at Johnson, including an anti-aircraft gun, probable CIWS, and radar.

This model has gone through another evolution at China’s much-larger bases on Fiery Cross, Subi, and Mischief Reefs. Each of these sports four structures, consisting of tiered hexagonal towers oriented toward the sea. They are positioned so that any anti-aircraft guns and CIWS installations placed on them would cover all approaches to the base with overlapping fields of fire. Earlier AMTI imagery of the construction of these buildings showed that each included six hexagonal structures in a ring around a central tower. Since then, three of the outer hexagons have been buried, while the others have been built in a tiered pattern, with those in the front (facing outward), built lower than those behind. All of the structures except one at Fiery Cross are also backed by an even taller tower consisting of several terraces. These towers likely contain targeting radar and other systems necessary for the operation of advanced point defenses. The structure at Fiery Cross lacking this tower is built alongside the base’s runway and may be connected to radar and communications systems at the airport.

Fiery Cross Reef

Construction of all four structures has been completed at Fiery Cross Reef, where covers have been placed over the point defenses installed on the central hexagonal tower and the two in front of it. But the size of the platforms (which matches those at the four smaller artificial islands) and covers suggests they boast systems similar to those at Gaven, Hughes, Johnson, and Cuarteron Reefs.

Mischief Reef

At Mischief Reef, two of the four structures have been completed, with covers already placed over the systems installed there. Two others are still being finished, with disturbed soil showing where the three buried chambers were placed. One of those has covers over the front two platforms, while the other has space for a system that has not been installed yet. All three platforms at the fourth structure are empty, but it is clear from the spaces left empty on the platforms that the systems to be installed on the front two will be smaller than the one placed on the central platform. This is consistent with the pattern of larger anti-aircraft guns and probable CIWS seen on the smaller islets.

Subi Reef

At Subi Reef, only one of the four structures seems to have its point defenses already installed, while the others sport empty spaces waiting for guns.

These gun and probable CIWS emplacements show that Beijing is serious about defense of its artificial islands in case of an armed contingency in the South China Sea. Among other things, they would be the last line of defense against cruise missiles launched by the United States or others against these soon-to-be-operational air bases. They would back up the defensive umbrella provided by a future deployment to the Spratlys of mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) platforms, such as the HQ-9 deployed to Woody Island in the Paracel Islands. Such a deployment could happen at any time, and Fox News has reported that components for SAM systems have been spotted at the southeastern Chinese port of Jieyang, possibly destined for the South China Sea.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Here's another one with the "hack" leading, but also puts the charge into some perspective....Also let's not forget the regular dispatching of DNC political "advisors" overseas to assist "fellow travelers" in their elections...HC

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/13/how-to-wage-hybrid-war-on-the-kremlin/

Argument

How to Wage Hybrid War on the Kremlin

President Obama has been shamefully derelict in making Putin pay a price for his aggression. It’s time to give Vladimir a taste of his own medicine.

By Max Boot
December 13, 2016

Vladimir Putin’s tenure as Russia’s dictator has been dedicated to twin interlocking goals: to enhance his own power and wealth and that of the country he controls. The more powerful Russia becomes, after all, the more powerful its president becomes, too. In pursuit of more influence, Putin has tried to rebuild the Russian armed forces from a force of low-quality conscripts equipped with weapons that don’t work to a high-quality professional force with cutting-edge weapons. That transformation, only partially complete, has been shown off in Syria, which Putin has used as a showcase for systems including sleek Kalibr cruise missiles and the smoke-belching aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. But as befits an old KGB man, Putin’s heart appears to lie more with “deniable” covert operations rather than with overt muscle-flexing.

Putin has become notorious for using “little green men” — Russian intelligence operatives and Spetsnaz (special forces) in civilian clothing — to infiltrate Ukrainian territory and start an uprising among the Russian-speaking population. And it worked: Russia annexed Crimea and has gained de facto control over much of eastern Ukraine. This tactic of undertaking barely disguised aggression has become known as “hybrid warfare,” and it has consistently left the West wrong-footed because Putin is careful to avoid crossing the normal red lines.

The West has been even more flummoxed by Putin’s campaign of political warfare designed to subvert anti-Russian regimes and replace them with more pliable leaders. The most high-profile manifestation of this effort was the hacking of the Democratic National Committee and other Democratic targets in an attempt, as the CIA has now concluded, to swing the U.S. presidential election toward Donald Trump, the most pro-Russian politician in America since the heyday of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s agriculture secretary, Henry Wallace. Russian internet trolls were also busy putting out anti-Clinton, pro-Trump stories, many of them demonstrably false.

Putin’s interference in the election was probably not the decisive factor (for that, blame FBI Director James Comey’s diligent efforts), but in an election decided by 100,000 votes in three states it is impossible to say what made a difference and what did not. Certainly Trump, who once called on Putin to hack his opponent, acts like a man with a guilty conscience, furiously denying not only that the hacks were designed to help him but that they were the work of the Kremlin at all. Putin will get his payoff if the new administration decides to lift the sanctions imposed on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine — something that is more likely if ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, to whom Putin awarded an Order of Friendship, is confirmed as secretary of state.

Putin’s campaign of subversion and disinformation is hardly limited to the United States, however. It has been playing out across Europe for years, with Moscow supporting far-left and far-right parties that are united by their loathing for the European Union and NATO, the two institutions that Putin rightly sees as the chief impediments to his hopes of resurrecting the Russian Empire or at least a Russian sphere influence in Eastern Europe.

Russia has been most blatant in supporting France’s far-right National Front, which received an 11 million euro loan in 2014 from a Moscow-based bank and wants another 27 million euros to fight next year’s elections. The French presidential election in the spring is a can’t-lose proposition for Putin since both of the leading candidates — Marine Le Pen of the National Front and the mainstream conservative nominee, former Prime Minister François Fillon — favor closer ties with Moscow.

In Germany, Angela Merkel looks likely to win re-election and maintain a relatively hard line against the Kremlin, but WikiLeaks has just come out with a massive leak of German intelligence documents, many of them relating to controversial cooperation with U.S. intelligence agencies. This is widely seen as a Russian attempt to undermine Merkel, as WikiLeaks has long been a favorite bulletin board for Russia’s intelligence services. In Montenegro, the Russians are accused of going even further in orchestrating a political campaign against the pro-Western government of Prime Minister Milo Dukanovic prior to the Oct. 16 election. When that didn’t work, the Russians apparently tried to launch a coup to overthrow the government, employing Serbian operatives with close ties to the Kremlin.

Little wonder that Alex Younger, the typically secretive head of Britain’s MI6 intelligence service, just gave an unusual speech warning that hostile powers such as Russia, which are utilizing “means as varied as cyberattacks, propaganda, or subversion of democratic process … represent a fundamental threat to our sovereignty. They should be a concern to all those who share democratic values.” His words are echoed by Maj. Gen. Gunnar Karlson, the chief of Sweden’s main foreign intelligence agency, who warns that Russian subversion “is a serious threat because in different ways [the Russians] can push themselves into the very foundations of a democracy and influence democratic decision-making.” Russia is currently running a pressure campaign to dissuade Sweden, which is alarmed by growing Russian intrusions into its sovereign waters and airspace, from joining NATO.

It’s easy enough to decry Russian interference, but it’s hard to know what to do about it. As a first step, it is imperative to document and expose Kremlin machinations, which is why it’s important to probe the hacking of the U.S. election. Congressional investigations, as called for by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, would be one possible approach, but the failed Benghazi committee shows the dangers of congressional grandstanding and partisanship. A better approach, because it would be more serious and nonpartisan, would be an independent commission modeled on the one that probed 9/11; it could be headed by former CIA Directors Michael Hayden and Leon Panetta.

But public exposure alone is not enough to make Putin cease and desist; indeed, documenting Russia’s schemes could actually enhance his aura of power by showing how cleverly he manipulates his adversaries. President Barack Obama has been shamefully derelict in making Putin pay a price for his aggression. Although his administration has threatened retaliation against Russia, he has not, insofar as we know, delivered. “We’d have all these circular meetings,” one senior State Department official told the New York Times, “in which everyone agreed you had to push back at the Russians and push back hard. But it didn’t happen.” Among reasons for inaction, the Times cites the president’s “fear of escalating a cyberwar, and concern that the United States needed Russia’s cooperation in negotiations over Syria.” (As if Russia had any intention of cooperating with the United States in Syria!) His failure to more actively oppose Russian efforts during the campaign may have cost Hillary Clinton the election. It’s hard to imagine Donald Trump, the beneficiary of Russia’s cyberattacks, doing much about it, but Obama still has a few weeks in office to act.

Possible responses can run the gamut from further sanctions — including financial and travel freezes on individuals responsible for the hacking — to retaliation in kind. Putin likes leaking Western emails. How would he like it if the National Security Agency leaked the communications between him and his cronies? Or if the U.S. intelligence community released details about his widely rumored overseas bank accounts? This could undermine his hold on power by puncturing his aura of self-righteousness and could even lead to asset freezes that would punish him in the pocketbook.

Beyond all of that, the West in general and the United States in particular will have to figure out how to wage political warfare on its own. That is something that we did in the early days of the Cold War when the CIA was busy helping anti-communists win elections around the world from Italy to the Philippines — and funding Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Encounter magazine, and other organizations to win the battle for “hearts and minds.” Today, Russia, Iran, China, and other closed societies are potentially vulnerable to a campaign designed to empower dissidents, discredit the ruling elite, and help ordinary people get accurate and uncensored news.

Putin suspects the United States of waging just such a campaign against himself and his allies; he holds the CIA responsible for the 2005 and 2014 uprisings in Ukraine that defeated pro-Russian leader Viktor Yanukovych and the 2003 uprising in Georgia, which brought Mikheil Saakashvili to power. The irony is that, beyond the overt and benign democracy promotion efforts of the National Endowment for Democracy, Washington has done little to undermine anti-Western leaders or to promote pro-Western alternatives.

