Do the Russians have the Voting Machines Source Codes?

On February 28th, the Senate asks what NSA and Cyber Command are doing about Russian election interference. Admiral Rogers’s answer, in brief, is that his organizations lack the authorities to do much (that he can openly discuss, that is).

US senator grills CEO over the myth of the hacker-proof voting machine
Nation’s biggest voting machine maker reportedly relies on remote-access software.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Two Democratic senators on Wednesday asked major vendors of U.S. voting equipment whether they have allowed Russian entities to scrutinize their software, saying the practice could allow Moscow to hack into American elections infrastructure.

The letter from Senators Amy Klobuchar and Jeanne Shaheen followed a series of Reuters reports saying that several major global technology providers have allowed Russian authorities to hunt for vulnerabilities in software deeply embedded across the U.S. government.

The senators requested that the three largest election equipment vendors – Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems and Hart Intercivic – answer whether they have shared source code, or inner workings, or other sensitive data about their technology with any Russian entity.

They also asked whether any software on those companies’ products had been shared with Russia and for the vendors to explain what steps they have taken to improve the security of those products against cyber threats to the election.

The vendors could not immediately be reached for comment. It was not immediately clear whether any of the vendors had made sales in Russia, where votes are submitted via written ballots and usually counted by hand.

“According to voting machine testing and certification from the Election Assistance Commission, most voting machines contain software from firms which were alleged to have shared their source code with Russian entities,” the senators wrote. “We are deeply concerned that such reviews may have presented an opportunity for Russian intelligence agents looking to attack or hack the United States’ elections infrastructure.”

U.S. voters in November will go to the polls in midterm elections, which American intelligence officials have warned could be targeted by Russia or others seeking to disrupt the process.

There is intense scrutiny of the security of U.S. election systems after a 2016 presidential race in which Russia interfered, according to American intelligence agencies, to try to help Donald Trump win with presidency. Trump in the past has been publicly skeptical about Russian election meddling, and Russia has denied the allegations.

Twenty-one states experienced probing of their systems by Russian hackers during the 2016 election, according to U.S. officials.

Though a small number of networks were compromised, voting machines were not directly affected and there remains no evidence any vote was altered, according to U.S. officials and security experts.

Related reading:

Top intel official says US hasn’t deterred Russian meddling (Fifth Domain) “I believe that President (Vladimir) Putin has clearly come to the conclusion that there’s little price to pay and that therefore, ‘I can continue this activity,‘” Adm. Mike Rogers, director of both the U.S. Cyber Command and the National Security Agency, told Congress.

Senators: Cyber Command should disrupt Russian influence campaigns (Fifth Domain) Senators pressed Cyber Command on how they can use their national mission force to combat Russian cyber intrusions.

Rogers: CyberCom lacks authority, resources to defend all of cyberspace (FCW) The outgoing NSA and U.S. Cyber Command chief told lawmakers CyberCom is not sitting on its hands when it comes to potential Russian cyber interference, but it lacks the authority to do more absent additional presidential direction.

NSA: Trump’s Lukewarm Response on Russia Will Embolden Putin (Infosecurity Magazine) NSA: Trump’s Lukewarm Response on Russia Will Embolden Putin. Expect more election interference, Cyber Command boss warns

Decoding NSA director Mike Rogers’ comments on countering Russian cyberattacks (Washington Examiner) It’s not as simple as ‘I’m not authorized to do anything.’

*** Footnotes:

Electronic Systems and Software:

1. In 2014, ES&S claimed that “in the past decade alone,” it had installed more than 260,000 voting systems, more than 15,000 electronic poll books, provided services to more than 75,000 elections. The company has installed statewide voting systems in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, and West Virginia. ES&S claims a U.S. market share of more than 60 percent in customer voting system installations.

The company maintains 10 facilities in the United States, two field offices in Canada (Pickering, Ontario; and Vancouver, British Columbia) and a warehouse in Jackson, Mississippi.

2. Dominion Voting Systems is a global provider of end-to-end election tabulation solutions and services. The company’s international headquarters are in Toronto, Canada, and its U.S. headquarters are in Denver, Colorado. Dominion Voting also maintains a number of additional offices and facilities in the U.S. and Europe.

Dominion’s technology is currently used in 33 U.S. states, including more than 2,000 customer jurisdictions. The company also has 100+ municipal customers in Canada.

3. Hart InterCivic Inc. is a privately held United States company that provides elections, and print solutions to jurisdictions nationwide. While headquartered in Austin, Texas, Hart products are used by hundreds of jurisdictions nationwide, including counties in Texas, the entire states of Hawaii and Oklahoma, half of Washington and Colorado, and certain counties in Ohio, California, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Hart entered the elections industry in 1912, printing ballots for Texas counties. (Side note: As Republican and Democratic state legislators hustle to pass a law moving Georgia toward paper ballot voting technology, election integrity advocates said they’re concerned a bill that already cleared the state Senate could lead to a new vulnerability in Georgia’s next voting system, if it becomes law.

One way a new system might work is through a touchscreen computer similar to those currently used in Georgia. It would print a paper ballot with a visual representation of a voter’s choices so they themselves can check for accuracy.