It is high time for that to change. The United States needs to revive the political warfare skills it once possessed and that have since atrophied, as Michael Doran and I argued in a 2013 Policy Innovation Memorandum for the Council on Foreign Relations. Putin has shown himself to be a master of this game; other adversaries, including Iran and the Islamic State, also actively wage political warfare. We don’t have the luxury of saying that it’s beneath us to play that game. Nothing less than the future of democracy is at stake.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-arms-exclusive-idUSKBN1431OK

Edition: United States

South China Sea | Wed Dec 14, 2016 | 4:34pm EST

Exclusive: China installs weapons systems on artificial islands - U.S. think tank

Gallery

By David Brunnstrom | WASHINGTON

China appears to have installed weapons, including anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems, on all seven of the artificial islands it has built in the South China Sea, a U.S. think tank reported on Wednesday, citing new satellite imagery.

The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said its findings come despite statements by the Chinese leadership that Beijing has no intention to militarize the islands in the strategic trade route, where territory is claimed by several countries.

AMTI said it had been tracking construction of hexagonal structures on Fiery Cross, Mischief and Subi reefs in the Spratly Islands since June and July. China has already built military length airstrips on these islands.

"It now seems that these structures are an evolution of point-defense fortifications already constructed at China’s smaller facilities on Gaven, Hughes, Johnson, and Cuarteron reefs," it said citing images taken in November and made available to Reuters.

"This model has gone through another evolution at (the) much-larger bases on Fiery Cross, Subi and Mischief reefs."

Satellite images of Hughes and Gaven reefs showed what appeared to be anti-aircraft guns and what were likely to be close-in weapons systems (CIWS) to protect against cruise missile strikes, it said.

Images from Fiery Cross Reef showed towers that likely contained targeting radar, it said.

AMTI said covers had been installed on the towers at Fiery Cross, but the size of platforms on these and the covers suggested they concealed defense systems similar to those at the smaller reefs.

"These gun and probable CIWS emplacements show that Beijing is serious about defense of its artificial islands in case of an armed contingency in the South China Sea," it said.

"Among other things, they would be the last line of defense against cruise missiles launched by the United States or others against these soon-to-be-operational air bases."

AMTI director Greg Poling said AMTI had spent months trying to figure out what the purposes of the structures was.

"This is the first time that we're confident in saying they are anti-aircraft and CIWS emplacements. We did not know that they had systems this big and this advanced there," he told Reuters.

"This is militarization. The Chinese can argue that it's only for defensive purposes, but if you are building giant anti-aircraft gun and CIWS emplacements, it means that you are prepping for a future conflict.

"They keep saying they are not militarizing, but they could deploy fighter jets and surface-to-air missiles tomorrow if they wanted to," he said. "Now they have all the infrastructure in place for these interlocking rings of defense and power projection."The report said the installations would likely back up a defensive umbrella provided by a future deployment of mobile surface-to-air missile (SAM) platforms like the HQ-9 system deployed to Woody Island in the Paracel Islands, farther to the north in the South China Sea.

It forecast that such a deployment could happen "at any time," noting a recent Fox News report that components for SAM systems have been spotted at the southeastern Chinese port of Jieyang, possibly destined for the South China Sea.

Also In South China Sea
U.S. ready to confront Beijing on South China Sea: admiral
Exclusive: Risking Beijing's ire, Vietnam begins dredging on South China Sea reef
China has said military construction on the islands will be limited to necessary defensive requirements.

The United States has criticized what it called China's militarization of its maritime outposts and stressed the need for freedom of navigation by conducting periodic air and naval patrols near them that have angered Beijing.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20, has also criticized Chinese behavior in the South China Sea while signaling he may adopt a tougher approach to China's assertive behavior in the region than President Barack Obama.

The State Department said it would not comment on intelligence matters, but spokesman John Kirby added:

"We consistently call on China as well as other claimants to commit to peacefully managing and resolving disputes, to refrain from further land reclamation and construction of new facilities and the militarization of disputed features."

(Reporting by David Brunnstrom; Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati; Editing by Lisa Shumaker and Alistair Bell)

Next In South China Sea

British fighters to overfly South China Sea; carriers in Pacific after 2020: envoy
WASHINGTON British fighter planes visiting Japan will fly over the South China Sea and Britain will sail aircraft carriers in the Pacific once they are operational in 2020, given concerns about freedom of navigation there, Britain's ambassador to the United States said on Thursday.

China rescues Filipinos near disputed South China Sea shoal
MANILA China's coastguard rescued two Filipino fishermen from a capsized boat near a disputed South China Sea shoal on Friday, underlining the fast thawing of ties between two countries long at odds over sovereignty.

Beijing untypically quiet on Taiwan drills in South China Sea
ITU ABA, South China Sea Taiwan held rescue drills on Tuesday off the coast of its sole outpost in the Spratly Islands of the South China Sea, but the biggest claimant in the disputed waters kept uncharacteristically quiet.

MORE FROM REUTERS
Trump to U.S. businesses in China: drop dead
U.S. ready to confront Beijing on South China Sea: admiral
Friday Morning Briefing: 'Have a plan to kill everyone you meet'
Too big to fail: China maps out its Trump strategy
U.S. Navy aims to buy more Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornets: source
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://time.com/4603095/isis-radicatlization-domestic-helper-indonesia-singapore-terrorism-maids/

World indonesia

Islamist Terrorists Are Now Targeting Asia’s Domestic Helpers as Recruits for Suicide Missions

TIME Staff Dec. 14, 2016

The revelations will fuel already considerable fears of ISIS' encroachment in the region

An Islamist cell on the Indonesia island of Java successfully radicalized a domestic helper who had worked in Singapore and Taiwan, and convinced her to attempt a suicide bomb attack on the offices of Indonesia’s President. That’s according to an interview given by the 27-year-old helper on Indonesian television Tuesday, cited in the Straits Times.

Dian Yulia Novi was arrested with six accomplices at the weekend, accused of plotting to detonate a massive bomb at the presidential palace in Jakarta. She is the first would-be female suicide bomber arrested in Indonesia.

Her interview with Indonesia’s TVOne news channel took place while in police custody. During the interview, Dian, an Indonesian national, said she had been working as a domestic helper for a family in Singapore for 18 months and looked after three young children. She reportedly admired and was “inspired” by jihadist profiles on Facebook before being introduced to the members of a terrorist cell based in the central Javanese city of Solo.

According to the Times, the cell was established by Indonesian ISIS member Bahrun Naim, currently fighting with the terrorist organization in the Middle East.

Writing in Indonesia’s Tempo news magazine in July of this year, analyst Sidney Jones, director of the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, said it was only “a matter of time before we see a female suicide bomber in Java.”

Dian said she was prepared to kill and main “for the sake of Allah.” Her account will fuel already considerable fears of ISIS’ encroachment in the region.

ISIS has reportedly attempted to radicalize domestic helpers in Hong Kong on previous occasions. Last year, an Indonesian domestic helper in the semi-autonomous Chinese city sent funds to Bahrun’s cell to buy bombmaking materials, according to a terrorism expert advising the Indonesian government. A plot to attack churches and other targets across Indonesia was broken up before the explosives could be used.

ISIS has meanwhile been operating a brigade in Syria called Katibah Nusantara, made up of Malay-speaking militants from Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines, and has been publishing a Malay-language newspaper to increase its regional appeal.

Several militant groups in Southeast Asia have also pledged allegiance to ISIS, among them the East Indonesia Mujahideen in Central Sulawesi province, and Abu Sayyaf in the southern Philippines. Terrorist attacks in Indonesia and Malaysia in July were blamed on militants with links to ISIS.

There are around 125,000 Indonesian women working as domestic helpers in Singapore, according to the Times.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Washington’s Dangerous Drums of War on North Korea
Started by*China Connection‎,*Today*01:23 PM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...ngton’s-Dangerous-Drums-of-War-on-North-Korea

China official says Trump's Taiwan comments cause 'serious concern'
Started by*Dennis Olson‎,*12-12-2016*07:56 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...Trump-s-Taiwan-comments-cause-serious-concern

China to penalize U.S. automaker for monopolistic behavior: China Daily
Started by*Millwright‎,*Today*06:39 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...tomaker-for-monopolistic-behavior-China-Daily

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/12/13/indias-nuclear-doctrine-coming-out-of-the-closet/

India’s Nuclear Doctrine: Coming Out of the Closet

By*Ali Ahmed*|*Dec 13, 2016 | Asia Pacific, News & Analysis, Politics

What it would mean for India to change its "No First Use" policy on nuclear weapons.

Indian defense minister’s penchant for verbal gaffes has acquired respectability. One strategic community stalwart has suggested that the defense minister’s voicing of his ‘personal opinion’ on India’s No First Use (NFU) pledge is designed to build in ambiguity in India’s nuclear posture. He suggests that for deterrence, it is necessary to keep the nuclear adversary guessing.

Releasing itself from the NFU pledge will enable India to build-in the option of nuclear first use in its nuclear preparedness and posture. A nuclear adversary (read Pakistan) would be fearful that its nuclear preparations might trigger off India’s preemptive strike(s). For India, the advantage in Pakistani hesitation to reach for its tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) is in enabling India to employ its superior conventional forces to wrap up the Pakistani military, pinch back territory in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K)and make territorial gains elsewhere.

Currently, India is stumped by Pakistani brandishing of its TNW. India is hesitant to use its conventional advantage honed at considerable cost. This has forced India to be boxed-in. The situation in J&K has turned a full circle back by a couple of decades when conventional forces were locked in trading blows across the Line of Control. India would instead like to make its conventional preparations on the doctrinal, organizational and equipment fronts, count. The latest controversy over India’s NFU is an instance of India attempting a doctrinal breakout from the cul-de-sac of Pakistani TNWs.

Analysts have pointed out that an Indian nuclear posture that is readier-to-go could prove counter-productive. It would induce Pakistan to go first instead, fearing it would lose its nuclear capability if were to wait for India’s nuclear first use. Presently, the major threat India faces is from TNW being used against its forces in case of incursions that flirt with Pakistani nuclear thresholds. It is not a bolt-from-the-blue attack or a first strike attempting to degrade India’s nuclear strike back capability. However, in case India was to rescind NFU, the latter would emerge as a grave threat.

Therefore, if India wishes to jettison NFU then it would have to reassure Pakistan that should India resort to nuclear first use, it would not be in the form of higher order nuclear strikes. This may be counter-intuitive, but it is well known in strategic theory that nuclear deterrence and reassurance go together.

Currently, India’s deterrence is predicated on a ‘massive’ counter strike. India professes to believe nuclear weapons are political weapons meant for nuclear deterrence and not war-fighting. This means its nuclear forces are configured for higher order nuclear retaliation—counter city and counter force and not counter military targeting. Since higher order strikes are liable to being countered equally vehemently by Pakistan, higher order nuclear first use by either side would amount to all-out nuclear war.

This helps with deterrence at the upper end of the spectrum; that of higher order strikes. However, the promise of higher order strikes is taken as incredible against TNW use. This is the conundrum India is in. If India rescinds its NFU without a corresponding change in its philosophical approach to nuclear weapons—that is, if it continues to believe these are not for war-fighting—then espying Pakistan reaching for its TNWs, it will likely go in for higher order—preemptive—first use of its own.

India promises being ‘punitive’ as to inflict ‘unacceptable damage’. This might not be possible any longer in light Pakistan also maintain strategic weapons, available for higher order strike back. To ensure that fewer of these get to India, India’s nuclear first use would require being of first strike levels of attack—first strike defined as an attempt to tamp down on Pakistani retaliatory capability.

Pakistan is reportedly a step ahead of India in nuclear numbers and in the variegation of its missiles. It thus has a second strike capability, enough to deter India’s first strike levels of nuclear first use. South Asia is in its era of ‘mutual assured destruction’ (MAD). Therefore, if Delhi is to give up NFU, a pillar of its nuclear doctrine, it would also require giving up the other pillar of its doctrine—higher order nuclear use. In a state of MAD, nuclear weapons no longer deter nuclear weapons but deter only higher order nuclear use.

This means that in case of nuclear first use preparation by Pakistan, India could get its nukes in first, but at levels duly cognizant of escalation dynamics. The ability for lower order strikes does not preclude possession and use of strategic weapons for higher order nuclear use. Thus, deterrence at the upper end of the nuclear use spectrum is assured, even as escalation control is enabled by lower order nuclear use. It would be easier to stop a nuclear conflict before cities have started being consumed.

As for ambiguity, it is intrinsic to the nuclear domain. Tom Schelling’s deterrence concept of ‘leaving something to chance’ implies that since no war has witnessed a nuclear exchange, it is a domain of which much has been written about, but only vicariously. Going in for overkill in terms of ambiguity can lead to self-delusion that deterrence will work.

Ambiguity increases the threat of nuclear first strike under the logic of what Tom Schelling termed, the ‘reciprocal fear of nuclear attack’, defining it inimitably as, ‘he thinks, we think he’ll attack;*so*he thinks, we shall;*so he will;*so*we*must.’ Consequently, reassuring one’s own population and the adversary’s nuclear decision maker is also important. Jettisoning default higher order nuclear use is one such measure.

India’s current government has questioned many verities of India’s nationhood—such as secularism—and is known for taking what its supporters regard as ‘bold’ decisions. The Modi government can and should overturn India’s declaratory nuclear doctrine. The makeover is in a sense is to move towards nuclear war-fighting. The advantage of this is in enabling an end to nuclear war at its lowest threshold. South Asia can only then hope to get away at affordable—even if avoidable—levels of nuclear war.

About the Author

Ali Ahmed
Ali Ahmed is author of India’s Doctrine Puzzle: Limiting War in South Asia (Routledge 2014) and On War in South Asia and On Peace in South Asia (CinnamonTeal 2015). He blogs at www.ali-writings.blogspot.in.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.janes.com/article/66263/russia-deploys-su-30sm-fighters-to-kaliningrad

Air Platforms

Russia deploys Su-30SM fighters to Kaliningrad

Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
15 December 2016

Russia has boosted the military capabilities located in its Kaliningrad enclave with the arrival on 13 December of the first Sukhoi Su-30SM 'Flanker' combat aircraft to be fielded by the Baltic Fleet.

A single Su-30SM, one of the most advanced variants of the Flanker currently to be fielded by the Russian armed forces, arrived at Chernyakhovsk airfield with more set to be deployed in the coming weeks and months, state media reported.

The twin-seat Su-30SM has been developed from the Indian Su-30MKI, and features an improved radar, communications, and ejector-seat system, while its weapons' configuration has been adjusted to Russian specifications.

The deployment, which was confirmed by the Latvian armed forces which tweeted the flight among a number of other Russian military movements in the Baltic region that day, is part of a wider ramp-up of its forces in Kaliningrad.

In November, IHS Jane's reported NATO concerns that Russia was turning the Baltic enclave into a "fortress" capable of paralysing allied operations or defensive moves in the region. Ahead of this latest Su-30SM deployment, Russia had already been busy boosting its air, land, sea capabilities in Kaliningrad. This included stationing the latest S-400 and Iskander ground-based air defence systems in the territory, which sits between Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic coast.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options ihs.com/contact


To read the full article, Client Login
(235 of 394 words)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-s...=Feed:+Reuters/worldNews+(Reuters+World+News)

SOUTH CHINA SEA | Thu Dec 15, 2016 | 9:44am EST

China defends its right to 'ready slingshot' in South China Sea

By Ben Blanchard and Michael Martina | BEIJING

China defended its right on Thursday to put "necessary military installations" on artificial islands in the South China Sea, after a U.S. think-tank said Beijing appeared to have deployed weapons such as anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems.

The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative (AMTI) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies said its findings, made available first to Reuters on Wednesday, were based on analysis of satellite images of islands in the strategic trade route, where territory is claimed by several countries.

The United States has previously criticized what it called China's militarization of its maritime outposts, and stressed the need for freedom of navigation by conducting periodic air and naval patrols near them that have angered Beijing.

China's Defence Ministry said in a statement on its website on Thursday that the construction it had carried out on islands and reefs in the disputed Spratlys chain was "mainly for civilian use".

"As for necessary military installations, they are mainly for defence and self-protection and are legitimate and lawful," it said. "If someone makes a show of force at your front door, would you not ready your slingshot?"

The United States has conducted four freedom of navigation patrols, seen as a challenge to China's extensive territorial claims in the South China Sea, in the past year or so, most recently in October.

"PREPPING FOR CONFLICT"

AMTI said satellite images of islands China has built in the Spratlys showed what appeared to be anti-aircraft guns and what were likely to be close-in weapons systems (CIWS) to protect against cruise missile strikes.

Other images showed towers that likely contained targeting radar, it said.

Beijing regards the islands as its sovereign territory, and has often said it is entitled to limited and necessary defensive installations.

AMTI director Greg Poling said the think-tank had spent months trying to figure out the purposes of the structures shown in the images.

"This is the first time that we're confident in saying they are anti-aircraft and CIWS emplacements. We did not know that they had systems this big and this advanced there," he told Reuters.

"This is militarization. The Chinese can argue that it's only for defensive purposes, but if you are building giant anti-aircraft gun and CIWS emplacements, it means that you are prepping for a future conflict."

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang told a regular news briefing in Beijing that he "did not understand" the situation referred to in the AMTI report.

"The Nansha islands are China's inherent territory. China's building of facilities and necessary territorial defensive facilities on its own territory is completely normal," he said, using China's name for the Spratlys.

"If China's building of normal facilities and deploying necessary territorial defensive facilities on its own islands is considered militarization, then what is the sailing of fleets into the South China Sea?"

REGIONAL CONCERN

The Philippines, one of several countries with competing territorial claims in the South China Sea, said it was still verifying the report.

"But if true it is a big concern for us and the international community who use the South China Sea lanes for trade," said Defence Minister Delfin Lorenzana. "It would mean that the Chinese are militarising the area which is not good."

Lorenzana's comments were made during a visit to Singapore with President Rodrigo Duterte, where he also said the United States had agreed to sell the Philippine Navy two advanced radar systems to boost its surveillance capability in the South China Sea.

Australia too voiced concerns about China's actions in the disputed waterway.

"The building of artificial islands and the possible militarization is creating an environment of tension and mistrust between claimants and other regional states," said Foreign Minister Julie Bishop in a statement.

"We urge claimants to refrain from coercive behavior and unilateral actions designed to change the status quo in disputed areas."

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office on Jan. 20, has criticized Chinese behavior in the South China Sea, while signaling he may adopt a tougher approach to China's assertive behavior in the region than President Barack Obama.

The State Department said it would not comment on intelligence matters, but spokesman John Kirby added: "We consistently call on China as well as other claimants to commit to peacefully managing and resolving disputes, to refrain from further land reclamation and construction of new facilities and the militarization of disputed features."

(Additional reporting by David Brunnstrom and Yeganeh Torbati in Washington, Karen Lima and Manuel Mogato in Manila, Greg Torode in Hong Kong and My Pham in Hanoi; Writing by Alex Richardson; Editing by Mike Collett-White)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/ar...the-future-military-strategy-for-small-states

Book Review - Irregular Warfare: The Future Military Strategy for Small States
by Vincent A. Dueñas

Journal Article | December 12, 2016 - 11:12am
Comments 3

Book Review - Irregular Warfare: The Future Military Strategy for Small States

Author: Sandor Fabian, LTC, Hungarian Army, Special Forces
Reviewer: Vincent A. Dueñas, Major, U.S. Army

Publication information:

CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2015

ISBN-978-1508490524

$12.85

The military strategy for the defense of the homeland that a sovereign nation chooses to employ for its armed forces is one of the most important choices it makes. That decision holds implications for that nation’s budget, natural resources, and human capital and reflects parts of its national identity. This book offers a twist on the concept of defense of the homeland, by taking a position that seems counter-intuitive for the organization of a state’s military and strategy. In order to conserve resources and maintain independence, the author argues that small states should begin to look to the lessons of guerrilla warfare and professionalize it in order to deal with threats from large conventional forces.