In some systems, counting the votes means scanning an entire image of the ballot that may include a timestamp and precinct information.

In other systems, barcodes or QR codes on a ballot would correspond with the voter’s choices, which can make counting easier and faster for election officials, said Peter Lichtenheld, vice president of operations with Hart Intercivic, one of several election technology companies that hired lobbyists at the statehouse this year.)

*** The text of the letter to the three vendors is below:

The full text of the senators’ letter is below:

Dear Mr. Braithwaite, Mr. Burt, and Mr. Poulos:

Recent reports of U.S. IT and software companies submitting to source code reviews in order to access foreign markets have raised concern in Congress given the sensitivity of the information requested by countries like China and the Russian Federation. As such, we write to inquire about the security of the voting machines you manufacture and whether your company has been asked to share the source code or other sensitive or proprietary details associated with your voting machines with the Russian Federation.

The U.S. intelligence community has confirmed that Russia interfered with the 2016 presidential elections. As a part of a multi-pronged effort, Russian actors attempted to hack a U.S. voting software company and at least 21 states’ election systems. According to the Chicago Board of Elections, information on thousands of American voters was exposed after an attack on their voter registration system.

Foreign access to critical source code information and sensitive data continues to be an often overlooked vulnerability. The U.S. government and Congress have recently taken steps to address some cyber vulnerabilities, including by banning the use Kaspersky Lab, a Moscow-based cybersecurity firm that has maintained a relationship with Russia’s military and intelligence sectors, from all U.S. government computers. Now, we must also ensure the security of our voting machines and associated software.

Recent reports indicate that U.S. based firms operating on U.S. government platforms gave Russian authorities access to their software. In order to sell their software within Russia, these companies allowed Russian authorities to review their source code for flaws that could be exploited. While some companies maintain this practice is necessary to find defects in software code, experts have warned that it could jeopardize the security of U.S. government computers if these reviews are conducted by hostile actors or nations. U.S. tech companies, the Pentagon, former U.S. security officials, and a former U.S. Department of Commerce official with knowledge of the source code review process have expressed concerns with this practice.

In addition, Russia’s requests for source code reviews have increased. According to eight current and former U.S. officials, four company executives, three U.S. trade attorneys, and Russian regulatory documents, between 1996 and 2013 Russia conducted reviews for 13 technology products from Western companies, but has conducted 28 such reviews in the past three years alone.

As the three largest election equipment vendors, your companies provide voting machines and software used by ninety-two percent of the eligible voting population in the U.S. According to voting machine testing and certification from the Election Assistance Commission, most voting machines contain software from firms which were alleged to have shared their source code with Russian entities. We are deeply concerned that such reviews may have presented an opportunity for Russian intelligence agents looking to attack or hack the United States’ elections infrastructure.  Further, if such vulnerabilities are not quickly examined and mitigated, future elections will also remain vulnerable to attack.

In order to help the security and integrity of our systems and to understand the scope of any potential access points into our elections infrastructure, we respectfully request answers to the following questions:

  1. Have you shared your source code or any other sensitive data related to your voting machines or other products with any Russian entity?
  2. To your knowledge, has any of the software that runs on your products been shared with any Russian entity?
  3. What steps have you taken or will you take in order to upgrade existing technologies in light of the increased threat against our elections?

The 2018 election season is upon us. Primaries have already begun and time is of the essence to ensure any security vulnerabilities are addressed before 2018 and 2020.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to working with you to secure our elections.

Sincerely,

 

CFIUS, what is Worse than Uranium One?

When Douglas Campbell, the FBI informant and Uranium One whistle-blower says that Obama himself approved the deal, he was right. Campbell has delivered in February, written testimony annexed with full evidence to three congressional committees. Further, he was provided an monetary award/reward for his remarkable work as an informant. For the full summary and details, go here.

Campbell’s lawyer of record, Victoria Toensing has sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to further investigate the matter and the media smearing of Campbell himself including committee leaks. That letter is found here.

AG Sessions has not responded at the time of this post.

Image result for cfius photo

Related reading: Cfius, Powerful and Unseen, Is a Gatekeeper on Major Deals

Meanwhile, looking deeper into Obama and CFIUS….

By law, CFIUS, Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, does not publicly disclose information provided to CFIUS by parties to a transaction, nor does it reveal the fact that the parties have submitted the transaction for review. If CFIUS determines that the transaction poses national security concerns that cannot be resolved, it will refer the transaction to the President which the President has 15 days after completion of CFIUS’s investigation to decide. The President must publicly announce his decision.

CFIUS provides an annual report to Congress, but the last report was dated 2015. This report is in accordance with section 721(m) of the Defense Production Act of 1950 and the amended section of the Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007.

The Process  

During the review period, CFIUS members examine the transaction in order to identify and address, as appropriate, any national security concerns that arise as a result of the transaction. CFIUS concludes action on the preponderant majority of transactions during or at the end of the initial 30-day review period.  In certain circumstances defined in section 721 and at § 800.503 of the regulations, CFIUS may initiate a subsequent investigation, which must be completed within 45 days.  In certain circumstances described at section 6(c) of Executive Order 11858, as amended, and § 800.506 of the regulations, CFIUS may also refer a transaction to the President for decision.  In such case, section 721 requires the President to announce a decision with respect to a transaction within 15 days of CFIUS’s completion of the investigation. If CFIUS finds that a covered transaction presents national security risks and that other provisions of law do not provide adequate authority to address the risks, then CFIUS may enter into an agreement with, or impose conditions on, parties to mitigate such risks or may refer the case to the President for action.

Where CFIUS has completed all action with respect to a covered transaction or the President has announced a decision not to exercise his authority under section 721 with respect to the covered transaction, then the parties receive a “safe harbor” with respect to that transaction, as described in § 800.601 of the regulations and section 7(f) of Executive Order 11858, as amended.

Rejection

During the entire term of President, he only got one referral that he rejected. President Obama blocked a privately owned Chinese company from building wind turbines close to a Navy military site in Oregon due to national security concerns, and the company said it would challenge the action in court.

Ralls Corp, which had been installing wind turbine generators made in China by Sany Group, has four wind farm projects that are within or in the vicinity of restricted air space at a naval weapons systems training facility, according to the Obama administration.

“There is credible evidence that leads me to believe” that Ralls Corp, Sany Group and the two Sany Group executives who own Ralls “might take action that threatens to impair the national security of the United States,” Obama said in issuing his decision.

Industry Sectors

From 2009-2015, 75% of the foreign transactions included finance, information, mining, utilities and transportation. From 2013-2015, China was the largest country with transactions by far with manufacturing being the majority of the transactions. If there are concerns with any part of the transaction, CFIUS will work on mitigation measures as they relate to national security such that CFIUS earnestly wants the transaction(s) to occur. CFIUS offers onsite compliance, assigns additional staff and offers tracking systems as well as instructions and procedures from in-house expertise to meet stipulations and standards where on other issues, waivers can be designated if compliance is too difficult or adverse to national security standards and law.

Review Concerns

Expanded conditions for national security considerations include vulnerabilities, cyber, sabotage and exploitation. Further, if any transaction leads to complications to critical infrastructure or energy production or would affect the U.S. financial system and would in some conditions have access to sensitive government information, classified material or in any manner threaten a government employee, involve activities related to weapons, munitions, aerospace, satellite or radar system(s), these items would impair the approval process or under the CFIUS review, mitigation procedures would be applied.

Little is of consequence when a foreign company that under cover is actually controlled by a foreign government which is a terrifying condition. A 2011 Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive report to Congress stated that the pace of foreign economic collection and industrial espionage activities against major U.S corporations and U.S. government agencies is accelerating.

photo

Are we sure we want China, Russia or any Middle Eastern country investing in any form or part in the United States when we have the likes of Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and those billions?

Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced legislation on Wednesday to prevent the U.S. government from using products from certain Chinese telecommunications firms.

The impetus for Cotton and Rubio’s legislation is concern over the Chinese government using hypothetical backdoors in ZTE and Huawei phones to spy on U.S. government officials.

“Huawei is effectively an arm of the Chinese government, and it’s more than capable of stealing information from U.S. officials by hacking its devices,” Cotton said in a statement. “There are plenty of other companies that can meet our technology needs, and we shouldn’t make it any easier for China to spy on us.”

Uranium One violated all conditions set forth in the CFIUS law. China is yet a larger security issue and all agency members of CFIUS are aware of this and the history of both Russia and China.

The risks and violations of law are well known in Congress and legislation has been introduced to address major concerns, yet still the United States is and has sold out to at least 2 rogue countries and no security assessments have been published.

 

 

 

The 25 Most Powerful Militaries in the World

Primer:

One of the most senior generals in the U.S. suggested America faces losing influence in the world because its partners are looking to buy military equipment and training from its rivals, particularly Russia and China, who offer cheaper weapons and can supply them faster.

In a statement to the House Armed Services Committee, General Joseph L. Votel, commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), warned that “some of our partners are seeking alternate sources of military equipment from near-peer competitors like Russia and China”.

Votel said the U.S. increasingly relies on “interoperability” in its military operations—using its allies to “accomplish common objectives”—and so its programs to supply partners with the equipment and training they need are vital in maintaining this cooperation.

He made reference to U.S. government-funded Building Partner Capacity (BPC) programs, which “encompass security cooperation and security assistance activities,” and Foreign Military Sales (FMS).

“However, due to political considerations, cost, or delivery speed, some of our partners are seeking alternate sources of military equipment from near-peer competitors like Russia and China,” Votel said. “When our partners go elsewhere, it reduces our interoperability and challenges our ability to incorporate their contributions into theater efforts.”

In 2017, the U.S. State Department spent $5.7bn on Foreign Military Financing, according to a data guide published by the Security Assistance Monitor group, around the average spend in recent years. That military aid went to 53 countries, including $150m for Iraq, $350m for Jordan, and $3.1bn for Israel. More here.