The key thesis of this book is to “analyze the theory that it is possible to use irregular warfare as a national military strategy to adopt a ‘professional irregular defense force’ concept as a country’s homeland-defense force; and, if these are indeed valid possibilities, to explore the conditions under which they are preferable to conventional defense”. Borrowing Michael I. Handel’s definition for a small state, the author, Sandor Fabian, defines it as “a state which is unable to contend in war with the great powers on anything like equal terms”. The book is built around the premise that in the post-Cold War era, the best strategy for defense for a small state is deterrence and that denial, as a subset of deterrence, is the implementation of guerrilla strategy. He defines the traditional strategies small states used for deterrence in four general manners: 1) imitating a major power’s military capability, 2) joining an alliance, 3) assuming neutrality and 4) acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Readers will most likely agree that these traditional strategies pose significant challenges for small states with limited resources. He argues instead that small states should then begin to consider implementing an irregular strategy, which builds on the tenets of guerilla warfare, as a legitimate form of homeland defense.

Sandor Fabian’s own experience as a Lieutenant Colonel in the Special Forces of the Hungarian Army begins with the challenge of defense of a small state. He is currently assigned to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Special Operations Headquarters J7 Force Readiness Directorate as the Assessment and Evaluation Branch Head and is a graduate from the Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) in 2012. Fabian has participated in the creation of the Hungarian Special Forces Battalion as a Special Forces Company Commander and deployed to Afghanistan as the commander of the Hungarian Special Forces element. He has also served as the Special Forces advisor at the Operational Directorate of the Hungarian General Staff.

In his background we find that the author is experienced in guerilla and irregular warfare techniques and possibly predisposed to find the best cost-benefit ratio for the employment of forces of a small state. His experience has almost exclusively been in Special Operations communities, which appears to color his arguments. Not all readers will find that the concept is entirely unique or feasible, since the author does not offer recommendations for expense, size, organization or framework for implementing such a strategy in an existing country. However, he does make a compelling case for exploring the approach further and it does merit serious consideration because the subject does not appear to have been thoroughly addressed outside of this book as a legitimate enduring state strategy.

He begins by referencing key lessons on irregular and guerrilla warfare from writings from Sun Tzu, Carl Von Clausewitz, Mao Zedong, Ernesto “Che” Guevara and General Vo Nguyen Giap to argue that for small states, a conventional military strategy is not possible and instead, an irregular military strategy presents the best chance to fulfill the needs of a small state in self-defense of territory.

To make the case that irregular strategy is a viable option for small states he employs a case study method, looking at six irregular strategy wars. The research is thorough and detailed, with the structure of the book suiting the argument well by providing an overview of the terms and concepts as a point of departure and then entering into the case studies by focusing on the overview of the war, and subsequent details of the irregular strategy, the organization and leadership of the irregular force, the internal workings of the force and the external influences of terrain and international support. Fabian chose to focus on the American Revolutionary War 1776-1783, the 2nd Boer War 1899-1902, the War in German East Africa 1914-1918, the Yugoslav Partisans 1941-1945, the First Russo-Chechen War 1994-1996 and the Second Lebanese War 2006.

In each case-study, the author conducts analysis of the irregular strategy employed, the organization & leadership, the internal factors and then the driving factors that provide valuable insight. Fabian drives the reader to the conclusion that it is possible for a small state to employ irregular warfare as a homeland defense strategy by highlighting necessary components that would make it successful, referencing five examples where it worked and one where it did not. Small state defense through irregular strategy is feasible, but given his examples, does not appear to be possible without key advantages that are not universal. Fabian’s analysis attempts to codify the key components for a small state to execute a successful irregular strategy which include: 1) the necessity of a firm and unified political will among the small country’s leaders in favor of an irregular defense strategy and professional irregular defense force, 2) willing leaders from the highest to lowest levels who understand and accept the necessary changes in the existing conventional force structure training system and military culture as a whole, 3) rough natural physical terrain and severe weather conditions that play crucial factors in waging irregular warfare because they degrade conventional military advantages, 4) high level of importance placed on self-reliance and self-sustainment and 5) the importance of knowing the enemy as much as possible while protecting the irregular force’s own information from discovery. Absent, however, is a discussion of what role, if any, great power support could play in implementing an irregular warfare strategy and how the small states objectives could be nested with a great power’s objectives.

What can be drawn from the case studies is that the concept of irregular strategy is comprised of multiple ingredients that are working against a conventional mindset. This poses a problem for small states that want to engage in irregular strategy and reorganize their forces to that end, while operating in a globalized world. They would be an outlier in the international community and be a confusing military partner to engage with. However, that fact does not discount that the irregular strategy may indeed be best suited for a nation that wants to be isolationist. Another key point to identify is that throughout all the case studies there was incredible leadership exhibited by those in charge of irregular forces, which was grown out of conventional warfare training. The notable exception being Hezbollah, where conventional warfare training was not prevalent, however they nonetheless learned their first lessons by attempting to wage conventional warfare against Israel during the First Lebanese War. This leads this reader to believe that it would be more prudent to raise a conventional army, simultaneously with an irregular warfare element than to exclusively raise an irregular army for all purposes.

Fabian provides a final analysis chapter where he emphasizes his main argument that small states cannot effectively rely solely on deterrence as their main strategy and must consider transforming their militaries into irregular warfare experts. The book is well researched, citing over 100 references properly in the Turabian format. Unfortunately, throughout the book there are minor grammatical errors that detract from the argument being presented. His concept of irregular warfare for a small state is intriguing and needs to be unpacked further to account for the institutional biases and constraints that would arise from actually implementing this concept. Unconventional, irregular tactics have successful precedents throughout history, but are not necessarily considered a definite strategy for an established small state.

About the Author

Vincent A. Dueñas
Vincent A. Dueñas is a Master of International Public Policy candidate and Strategic Studies concentrator at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He is also an Active Duty Army Major with deployments to Afghanistan. The views reflected are his own and do not represent the opinion of the United States Government or any of its agencies.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.universityherald.com/art...bilities-threatened-chinas-anti-satellite.htm

Dec 15, 2016 12:50 PM EST
By Eva M. Fernandez, UniversityHerald Reporter

Mike Rogers Calls for Space Reorganization; U.S. Space Capabilities Threatened by China's Anti-Satellite Missile

Alabama Republican and US House Strategic Forces Subcommittee Chairman Mike Rogers agrees with Captain Kirk that space is indeed the final frontier. He is now planning to initiate a major reorganization on how the US government manages its space operations. The changes may lead to disruptive outcomes, but ultimately beneficial to the country.

Space reorganization on US government management's

According to Rogers, the reorganization is going to be very disruptive, especially that a lot of people don't like change, Defense News reported. They will pour in substantial effort on these improvements, which is why they are taking their time, he said. Rogers, along with Tennessee Democrat Rep. Jim Cooper has been discussing a 2015 report made by the Government Accountability Office that suggests creating corrections on space capabilities.

According to Rogers, they may come up with an executive action with the Donald Trump administration to initiate the needed reorganization. If not, the changes could be done through the National Defense Authorization Act, which will be held next year. This is the annual defense policy bill of the House Armed Services Committee.

One of the major reasons why Rogers came up with the idea to reorganize America's space capabilities are his frustration over the reports from GAO stating that it takes up to eight years for the country to launch space projects.

Threat of China Anti-Satellite Missile

While America plans to reorganize their space capabilities, China is reportedly planning a test flight on its new anti-satellite missile called the Dong Neng-3, Free Beacon reported.

According to China military affairs specialist and International Assessment and Strategy Center senior fellow, Richard Fisher, the anti-satellite missile can reach up to over 18,000 miles into space. It means the Dong Neng-3 has the capability to hit US surveillance satellites. It seems like this is the only asymmetric warfare weapon powerful enough to stop the progress that Rogers is planning for.

Video
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...dventurism_in_the_south_china_sea_110504.html

Countering China’s Adventurism in the South China Sea

By Ross Babbage
December 16, 2016

Strategy Options for the Trump Administration

What should the U.S. and its close allies do about China’s strategic expansion into the South China Sea?

Beijing now has overwhelming military, coast guard and maritime militia forces in this theatre and it has seized numerous reefs and dredged up new islands in operations that that the U.N.’s Permanent Court of Arbitration has determined are illegal. Major military installations are being built in several locations. Three of these new islands, towards the middle of the South China Sea, will soon be capable of housing regiments of fighter-bomber aircraft and also of supporting sustained operations of significant numbers of ships. The rapidly changing strategic balance in Southeast Asia and the Western allies’ flat-footed response is encouraging several regional states to re-evaluate their long-standing security relationships.

This report argues that it is time for the U.S. and its close allies to clarify their goals in this theatre and develop a coherent strategy to counter China’s expansionist operations. It describes a surprisingly broad range of strategy and operational options that are potentially available for the Trump administration to pressure Beijing to moderate its behaviour, retrace some of its steps and deter the Chinese leadership from embarking on new, potentially more dangerous adventures.

DOWNLOAD PDF
Download full “Countering China’s Adventurism in the South China Sea: Strategy Options for the Trump Administration” report.

READ FULL PUBLICATION
Read the full publication “Countering China’s Adventurism in the South China Sea: Strategy Options for the Trump Administration” report using our online e-reader tool.