***

Ranking from Business Insider

25. Algeria

25. Algeria
Algerian soldiers at the Tiguentourine Gas Plant in In Amenas, 994 miles southeast of Algiers, January 31, 2013.
REUTERS/Louafi Larbi

Power Index rating: 0.4366

Total population: 40,263,711

Total military personnel: 792,350

Total aircraft strength: 502

Fighter aircraft: 89

Combat tanks: 2,405

Total naval assets: 85

Defense budget: $10.6 billion

24. Saudi Arabia

24. Saudi Arabia
Saudi troops stand attention at their base in Yemen’s southern port city of Aden September 28, 2015.
Reuters

Power Index rating: 0.4302

Total population: 28,160,273

Total military personnel: 256,000

Total aircraft strength: 790

Fighter aircraft: 177

Combat tanks: 1,142

Total naval assets: 55

Defense budget: $56.7 billion

23. North Korea

23. North Korea REUTERS/KCNA

Power Index rating: 0.4218

Total population: 25,115,311

Total military personnel: 6,445,000

Total aircraft strength: 944

Fighter aircraft: 458

Combat tanks: 5,025

Total naval assets: 967

Defense budget: $7.5 billion

22. Australia

22. Australia
An Australian soldier with 5th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment makes his way up the beach after landing in amphibious assault vehicle from the USS Peleliu during an assault exercise at Marine Corps Base Hawaii as part of multinational military exercise RIMPAC, in Kaneohe, Hawaii, July 29, 2014
Hugh Gentry/REUTERS

Power Index rating: 0.4072

Total population: 22,992,654

Total military personnel: 81,000

Total aircraft strength: 465

Fighter aircraft: 78

Combat tanks: 59

Total naval assets: 47 (two aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $24.1 billion

21. Iran

21. Iran
A soldier aboard Iranian Navy destroyer Shahid Naqdi at Port Sudan at the Red Sea State, October 31, 2012.
Reuters

Power Index rating: 0.3933

Total population: 82,801,633

Total military personnel: 934,000

Total aircraft strength: 477

Fighter aircraft: 137

Combat tanks: 1,616

Total naval assets: 398

Defense budget: $6.3 billion

20. Thailand

20. Thailand
Thai marines participate in an amphibious assault exercise as part of the Cobra Gold 2017 joint military exercise with the US at a military base in Chonburi province, Thailand, February 16, 2017.
REUTERS/Athit Perawongmetha

Power Index rating: 0.3892

Total population: 68,200,824

Total military personnel: 627,425

Total aircraft strength: 555

Fighter aircraft: 76

Combat tanks: 737

Total naval assets: 81 (one aircraft carrier)

Defense budget: $5.4 billion

19. Poland

19. Poland
Members of Poland’s 1st Mechanized Battalion of the 7th Coastal Defense Brigade take part in a military exercise with the US 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division near Drawsko-Pomorskie, November 13, 2014.
Kacper Pempel/Reuters

Power Index rating: 0.3831

Total population: 38,523,261

Total military personnel: 184,650

Total aircraft strength: 465

Fighter aircraft: 99

Combat tanks: 1,065

Total naval assets: 83

Defense budget: $9.4 billion

18. Taiwan

18. Taiwan
Taiwanese submarines at a navy base in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, March 21, 2017.
Reuters

Power Index rating: 0.3765

Total population: 23,464,787

Total military personnel: 1,932,500

Total aircraft strength: 850

Fighter aircraft: 286

Combat tanks: 2,005

Total naval assets: 87

Defense budget: $10.7 billion

17. Brazil

17. Brazil
Brazilian navy personnel patrol in an armored vehicle during an operation against drug dealers in Mangueira slum in Rio de Janeiro, June 19, 2011.
REUTERS/Ricardo Moraes

Power Index rating: 0.3654

Total population: 205,823,665

Total military personnel: 1,987,000

Total aircraft strength: 697

Fighter aircraft: 43

Combat tanks: 469

Total naval assets: 110

Defense budget: $24.5 billion

16. Vietnam

16. Vietnam
Vietnamese soldiers march in a parade marking the 70th National Day at Ba Dinh Square in Hanoi, Vietnam, September 2, 2015.
REUTERS/Kham

Power Index rating: 0.3587

Total population: 95,261,021

Total military personnel: 5,488,500

Total aircraft strength: 278

Fighter aircraft: 76

Combat 1,545

Total naval assets: 65

Defense budget: $3.4 billion

15. Israel

15. Israel
Israeli soldiers secure the Israel-Lebanon border, January 28, 2015.
Ariel Schalit/AP

Power Index rating: 0.3476

Total population: 8,174,527

Total military personnel: 718,250

Total aircraft strength: 652

Fighter aircraft: 243

Combat tanks: 2,620

Total naval assets: 65

Defense budget: $15.5 billion

14. Indonesia

14. Indonesia
Indonesian soldiers arrive at Talang Betutu airport in Palembang to reinforce firefighter teams in south Sumatra province, September 10, 2015
Beawiharta Beawiharta/REUTERS