This appeared originally at Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/dead-drop/dead-drop-december-16

Dead Drop: December 16

DECEMBER 16, 2016| ANONYMOUS

WAIT, WHAT? It comes as no surprise that President-elect Trump is declaring war – but it is a bit startling that the target is the CIA. In case you have been off the grid for a while – we’ll simply summarize that the CIA reportedly thinks that the Russian government hacked DNC computers and did other things with the intent of helping Trump get elected. And Trump is offended by that suggestion. He lashed out saying that this is a “ridiculous” claim brought to you by the same wonderful people who told you Saddam had WMD. Meanwhile the DNI is not entirely sure about what the Russians’ motivation was – but is not disputing the fact they were hacking around.

The flap has resulted in mass derangement on all sides of the question. Here are just a few examples of some wacky stuff:

According to some accounts, Trump supporter (and Deputy Secretary of State possibility) John Bolton says the Russian hack could be a “false flag operation” by the Obama administration. (Note: Bolton subsequently said he didn’t mean what he appeared to have said.)
Former CIA operative Bob Baer told CNN Sunday, regarding the Russian meddling allegation, “If the evidence is there, I don’t see any other way than to vote again.” Huh? We missed the “do-over” provision in the Constitution.
Julian Assange of WikiLeaks and Russian house organs like Sputnik News and RT (Russia Today) appear in full support of Donald Trump.
Antiwar.com says: “The CIA is up to its old tricks: overthrowing a democratically elected government. Only this time it’s our government.” Wait. Antiwar.com is in the Trump camp?
Democrats in Congress (like fierce Agency critic Sen. Ron Wyden) are saying that it is terrible anyone challenges the credibility of the CIA.
The Dead Drop assesses with high confidence that this is not the last food fight between Trump and a major agency that is (or soon will be) working for him.

NEVER IS HEARD A DISCOURAGING WORD: In an unsigned shot across the CIA’s bow, Trump transition folks dissed the CIA’s views on election tampering by saying, “These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.” While it is true that CIA (and every other intelligence service on the planet) got that call wrong, it is worthwhile remembering that the Intelligence Community was cheered on in that assessment by the Bush Administration, including John Bolton, rumored Trump pick for Deputy Secretary of State. But the CIA “are the same people” who also fought against efforts from the White House to assert non-existent connections between Saddam and 9/11. “All administrations want to hear what they want to hear,” one CIA alumni told us. “The Trump team has made it clear there are some judgments they are unwilling to consider.”

WALK-IN TO RICHES: Before the news broke earlier this week that according to NBC, U.S. intelligence officials now believe with "a high level of confidence" that Vladimir Putin was personally involved in interfering with the U.S. election – a well-placed former CIA official speculated on how a smoking gun might be found. If the U.S. government is going to find out the details of the Russian election hacking, it’s probably going to come from a walk-in, not from a recruited spy or other aggressive collection efforts, a CIA veteran tells The Cipher Brief. There are probably people doing the cyber work for the Russians, wrestling with their conscience right now and “beginning to be tormented a little bit” because he or she knows that someone in Langley will pay a lot of money for information on what really happened. According to this former senior CIA officer who managed Soviet affairs, during the Cold War the most valuable Soviet assets were volunteers. In this case, he said “It’ll be a volunteer. That is, unless there already is one.”

NAME GAME: This flap over Russian meddling has been going on long enough – it needs its own name. HACKER-GATE? MOSCOW DECIDES WHO RULES? VLAD VOTES? Send us your suggestions.

CHECK YOUR BRIEFS: In an interview on Fox News Sunday, the President-elect reacted to criticism that he seems to be turning the “President’s Daily Brief” into the “President’s Weekly Brief.” Trump told Chris Wallace: “First of all, these are very good people that are giving me the briefings. If something should change from this point, immediately call me. I’m available on one minute's notice. I don't have to be told – you know, I’m like a smart person. I don't have to be told the same thing and the same words every single day for the next eight years. It could be eight years – but eight years. I don't need that.”

(Eight years? Has Putin told him the outcome of the 2020 election already?)

Skipping over the question of how the President-elect knows the briefings contain the same thing every day, if he only takes them once a week, The Dead Drop’s sources raise a couple points. First, the briefings now available to Trump are crafted to the liking of Barack Obama, who (rumor has it) remains president until noon on January 20. After that, if Trump wants a change in style or content, as the prime customer, he can order it up. Secondly, the briefings are said to be opportunities for the principal and senior intelligence officials to engage in a dialog about what the articles mean, and what additional intelligence is needed. And finally, Trump is missing the opportunity to score some points in his response. The tradition of a president receiving an in-person daily briefing is a relatively new one. Despite the fact that Trump previously trashed Obama for not paying enough attention to the briefings – he might find it useful to take note that as recently as the Clinton administration – the president reportedly got most of his briefings in writing and generally skipped the one-on-one fireside chat with his briefer.

POCKET LITTER: Bits and pieces of interesting stuff we found lying around

Where do novelists come up with this crazy stuff? Former CIA case officer and accomplished novelist Jason Matthews has a book coming out next August called, “The Kremlin’s Candidate” about Russian President Putin messing around in U.S. presidential politics.

Michelob, Marlboros, and Mad Dog Mattis: Psychologist and former CIA enhanced interrogation maven James Mitchell respectfully disagreed with Defense Secretary-designate James Mattis on whether terrorists can be cajoled into giving up critical secrets with just a beer and some cigarettes. In an OPED in the WSJ, Mitchell suggests that if Mattis had been captured by our enemies, he would not have caved easily – and so it is folly to think that people like alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would do so either.

IS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TAKEN? In addition to meeting with Kanye West on Tuesday, President-elect Trump also met with former Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis. No word on what position Lewis might play in the new administration.

USS The Deplorables? Some folks are mounting a petition drive to urge the White House to name the next major U.S. Navy ship the “USS The Deplorables.”
Outgoing Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has been criticized by some for politicizing ship monikers – so maybe this suggestion is fair game. We imagine Navy ball caps with the name emblazoned on it would sell quite briskly.

UNKIND CUTS: Joe Scarborough warned the President-elect not to mess with the CIA. “The CIA can cut the new administration to shreds every week with selective leaks, and they will if this relationship is not cleaned up. And to have somebody as your national security advisor, who is accusing the C.I.A., who I said yesterday, is the organization that is on the tip of the spear in the fight against terrorism every day, accuse them of lying. It’s just, it’s mind boggling.”

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BELIEVE THIS! OK, maybe you will. CIA alumni Phil Houston has an article in Mediaite giving five ways to detect fake news. He says watch out for: crazy claims, incredulous introductions, audacious repetition, hyper hyperbole, and a void of validation.

NO COMMENT NO MORE: The CIA is now allowing public comments on its Facebook page. Well, sort of. The Agency posted a 400+ word-long set of instructions for anyone who would like to comments on stuff there. The most common words in the instructions are “do not” – e.g. “Do not post advertisements, prize contests or giveaways,” and “Do not post graphic, obscene, sexually explicit or racially offensive comments or content.” The incoming comments are moderated – meaning there is some poor bureaucrat who we suspect is going to get a lot of exercise hitting the “delete” key.

NETWORK NEWS: Not a day goes by when members of The Cipher Brief Network aren’t making news. Here are just a few examples from this week:

General Michael Hayden was just about everywhere reacting to the President-elect dissing the CIA, including of course, on The Cipher Brief. In an interview on NPR, he called Trump’s comments “uncharted territory.”

And John McLaughlin was dealing with the same issue on The Cipher Brief, as well as on MSNBC.

Retired Admiral James Stavridis told Morning Joe that President Obama may look back “in deep sorry and some shame” over the lack of action to deal with Syria.

Former head of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, spoke with NPR regarding the challenges that his successor, retired General John Kelly, will face at DHS.

SECURITY QUOTE OF THE WEEK:

“It is an attack on our very democracy. It’s an attack on who we are as a people. A foreign government messing around in our elections is, I think, an existential threat to our way of life. To me, and this is to me not an overstatement, this is the political equivalent of 9/11. It is huge and the fact that it hasn’t gotten more attention from the Obama Administration, Congress, and the mainstream media, is just shocking to me.”

-Michael Morell, former Acting Director and former Deputy Director of the CIA

IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING: Got any tips for your friendly neighborhood Dead Drop? Shoot us a note at TheDeadDrop@theCipherBrief.com.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.realcleardefense.com/art...an_to_divide_and_conquer_the_west_110493.html

Russia's Plan to Divide and Conquer the West

By Stratfor
December 15, 2016

Forecast
After more than two years of Western sanctions, Moscow will seek to deepen the divides among its Western opponents in 2017.

In the face of uncertainty surrounding the West's unity against Russian assertiveness, states in Russia's borderlands will come together to counter Moscow's influence.

Even if the United States and European heavyweights put pressure on the Kremlin in some areas, the standoff between Russia and the West will endure.

Analysis
Shifting political winds and growing discord among Western powers that, so far, have stood shoulder-to-shoulder against Russia have created an opening for Moscow as it seeks to bring an end to its two-year standoff with the West. Following the 2014 revolution in Ukraine, Russia's intervention in the country’s east and its annexation of Crimea drew a series of economic sanctions from the United States and the European Union that are still in force. Today, both Russia and NATO members are building up their forces along Russia's western borderlands, and relations between Moscow and many Western powers are at a post-Cold War low. Though Russia is interested in easing tensions with the West, it will not trade away its strategic position in the region by relieving pressure on Ukraine or other countries along its border to do so.