Power Index rating: 0.3347

Total population: 258,316,051

Total military personnel: 975,750

Total aircraft strength: 441

Fighter aircraft: 39

Combat tanks: 418

Total naval assets: 221

Defense budget: $6.9 billion

13. Pakistan

13. Pakistan
A Pakistani Ranger gestures during a daily parade at the Pakistan-India joint checkpoint at Wagah border, on the outskirts of Lahore, October 23, 2011.
Mohsin Raza/Reuters

Power Index rating: 0.3287

Total population: 201,995,540

Total military personnel: 919,000

Total aircraft strength: 951

Fighter aircraft: 301

Combat tanks: 2,924

Total naval assets: 197

Defense budget: $7 billion

12. South Korea

12. South Korea
A South Korean army K1A1 battle tank fires during South Korea-US joint military live-fire drills at Seungjin Fire Training Field in Pocheon, South Korea, near the border with North Korea, August 28, 2015.
AP

Power Index rating: 0.2741

Total population: 50,924,172

Total military personnel: 5,829,750

Total aircraft strength: 1,477

Fighter aircraft: 406

Combat tanks: 2,654

Total naval assets: 166 (one aircraft carrier)

Defense budget: $43.8 billion

11. Italy

11. Italy
An Italian soldier, part the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFL), patrols the Lebanese coast from a helicopter as the Italian aircraft-carrying cruiser Garibaldi patrols near Beirut, Lebanon, October 1, 2006.
REUTERS/Fadi Ghalioum

Power Index rating: 0.2694

Total population: 62,007,540

Total military personnel: 267,500

Total aircraft strength: 822

Fighter aircraft: 79

Combat tanks: 200

Total naval assets: 143 (two aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $34 billion

10. Egypt

10. Egypt
Egyptian military police stand guard at the Almaza military airport where the bodies of soldiers who died in attacks in north Sinai were being turned over to relatives for burial, in Cairo, Egypt, January 30, 2015.
Associated Press

Power Index rating: 0.2676

Total population: 94,666,993

Total military personnel: 1,329,250

Total aircraft strength: 1,132

Fighter aircraft: 337

Combat tanks: 4,110

Total naval assets: 319 (two aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $4.4 billion

9. Germany

9. Germany
German Bundeswehr soldiers fire mortars during the Joint Air Warfare Tactical Exercise 2014 at an army training area in Bergen, May 20, 2014.
REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch

Power Index rating: 0.2609

Total population: 80,722,792

Total military personnel: 210,000

Total aircraft strength: 698

Fighter aircraft: 92

Combat tanks: 543

Total naval assets: 81

Defense budget: $39.2 billion

8. Turkey

8. Turkey
Turkish army tanks and military personal are stationed in Karkamis on the Turkish-Syrian border in the southeastern Gaziantep province, Turkey, August 25, 2016
Umit Bektas/Reuters

Power Index rating: 0.2491

Total population: 80,274,604

Total military personnel: 743,415

Total aircraft strength: 1,018

Fighter aircraft: 207

Combat tanks: 2,445

Total naval assets: 194

Defense budget: $8.2 billion

7. Japan

7. Japan
Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force tanks fire during an annual training session near Mount Fuji at Higashifuji training field in Gotemba, west of Tokyo, August 19, 2014.
Yuya Shino/REUTERS

Power Index rating: 0.2137

Total population: 126,702,133

Total military personnel: 311,875

Total aircraft strength: 1,594

Fighter aircraft: 288

Combat tanks: 700

Total naval assets: 131 (four aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $43.8 billion

6. United Kingdom

6. United Kingdom
A British Parachute Regiment soldier prepares to load a helicopter during a simulated medical evacuation in an exercise at the Hohenfels Training Area, in Hohenfels, Germany, June 17, 2016.
Sgt. Seth Plagenza/US Army

Power Index rating: 0.2131

Total population: 64,430,428

Total military personnel: 232,675

Total aircraft strength: 856

Fighter aircraft: 88

Combat tanks 249

Total naval assets: 76 (two aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $45.7 billion

5. France

5. France
Tanks drive down the Champs Elysees avenue during the Bastille Day parade in Paris, Friday, July 14, 2017.
Associated Press

Power Index rating: 0.1914

Total population: 66,836,154

Total military personnel: 387,635

Total aicraft strength: 1,305

Fighter aircraft 296

Combat tanks: 406

Total naval assets: 118 (four aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $35 billion

4. India

4. India
Indian soldiers, followed by Bhishma tank, the locally assembled version of the T-90 S tank, and vehicle-mounted Brahmos missiles in a Republic Day parade in front of the presidential palace in New Delhi, India, January 23, 2009.
AP

Power Index rating: 0.1593

Total population: 1,266,883,598

Total military personnel: 4,207,250

Total aircraft strength: 2,102

Fighter aircraft: 676

Combat tanks: 4,426

Total naval assets: 295 (three aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $51 billion

3. China

3. China
Soldiers from a special unit of the People’s Armed Police in Xinjiang at a training session in Kashgar, Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, China.
Reuters/Stringer

Power Index rating: 0.0945

Total population: 1,373,541,278

Total military personnel: 3,712,500

Total aircraft strength: 2,955

Fighter aircraft: 1,271

Combat tanks: 6,457

Total naval assets: 714 (one aircraft carrier)

Defense budget: $161.7 billion

2. Russia

2. Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin inspects the Vice-Admiral Kulakov anti-submarine-warfare ship in Novorossiysk, September 23, 2014.
REUTERS/Mikhail Klimentyev/RIA Novosti/Kremlin

Power Index rating: 0.0929

Total population: 142,355,415

Total military personnel: 3,371,027

Total aircraft strength: 3,794

Fighter aircraft: 806

Combat tanks: 20,216

Total naval assets: 352 (one aircraft carrier)

Defense budget: $44.6 billion

1. United States

1. United States
US Marines with Combat Logistics Detachment 1, Combat Logistics Battalion 13, 1st Marine Logistics Group, practice “combat gliding” during Integrated Training Exercise 2-15 at Camp Wilson on Twentynine Palms, California, January 31, 2015.
US Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Kathryn Howard/Released

Power Index rating: 0.0857

Total population: 323,995,528

Total military personnel: 2,363,675

Total aircraft: 13,762

Fighter aircraft: 2,296

Combat tanks: 5,884

Total naval assets: 415 (19 aircraft carriers)

Defense budget: $587.8 billion

Cyber: ‘Our adversaries have grown more emboldened’

Primer:

Russia hasn’t been sufficiently penalized for its meddling in the 2016 U.S. elections and that has emboldened Moscow to continue interfering in American elections, Adm. Michael Rogers, Commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

“They haven’t paid a price sufficient to change their behavior,” Rogers said under questioning by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. Although the United States has taken some actions, including imposing additional sanctions and Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III has indicted more than a dozen Russians for their role in the interference, “it hasn’t changed the calculus,” Rogers said, adding that “it hasn’t generated the change in behavior that we all know we need.”

In another exchange with Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Rogers said that Russian President Vladimir Putin has probably come to the conclusion that “that there’s little price to pay here so I can continue the activity” of interfering in the U.S. election system. More here.

*** In context however, where is Senator(s) Warren and Blumenthal’s proposed legislation on sanctions or punishment toward Russia for cyber and active measures interference? It was political posturing by Warren and Blumenthal when they can introduce multi-faceted legislation as Russia, China and North Korea continue to attack the United States via layered cyber operations including espionage.

Meanwhile…. Image result for admiral rogers nsa photo

Although competitors such as China and Russia remain the greatest threat to U.S. security, rogue regimes such as Iran and North Korea have increased in capabilities and have begun using aggressive methods to conduct malicious cyberspace activities, the military’s top cyber officer told Congress today.

Navy Adm. Michael S. Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and chief of the Central Security Service, testified at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

“Our adversaries have grown more emboldened, conducting increasingly aggressive activities to extend their influence without fear of significant consequence,” Rogers said. “We must change our approaches and responses here if we are to change this dynamic.”

But as the cyber domain has evolved, Rogers told the senators, Cybercom’s three major mission areas endure: protecting the Department of Defense Information Network; enabling other joint force commanders by delivering effects in and through cyberspace; and defending the nation against cyber threats through support to the Department of Homeland Security and others when directed to do so by the president or secretary of defense.

Cybercom Milestones

Rogers highlighted milestones in Cybercom’s growth.

Joint Force Headquarters DODIN, the subordinate headquarters responsible for securing, operating and defending the Defense Department’s complex information technology infrastructure, has achieved full operational capability, he said.

Joint Task Force Ares, created to lead the fight in cyber against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, has successfully integrated cyberspace operations into broader military campaigns, has achieved some “excellent results,” and will continue to pursue ISIS in support of the nation’s objectives, the admiral told the Senate panel.

Cybercom also has significantly enhanced training in cyber operation platforms to prepare the battlespace against key adversaries, he said.

Milestones expected to be achieved this year include Cyber Command’s elevation to a combatant command responsible for providing mission-ready cyberspace operations forces to other combatant commanders, Rogers said.

New Facility

In addition, the admiral said, Cybercom will be moving into a state-of-the-art integrated cyber center and joint operations facility at Fort Meade, Maryland, enhancing the coordination and planning of operations against cyber threats.

“Without cyberspace superiority in today’s battlefield, risk to mission increases across all domains and endangers our security,” Rogers said.

Cybercom’s focus on innovation and rapid tech development has extended all the way to small businesses and working with the private sector while maintaining cybersecurity, Rogers told the committee.

“We intend in the coming year to create an unclassified collaboration venue where businesses and academia can help us tackle tough problems without needing to jump over clearance hurdles, for example, which for many are very difficult barriers,” Rogers explained.

After serving more than four years as a commander of Cybercom and after nearly 37 years of service as a naval officer, Rogers is set to retire this spring.

“I will do all I can during the intervening period to ensure the mission continues, that our men and women remain ever motivated, and that we have a smooth transition,” he said.

China is Bullying India and Australia over Maldives for Silk Road

Image result for china bullying india silk road

photo

China is bullying India, Australia and the United States to change the balance of power globally. Anyone paying attention?