For now, the West has stayed fairly united in its attempts to contain Russian actions through sanctions and negotiations over the Ukrainian conflict. In turn, Russia has tried to use its leverage in other theaters, including the Syrian civil war, to barter for better terms in its talks on Ukraine and its borderlands. But this strategy has had its drawbacks, and in recent months, the United States and European Union have discussed expanding sanctions against Russia for its activities in Syria.

russia-western-opportunities-121216%20%281%29.png

https://www.stratfor.com/sites/defa...rn-opportunities-121216 (1).png?itok=u7MMOhZ3

Still, recent events have given Moscow hope for a break in its impasse with the West. In Donald Trump's election as the next U.S. president, Moscow perceives an administration that will be more sympathetic to its interests. During his campaign, Trump promised to improve ties with Russia and suggested that the United States may not help NATO allies that fail to meet the alliance's defense spending targets. Trump also indicated that he would seek more protectionist economic measures and renegotiate trade pacts — pledges that worry many of Washington's European partners. While these comments may have been merely campaign rhetoric, Moscow has not missed the chance to begin building relationships with members of the incoming administration. In the media, Russia has characterized the election results as an opportunity for better ties with the United States.

European Divides Deepen
There are limits to how quickly or to what extent Washington and Moscow can redefine their tense relationship, and they will probably remain at odds in 2017. But uncertainty over the direction of their relationship is sowing seeds of doubt among Washington’s allies, which Moscow will try to capitalize on. Europe’s uneasiness over the changing of the guard in the United States comes as the Continent finds itself increasingly divided on a number of issues. Nationalist and populist parties are gaining ground in several core EU countries. On the heels of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the bloc, France’s National Front and Italy’s Five Star Movement have vowed to hold referendums on their eurozone memberships, should they win power. Even more moderate parties in these countries are promising to pursue more protectionist measures. With national elections scheduled in France, Germany, the Netherlands and possibly Italy next year, Europe's continued solidarity is not a given.

Wide-ranging media campaigns directed by Moscow have fueled Europe's questions about its future and Washington's continued support. Russia has also provided financial and political aid (both overt and covert) to some of the more divisive political forces on the Continent, including National Front leader Marine Le Pen and Italy's anti-establishment Five-Star Movement and Northern League. EU members such as Austria, Hungary, Bulgaria and Italy have spoken out against persistently poor relations with Russia, but none have been willing to block decisions to extend Russian sanctions, which must be made unanimously. In the past, the United States has pressured those countries to vote in favor of keeping the sanctions in place. The European Union is likely to renew the punitive measures heading into 2017, but as the year progresses, the issue will come up again. If U.S. pressure abates and Continental fissures deepen, the outcome of that vote could be different.

Filling the Vacuum
Should sanctions against Russia be lifted, the more vulnerable states on its borderlands will turn to other powers or alliances to guard against Moscow's potential aggression. Germany is the most obvious Western heavyweight that could maintain pressure on Russia. Traditionally, Berlin’s stance toward Russia has been more moderate in comparison to those held by the United States and the more Russophobic European states. But as Europe’s most influential power, Germany cannot afford to let Russia expand its influence into borderland states — many of which are now part of the European Union. Germany and France have led negotiations with Russia over Ukraine via the so-called Normandy format, though the United States has also held its own track of talks on the conflict with Moscow. Berlin has refused to compromise with the Kremlin over Ukraine or sanctions without Russia making substantial progress on meeting the Minsk accords, the plan to end fighting in eastern Ukraine.

Germany is also increasingly concerned with what it sees as Russian meddling in EU politics and its growing influence over member states' media — including its own. Over the summer, Germany reportedly shifted its definition of Russia in its strategic strategy "white book" document from "partner" to "rival." The white book also reportedly accused Russia of openly undermining European stability. In the past year, German intelligence agencies have stepped up their efforts to counter Russian propaganda and computer espionage programs as well.

But Germany's ability to take a more aggressive approach to countering Russian influence is limited. German politicians are divided over Russian policy: Even some members of the ruling coalition have pushed for better relations with Moscow. With general elections set for 2017, German Chancellor Angela Merkel will be reluctant to deepen that divide or trigger a hostile response from Russia. Though Germany will have its hands full in trying to prevent the European Union's various fractures from splitting the bloc altogether, Berlin will also be seeking to boost cooperation within the bloc as a response to global uncertainty.

Spotlight on Poland
As Western unity weakens, Poland will be the most likely candidate to lead the charge against Russia's spreading influence. Poland, the weightiest of the borderland states, has enjoyed the backing of NATO and the United States in its anti-Russian attitude. In recent years, Poland has become less enamored with European integration and has echoed the United Kingdom's push to repatriate powers from central institutions in Brussels to Europe's national parliaments. Warsaw will grow more combative within the bloc as it continues to crumble.

But Poland cannot wage its war against Russia's clout alone. In the past, Warsaw has attempted to strengthen its regional alliances as a member of various organizations, such as the Visegrad Group, which also includes Slovakia, Hungary and Czech Republic. However, militarization and coordination among Visegrad members have stagnated, and Warsaw fears that flirting between Moscow and Slovakia and Hungary could undermine the alliance. In the future, Warsaw is likely to press for coordination among countries in its neighborhood that hold similar foreign policy orientations, such as Sweden, the Baltic states, Romania, Czech Republic and Ukraine. Poland has already served as a critical spoiler to Russian aggression in the region through its financial and military support for the Western-oriented government in Ukraine, as well as a part of a regional interconnector system aimed at diversifying natural gas supplies away from sources in Russia, which has used them as a political weapon.

Greater cooperation could include political support, intelligence sharing, anti-Russia media campaigns, energy links and joint military exercises, both within and outside of the auspices of NATO. The United Kingdom has been a vocal supporter of Poland’s stance against Russia. During a historic summit on Nov. 28 between British Prime Minister Theresa May and her Polish counterpart, Beata Szydlo, London confirmed that it would expand its military support for Poland next year. The British military will send 150 troops to Poland in April to reinforce NATO’s eastern flank against Russia.

But there are limits to Poland's influence. Its political heft cannot compare to that of EU giants like France, Italy and Germany that are less hostile to Russia. Warsaw cannot rally bloc-wide initiatives or sway foreign policies, as can Paris and Berlin. Moreover, plans for future military buildups through NATO could be curtailed, should relations between Russia and the United States thaw. Though a more consolidated Polish-led regional effort among many borderland states to counter Russia is likely to coalesce in 2017, Warsaw’s efforts will only widen the divides within Europe, ultimately benefitting Moscow. Russia is not under the illusion that its ties with the West will warm again, but the lack of a united front against it will help Moscow regain its footing after more than two years under extraordinary Western pressure.

This article appeared originally at Stratfor.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/strategist-six-patrick-m-cronin/

The Strategist Six: Patrick M. Cronin

15 Dec 2016|The Editors

Welcome to The Strategist Six, a feature that provides a glimpse into the thinking of prominent academics, government officials, military officers, reporters and interesting individuals from around the world.

1) Now that China is overtly throwing its weight around, is it fair to say that Washington missed its window to negotiate meaningful compromise or concessions with Beijing?

China has been throwing its weight around for many centuries and will continue to do so in the future, especially if its leaders believe they can flout rules with impunity. Officials in Beijing naturally like to exploit opportunities, and in the past decade those opportunities have included the Global Financial Crisis, the incomplete and overly uni-dimensional US pivot to Asia, and the lack of unity among China’s neighbours.

No doubt opportunities were missed by many parties. But given enduring conflicts of interests and sharply divergent domestic politics, Washington and Beijing have managed well enough. A broad array of issues, from North Korea and cyber space to maritime tensions and climate change, have witnessed varying degrees of cooperation.

To suggest that Washington “missed” a window of opportunity exaggerates the potential for some type of unifying grand bargain. President-elect Trump has called for China to abide by the rules in order to achieve a real win-win and new-type-of-major-power relationship. That won’t be at the expense of allies and partners, but it will enhance America’s negotiating leverage as well as better protect US security and prosperity than recent policy has been able to.

2) Chinese President Xi Jinping has sought to consolidate his personal authority and tighten his grip on the CCP. To what extent does this reflect power or fragility?

It reflects both. Our liberal internationalist mindsets would like to persuade us that Xi is garnering titles out of desperation and weakness or, at best, to gain sufficient purchase to effect more significant reforms. While that may be true to a point, I suspect it’s equally likely that the CCP believes the best way to preserve single-party rule is to keep ahead of the democratic wave brought about by economic development, globalisation and information-based technologies. We will be watching Xi’s appointments over the coming year to see who’s tapped as the next head of the PLA Navy, Commerce/Finance Ministries, State Councillor, and as mayors of major cities such as Beijing and Shanghai. President Xi isn’t omnipotent but his appetite for control appears unrestrained.

China’s approach to maritime and territorial sovereignty is matched by its desire to impose authoritarian rules in the media and on the Internet. China is happy to engage in international relations from an advantageous position. From the use of state-owned enterprises to compete with private companies, to a reliance on the Great Firewall of China, to the leveraging of unregulated economic inducement and information warfare, Beijing seeks to control the terms of engagement and the rhythm of negotiation.

3) To what extent has President Obama’s Asia Policy been a success?

I think it would be fair to say the outgoing administration has enjoyed no better than mixed results. I do think the Obama administration crafted an important strategic blueprint for protecting long-term US interests by seeking to reduce the burdens of fighting two protracted insurgencies and harvesting the benefits of the world’s most dynamic region straddling the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The administration also deserves credit for stepping up diplomatic engagement across the Indo–Pacific region, including with Southeast Asia and India.

However, the administration’s policy faltered with respect to implementation. Although intended to be multi-faceted and comprehensive, the rebalance wound up appearing too militaristic in orientation because of the ultimate failure to deliver on economic prosperity. If you want to speak about missed opportunities, it’s much less to do with US–China relations than with early completion of a fairer variant of the Trans-Pacific Partnership accord. Americans should hope that President-elect Trump can find a way to fashion fairer trade agreements with this fast-moving region of opportunity. America’s long-term security and prosperity depend on it.

4) What will become of Obama’s rebalance to the region under President Trump?

President Trump will seek a better deal for the United States, and especially for those many millions of Americans who have felt left behind by the impersonal forces of globalisation and a distant Washington-based policy elite. He’s likely to seek cooperation from strength, to try to establish new understandings among major powers, and to tilt from a largely geostrategic to a more geoeconomic approach to regional and international relations. A geoeconomic approach, something I have written about recently in a CNAS report (PDF), will call for establishing fairer trade deals, a new division of labour and more distributed burden-sharing with allies and partners, and a focus on recapitalising US infrastructure and strengthening our workers and families. A Trump administration’s security policy is likely to be focused on defeating or dealing with threats and adversaries, especially terrorist organisations and rogue-state proliferators such as North Korea. Within all of these goals there’s ample scope to continue a longstanding, bipartisan push for gradually increased strategic engagement with the Indo–Pacific region. Look for President Trump to fully leverage unpredictability to America’s advantage. In short, in some meaningful ways the United States under President Trump may more closely mirror the nationalist, economically-oriented approaches of most Asia–Pacific countries.

5) Should Australia be participating in Freedom of Navigation operations in the South China Sea?

There is ample opportunity for Australia, Japan and other countries to step up their contributions to the provision of regional security, including in the South China Sea. Periodic maritime patrols to reinforce international freedom of the seas are an appropriate and helpful measure to counter the arbitrary use of coercion and force by any power.

President-elect Trump’s recent intervention on the ‘One China’ issue no doubt raises more questions than answers about the era we’re entering, and Taiwan is likely to be in the headlines for some time. However, it’s worth noting that China was increasing pressure on Taiwan before Trump took a phone call from Tsai Ing-wen. The 25 November encirclement of Taiwan by a PLA Air Force bomber, two fighters and a surveillance plane is a harbinger of Beijing’s bid for air and sea control over adjacent seas and beyond. Beijing’s investment in the Philippines in order to obstruct increased US military access further widens the open running room Chinese air and maritime forces want through the Bashi Channel. Building reinforced runways on three artificial islands in the Spratlys is yet another step toward holding Southeast Asia to China’s rules. Thus, notwithstanding their vulnerability to missile attack, de facto air bases in the Spratly Islands put into jeopardy the sovereignty of neighbours and international rule set, including the July judgment issued by the arbitral tribunal.

As important as the security situation is, the incoming Trump administration needs to adopt a more geoeconomic strategy for the region. President-elect Trump is seeking leverage with China to negotiate fairer trade and better security cooperation. Equally important, however, is the need to strengthen economic ties between Australia and the United States, all the more so in the wake of shelving the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

6) What is the biggest threat to security in the region?

Although maritime Asia remains competitive, the most acute security problem in the region remains North Korea. Maintaining deterrence on the Korean Peninsula while fashioning a more comprehensive approach to managing North Korea’s imminent deployment of nuclear-tipped missiles is an urgent problem. The impeachment of Park Geun-hye has thrown the Korean Peninsula into further confusion. Kim Jong-un, perceiving weakness and transition in South Korea and the United States, may well miscalculate with a new provocation designed to win new concessions that instead escalates into conflict.

The Trump administration needs to reinforce deterrence through clear declaratory policy, visible force deployments and crisis management preparation. Beyond this, it will need to seek an immediate root-and-branch review of Washington’s strategy that uses economic, information, diplomatic, and military instruments of policy to send one message to Pyongyang: you may be able to advance nuclear and missile programs, but you won’t be allowed to have your cake and eat it, too. The United States, South Korea and others will ensure that you are contained and penalised heavily unless you forego your quest for nuclear-weapon-state status.

President-elect Trump knows the cold war with North Korea is likely to continue. There’s no clear path to peaceful unification and previous attempts at détente have faltered. A cold war may not be an ideal end state, but for the moment it’s preferable to a hot war.

AUTHOR
Patrick M. Cronin is a Senior Advisor and Senior Director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). Previously, he was the Senior Director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) at the National Defense University, where he simultaneously oversaw the Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs. Image republished with kind permission.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38343124

German-Iraqi boy, 12, 'tried to bomb Christmas market'

2 hours ago
From the section Europe

A 12-year-old German-Iraqi boy tried to blow up a Christmas market in the town of Ludwigshafen, prosecutors say.

He left a rucksack with explosives which failed to detonate in November, and put another explosive device by the town hall a few days later, they say.

But a member of the public alerted the police, and no-one was injured.

The 12 year old - who is now in custody - is thought have been recently radicalised and to have links with the so-called Islamic State group.

Focus magazine cited security and judicial sources as saying the boy was "strongly radicalised" and apparently instructed by an unknown IS member.

The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office declined to comment on a possible IS link, but confirmed officials were investigating the case.

Germany attacks: What is going on?
IS 'to step up attacks on Europe'
Plea over migrants after German murder

Public Prosecutor Hubert Stroeber said the boy left a backpack containing a home-made nail bomb at the Christmas market in Ludwigshafen, in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, on 26 November, but the device did not go off because the detonator apparently failed.

The second device near the city's town hall, placed on 5 December, was discovered by an "informant" and specialists defused it, Mr Stroeber said.

The boy was born in Ludwigshafen to Iraqi parents in 2004.

Prosecutors said no formal proceedings would be launched against him, because he is below the age of criminal responsibility.

Last Thursday, German police arrested two teenagers aged 15 and 17, accused of plotting a terror attack on a public institution in Aschaffenburg, in north-western Bavaria. Police found Islamic State flags and propaganda material in their homes.

Germany suffered a spate of attacks in the south of the country over the summer.

Ten people were killed and dozens more injured in separate gun, bomb, axe and machete attacks.

The authorities say they were not linked, and one of them was not terror-related.
But the wave of violence has made a nation already on edge after a huge influx of refugees even more nervous.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
China steals US underwater drone.
Started by Lurker‎, Today 08:25 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?508030-China-steals-US-underwater-drone.


For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-15/china-should-retake-taiwan-force-state-media-urges

China Should Retake Taiwan By Force, State Media Urges

by Tyler Durden
Dec 15, 2016 6:35 PM
Comments 82

China issued its loudest semi-official response to Trump's suggestion that he will use the "One China" policy as a bargainining chip.

The first, and more official one, came from China's ambassador to the United States who said on Wednesday that Beijing would never bargain with Washington over issues involving its national sovereignty or territorial integrity. Ambassador Cui Tiankai, speaking to executives of top U.S. companies, said China and the United States needed to work to strengthen their relationship. "The political foundation of China-U.S. relations should not be undermined. It should be preserved," Cui said. "And basic norms of international relations should be observed, not ignored, certainly not be seen as something you can trade off," he said. "And indeed, national sovereignty and territorial integrity are not bargaining chips. Absolutely not. I hope everybody would understand that."

While he did not specifically mention Taiwan, or Trump's comments last weekend that the United States did not necessarily have to stick to its nearly four-decade policy of recognizing that Taiwan is part of "one China", it was heard loud and clear.

The second, and more worrisome warning, came from China's influential state-run tabloid, one which Beijing tends to use for populist "trial balloon" purposes, the Global Times according to which China should take the lead in deciding the island's future. In the op-ed, the authors say “it might be time for the Chinese mainland to reformulate its Taiwan policy” and that Beijing should plan to take Taiwan by force and make swift preparations for a military incursion. The article urged China to rebalance its stance towards Taiwan to "make the use of force as a main option" and carefully prepare for possible moves toward independence.

It cautioned that the chance of peaceful unification “will only slip away” if the mainland doesn’t increase pressure and that "the military status quo across the Taiwan Straits needs to be reshaped" to punish the current Taiwanese administration’s "destruction of the political status quo in cross-Straits ties."

The belligerent tone continued, urging that “once Taiwan independence forces violate the Anti-Secession Law, the Chinese mainland can in no time punish them militarily”

It warned that “the tacit understanding and hidden rules made between China and the U.S. over the Taiwan Straits can hardly be respected for long.”

Chinese officials have already used less drastic “punishments”, such as limiting the number of mainland tourists to Taiwan and hinting at curtailing investments.

As the Guardian adds, the threat of military action has loomed over Taiwan’s population since the 1950s. In the most dramatic confrontation, China fired missiles into the waters separating it from Taiwan in the run-up to the first free elections in 1996. In response, the US sailed an aircraft carrier through the strait in a show of solidarity.

In the Global Times op-ed, the authors warn that "if the Chinese mainland won't pile on more pressure over realizing reunification by using force, the chance of peaceful unification will only slip away. Independent forces on the island publicly believe that time is on their side, because Taiwan people's recognition of their Chinese identity is gradually decreasing and against such a backdrop, they can turn the tables with the help of international forces."

It concludes as belligerently as it began: "The future of Taiwan must not be shaped by the DPP and Washington, but by the Chinese mainland. It is hoped that peace in the Taiwan Straits won't be disrupted. But the Chinese mainland should display its resolution to recover Taiwan by force. Peace does not belong to cowards."

The problem is that Donald Trump most likely agrees with the final statement, which is why what until now has been only a war of words for decades, may soon heat up substanitally.
 

Housecarl

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

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://english.almanar.com.lb/136860

US Report: Saudi Army Paper Tiger

4 hours ago December 16, 2016

An American expert described the Saudi army, which is considered the best equipped military in the world, as a paper tiger that disappointed its weapon suppliers, including mainly the United States.

Simon Henderson, a director of the Gulf and Energy Policy Program at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, mentioned an assessment for the performance of the Saudi army.

“The performance of the Saudi air force has been very weak, and the Saudi ground forces have failed to protect the Kingdom’s southern border.”

The report mentioned that on December 13, U.S. officials announced that the sale of about 16,000 guided munition kits to Saudi Arabia would be blocked due to concerns that the kingdom’s poorly targeted airstrikes were causing too many civilian casualties in Yemen.

“This apparently counterintuitive measure — such kits enable bombs to hit targets more accurately — follows a freeze on cluster bomb sales earlier this year, as well as warnings to Riyadh that U.S. aid is not a blank check.”