Related reading: Indian Ocean Geopolitical Contest in the Spotlight

Maldives crisis: China sends a naval task force to muscle India, Australia out of power game

CHINA is muscling its way into Australia’s backyard. With an island paradise deep in crisis, the superpower sees a chance.

CHINESE warships have entered the Indian Ocean, marking a significant shift in regional power. They’re there to keep India away from Beijing’s interests in the strife-torn Maldive Islands.

And their presence has implications for Australia.

Naval posturing is nothing new. Gunboat diplomacy has been a major player in great power games of thrones for centuries.

But it is odd for it to be played out so close to home.

A scattering of pristine coral islands in the Indian Ocean is becoming the next flash point between New Delhi and Beijing.

The Maldives islands are in the throes of a constitutional crisis.

The little democracy has traditionally been part of India’s “sphere of influence”. And the eastern Indian Ocean is, of course, of significant strategic importance to Australia.

But recently a new kid has arrived on the block.

And now Beijing’s grown enough confidence to let its presence be felt in the area’s affairs.

A naval force of at least one modern destroyer, a frigate, an amphibious assault ship and a support tanker entered the Indian Ocean last week. It is believed destined to linger off the scenic scatterings of coral, sand and palm trees.

International affairs analysts believe they’re there to stop India from intervening.

Beijing, after all, has big plans for these little islands. And it doesn’t want the locals getting in the way.

Blue skies. White sand. Clear water. The international tourist resorts of the Maldives have been sidelined by the archipelago’s strategic importance. Picture: AFP

Blue skies. White sand. Clear water. The international tourist resorts of the Maldives have been sidelined by the archipelago’s strategic importance. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

TROUBLE IN PARADISE

These islands are unlikely to appear on anyone’s radar — unless you’re after an idyllic island paradise getaway.

But the Maldives have suddenly become the centre of a struggle for international influence.

It’s in the grip of a constitutional crisis.

Opposition leader Mohamed Nasheed recently dared to state that China was “buying up the Maldives” through President Abdulla Yameen. He highlighted the tiny nation was massively in debt to Beijing, and faced seizure of public assets — such as ports — to help pay it back.

It wasn’t long after this Yameen had key opposition figures arbitrarily arrested.

Then Yameen sprung a state of emergency on his people on February 5. It came as the Supreme Court ordered the opposition leaders be released as their arrests had been politically motivated.

So Yameen sent his security forces to arrest the Supreme Court’s judges.

Maldivian police detain a protester demanding the release of political prisoners during a protest in Male, Maldives. Picture: AP

Maldivian police detain a protester demanding the release of political prisoners during a protest in Male, Maldives. Picture: APSource:AP

This has Beijing bothered. It has invested big in a major port project there.

But it’s not the money it’s worried about.

Nor is it the potential collapse of a fragile democracy.

It has implications for its grand ‘One Belt, One Road’ infrastructure campaign. This is intended to vastly expand China’s economic network — and influence — through Asia, the Middle East and into Europe.

“Although traditionally within India’s strategic sphere, in recent years the Maldives has become unstable, impoverished and increasingly desperate,” says the Lowy Institute’s Dr David Brewster.

“Indeed, much of the nation could soon disappear beneath rising sea levels. We may soon see China’s ‘magical island-building ship’ pay a visit to the Indian Ocean.”

India has always been a roadblock in these plans. But now Beijing’s bypass via the Maldives may be in trouble.

Which is why it wants to New Delhi to keep out.

A screen capture of Chinese media footage showing the naval task force currently operating in the eastern Indian Ocean. It includes an amphibious assault ship, a guided missile destroyer and frigate, and a supply ship. Picture: CCTV7

A screen capture of Chinese media footage showing the naval task force currently operating in the eastern Indian Ocean. It includes an amphibious assault ship, a guided missile destroyer and frigate, and a supply ship. Picture: CCTV7Source:Supplied

BELT AND ROAD AMBITIONS

Every day, more than 40 million barrels of oil passes through the strategic “chokepoints” at either end of the Indian 0cean. This includes the Straits of Hormuz, the Gulf of Aden and the Malacca Strait.

All pass through the waters between the Maldives and Ceylon, to India’s south.

It’s a vital arterial supply line. Not least of all to Beijing.

Chinese media is boasting about its new naval presence in the Indian Ocean. It’s been proudly displaying photos and video of its modern ships refuelling and reprovisioning at sea on a mission that is certainly a long way from home.

It’s by no means the first time a Chinese task force has entered the Indian Ocean.

This time things may be different.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute says Beijing’s infrastructure activity is part of a determined strategy to extend its influence across the Indian Ocean — at the expense of India.

“India has long been concerned about China’s growing maritime interest in the Indian Ocean region,” says ASPI executive director Peter Jennings. “Over the last decade the PLA-Navy has transited through the region many times to participate in UN and EU backed counter-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa. China has established its first overseas military base at Djibouti and is using the ‘One Belt One Road’ strategy to build extensive port infrastructure in Pakistan and Sri Lanka.”

In that context, the timing of this task force’s arrival in the eastern Indian Ocean is likely to be significant.