“The Obama administration’s frustration with its limited options for ending the intractable conflict was reflected in the media’s contradictory reporting of the development: the Washington Post headline read, ‘With Small Changes, U.S. Maintains Military Aid to Saudi Arabia Despite Rebukes Over Yemen Carnage,’ while the New York Times declared ‘U.S. Blocks Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia Amid Concerns Over Yemen War.'”
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Reuters: U.S.-led strikes destroy tanks, air defenses near Syria's Palmyra
Started by Possible Impact‎, Today 08:14 AM
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...stroy-tanks-air-defenses-near-Syria-s-Palmyra


-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.lawfareblog.com/todays-headlines-and-commentary-1210

Today's Headlines and Commentary

By Quinta Jurecic Friday, December 16, 2016, 11:48 AM

In an NPR interview, President Obama promised that the United States will “take action … at a time and place of our own choosing” in response to Russian attempts to influence the presidential election through systematic hacking and leaking of Democratic Party information. “Some of it may be explicit and publicized,” he said, “some of it may not be.” In response, the Kremlin’s spokesman announced that the U.S. government should either “stop talking about [the cyberattack] or finally produce some evidence.” The New York Times has more.

How would deterrence work? The Times reviews the difficulties faced by the administration in calibrating an appropriate response to the cyberattacks. Russia’s use of freelance private hackers to carry out government-sponsored operations has further complicated the usual diplomatic calculus.

NBC reports that the Obama administration decided against publicly responding earlier to Russian meddling both out of concern that any action taken before the election would be perceived as partisan and the belief that Hillary Clinton was likely to win the presidency. President-elect Donald Trump recently took to Twitter to ask why the White House “only complain[ed] [about the hacking and leaking] after Hillary lost,” though the administration warned the Kremlin not to target election systems a week prior to the election and President Obama spoke with Russian President Vladimir Putin on the issue at the G20 summit in September.

Russian attacks on the Republican National Committee’s computer systems were “less aggressive and much less persistent” than efforts to hack the Democratic National Committee, The Wall Street Journal writes. Though hackers used the same techniques on the RNC that they did on the DNC, the attempts were lackluster in comparison and eventually failed.

Evacuations in Aleppo have ground to a halt after over 8,000 people were ferried out of the city’s rebel-held east. Once again, the breakdown of the evacuation deal may focus on a dispute over Iranian insistence that pro-government fighters be evacuated from two Shiite villages besieged by rebel fighters in northwest Syria: rebel sources claim that the government has halted the evacuation from Aleppo in order to force rebels to allow safe passage from the villages and cease shelling in the area. The government has accused rebels in Aleppo of smuggling weapons and firing on evacuation convoys. Meanwhile, World Health Organization volunteers in the city said they did not know why the evacuation process was being stopped. The Times and Reuters have more.

Turkey will provide shelter for evacuees from Aleppo in refugee camps within Syria and will allow wounded and sick refugees to travel to hospitals inside Turkey, Reuters writes. But the Turkish government said that it is “not realistic” for the country to accept all evacuees within Turkey itself.

At a rally yesterday in Pennsylvania, Donald Trump appeared to advocate the creation of safe zones within Syria “so that people can have a chance”, the Times reports. He stated that the United States would work with Persian Gulf nations to fund and create the safe zones. Experts have said that the proposal would commit the country to a complex military and diplomatic operation that could place the United States in conflict with the Russian forces operating in the region.

As the battle for Mosul drags on, ISIS fighters have increased their counterattacks against Iraqi forces in the city’s east. Reuters tells us that at its current pace, the battle will likely continue into next year, longer than Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi had originally suggested.

Donald Trump has selected David Friedman, a New York bankruptcy lawyer, as his ambassador to Israel, The Washington Post writes. Friedman has previously expressed hardline views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, voicing support for Israeli annexation of sections of the West Bank and calling Jewish supporters of a two-state solution “worse than kapos.” In a statement following the announcement of his appointment, Friedman appeared to back the Trump campaign’s call for moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a major diplomatic shift.

As opposition builds among congressional Republicans toward the potential appointment of Bush administration official John Bolton as deputy secretary of state, Trump may be considering Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haass in Bolton’s place, Politico writes. Haass’s realist political views and connections to establishment Republicans would be a sharp contrast to Bolton’s controversial hawkishness and bomb-throwing approach.

German police are investigating the case of a 12-year-old “radicalized” boy who twice attempted to detonate explosives in a town in western Germany last month under instruction of an unknown ISIS supporter. No charges will be brought against the boy, Reuters tells us.

China has seized a U.S. drone deployed by an oceanographic survey ship in international waters in the South China Sea. The United States has formally protested China's action and has requested the drone's return, Reuters writes. The incident will do little to calm growing concerns over increased Chinese aggression in the disputed South China Sea.

Following reports of Chinese military buildup in the disputed Spratly Islands, the Philippine government has announced its intention not to protest the construction. Under the presidency of Rodrigo Duterte, the Philippines has recently pivoted toward Beijing in an effort not to further raise tensions in the South China Sea.

Abu Wa’el Dhiab, a former Guantanamo detainee who had gone on a hunger strike to protest his resettlement to Uruguay, is now en route to be resettled in South Africa, the Miami Herald writes. The Herald also reports on yesterday’s pretrial hearing in the USS Cole case.



ICYMI: Yesterday, on Lawfare

Benjamin Wittes posted Rational Security, the “RexSec” Edition.

Jennifer Daskal considered international spillover effects of encryption in the latest Aegis Series Paper.

Zac Copeland examined the question of whether Chinese state-owned enterprises should be able to take control of companies that affect U.S. national security interests, which seems likely to come up under the Trump administration.

Federica Saini Fasanotti argued that international meetings aren’t sufficient to save Libya from chaos.

Email the Roundup Team noteworthy law and security-related articles to include, and follow us on Twitter and Facebook for additional commentary on these issues. Sign up to receive Lawfare in your inbox. Visit our Events Calendar to learn about upcoming national security events, and check out relevant job openings on our Job Board.
 
Last edited:

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rcises-ukraine-sanctions-crimea-a7478966.html

Russia to 'expand mobile nuclear missile patrols' near European borders to respond to Nato 'threats' in 2017

Commander says Russia will 'continue to develop' its armed forces and nuclear capabilities

Lizzie Dearden @lizziedearden
1 hour ago
38 comments

Russia will expand nuclear missile patrols near its borders with Europe as it develops its military to respond to increasing “threats” in 2017, senior commanders have announced.

Gen Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of General Staff and the deputy defence minister, told foreign military attaches Russia would “pay particular attention to keeping our strategic nuclear forces at a level that would ensure the containment of aggression against Russia and its allies, meeting the parameters under the treaty on strategic offensive arms”.

He said Russia would continue increasing the capacity of its aerospace defence system and push ahead with expansion in the Arctic, according to a translation by the state-owned Russia Today website.

Gen Gerasimov said the government views “expanded presence of Nato’s forces near the Russian border” as a challenge to Russian security and would “adequately respond to emerging security threats”, including others from North Korea, Afghanistan and instability in the Middle East and North Africa.

Video

Another senior commander announced that Russia is planning to expand mobile missile patrols near its borders with Europe in 2017.

Col Gen Sergei Karakaev, commander of Russia’s strategic missile forces, said pontoon technology meant portable nuclear weapons could “overcome practically any water obstacle” to move to new areas, according to a translation by the BBC.

READ MORE
Angela Merkel calls for new sanctions on Russia
Norway urges Donald Trump to announce clear policy on Russia
Russia moves missiles closer to Europe in response to Nato deployments

He claimed the missiles had a “global reach and enormous destructive power”, adding: “In the current geopolitical situation, the Strategic Nuclear Forces are the guarantor of the security of the Russian Federation and its allies, as well as the independence of its foreign and domestic policy.”

Both Russia and Nato have launched high-profile military manoeuvres near the country’s border with European nations in recent months amid high tensions over the Ukrainian war and annexation of Crimea.

Nato launched its largest military exercise in Poland since the Cold War earlier this year, while Russia deployed nuclear-capable Iskander missiles two months ago in Kaliningrad, which borders Poland and Lithuania.

Vladimir Putin said the move was necessary to combat Nato “threats”.

“We are concerned by Nato decision making,” the Russian President said.

“We have, therefore, to take countermeasures, which means to target with our missile systems the facilities that in our opinion start posing a threat to us.”

Meanwhile, the chief of Russia’s General Staff has described claims Russian military manoeuvres also pose a threat as “groundless”.

Ahead of planned talks between the two parties on Monday, Nato’s Secretary-General said “military and non-military means of aggression” were challenging the military alliance and the EU.

Jens Stoltenberg said the two blocs were increasing cooperation on cyber attacks, maritime defence and military exercises.

Hailing the upcoming Nato-Russia Council meeting, he added: “When tensions run high as today it is even more important to have a direct dialogue with Russia.”

Nato suspended cooperation with the Kremlin over the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and has published satellite images appearing to show the presence of Russian troops and weapons in eastern Ukraine.

Hacked emails seen by the BBC also appear to show Vladislav Surkov, one of Mr Putin’s closest aides, drawing up budgets for pro-Russian “republics” in eastern Ukraine, as well as a plan for Moscow to provide fuel for the separatists during shortages.

The Kremlin has repeatedly denied formenting or supporting separatist rebels, who shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane using a missile system supplied from Russia, killing all 298 people on board.

Germany and France have led efforts to implement a peace deal agreed in Minsk but there has been no end to the conflict between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian separatists, which has killed more than 10,000 people since it erupted in 2014.

EU leaders have decided to extend economic sanctions against Russia over the ongoing Ukrainian conflict until mid-2017, with some wanting a longer timespan over fears Donald Trump would ease pressure on Moscow.

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, said the extension was agreed “based on the current situation” rather than attempts to “anticipate what the new American President might do.”

It is the latest round of EU and US sanctions to be imposed on Russia over the war, targeting the defence, energy and financial sectors.
 
Top