A Chinese Type 052D guided missile destroyer tests its antimissile gatling gun during a recent exercise. One of these potent warships is among Beijing's task force in the eastern Indian Ocean. Picture: Xinhua

A Chinese Type 052D guided missile destroyer tests its antimissile gatling gun during a recent exercise. One of these potent warships is among Beijing’s task force in the eastern Indian Ocean. Picture: XinhuaSource:Supplied

“Sending warships to operate off the Maldives is a new and concerning development, because it shows that China is trying to exercise influence over a small state more usually within India’s strategic view. New Delhi will read this as a worrying move. It will intensify strategic competition and increase mistrust between China and India.”

Some international observers had been expecting New Delhi to send its own task force to exert influence over the tiny islands’ fate. Instead, it has taken a hands-off approach through an appeal to the United Nations. It wants help to help pressure Yameen into restoring democratic values.

So Beijing has stepped into the power vacuum with a task force of its own.

But does India have a strong enough presence to keep Beijing out of its own backyard?

The presence of four modern Chinese warships near the Maldive Islands has significant implications for the balance of power in the Indian Ocean. Picture: CCTV7

The presence of four modern Chinese warships near the Maldive Islands has significant implications for the balance of power in the Indian Ocean. Picture: CCTV7Source:Supplied

OPTIONS OPEN

The chances of any clash between India and China are very low.

But the true impact of the Beijing’s warships is being felt in the corridors and back rooms of power throughout the region.

The warships give Beijing options. And status.

If things take a sudden turn for the worse in the Maldives, it can present itself as an international hero by quickly landing its troops in a “humanitarian intervention”.

It could lift its own citizens out of trouble — and those of other nations. It could impose in a “peace keeping” force to support the local political entity of its choice.

That such acts would irreparably damage India’s influence and status is an unspoken benefit.

It would also cement Beijing’s intimidating presence in what is a key “chokepoint” for its “belt” project.

The under-construction China Maldives Friendship Bridge is pictured near the city of Male. The international community has censured Maldives President Abdulla Yameen for imposing a state of emergency. Picture: AFP

The under-construction China Maldives Friendship Bridge is pictured near the city of Male. The international community has censured Maldives President Abdulla Yameen for imposing a state of emergency. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

If, however, the Maldives crisis does not worsen, the mere presence of Chinese warships acts as a deterrent to Indian intervention. It’s also a neon-sign of Beijing’s determination to wield its new-found influence worldwide.

The force Beijing appears to have deployed may seem small. But it is capable.

The Type 052D guided missile destroyer (Luyang-III class) is among its most modern combat ships. With a crew of 280 and weighing some 7500 tons, it carries a helicopter, land-attack cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and anti-submarine missiles.

The Type 054A frigate (Jiangkai II) is one of more than 21 of these modern frigates deployed by Beijing. It is a stealthy design, intended primarily to supplement the air defence of a task force, though it also has some anti-surface and submarine capability.

The Type 071 amphibious transport dock is ideal for humanitarian relief — and landing forces of troops. It can carry a variety of amphibious assault vehicles and landing craft, along with two helicopters. But it also operates hospital and command-and-control facilities. It has accommodation for up to 800 troops.

It’s also backed-up by China’s 28th Anti-Piracy Task Force out of Africa. It’s believed to have wandered closer to the middle of the Indian Ocean in recent weeks.

Indian Navy personnel stand on the INS Vikramaditya, a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier, similar to the aircraft carrier Liaoning operated by China. Picture: AFP

Indian Navy personnel stand on the INS Vikramaditya, a modified Kiev-class aircraft carrier, similar to the aircraft carrier Liaoning operated by China. Picture: AFPSource:AFP

DEEP IMPLICATIONS

India has not been sitting idle. It has been modernising its own navy. Like China, it is one of just a few nations operating fixed-wing aircraft carriers.

Neither is currently operating near the Maldives.

But New Delhi has also just signed a deal with the Seychelles islands to establish a mid-Indian Ocean naval facility of its own.

“Despite these dramatic developments, the shape and future purpose of China’s naval presence in the Indian Ocean remains an open question,” Dr Brewster says. “We should not automatically assume that the Chinese navy intends to challenge the US Fifth Fleet, at least in the short term. China will remain at a big geographic disadvantage in the Indian Ocean.”

This is because it does not have the complex and extensive supply network that the other major international influence in the region — the US 5th Fleet — has.

But it’s working on it.

Royal Australian Navy ships HMAS Adelaide, Toowoomba and Darwin in formation as part of the Joint Task Group for Indo-Pacific Endeavour 2017. Picture: Defence

Royal Australian Navy ships HMAS Adelaide, Toowoomba and Darwin in formation as part of the Joint Task Group for Indo-Pacific Endeavour 2017. Picture: DefenceSource:Supplied

There’s also bound to be pushback.

“China’s move may reinforce a growing Indian interest to co-operate more closely with Australia,” Mr Jennings says.

“The idea of quadrilateral co-operation between India, Australia, Japan and the US — which was abandoned a decade ago because of worries it would be seen to contain China — is now firmly back on the agenda.

“It would be ironic if China’s rather amateurish attempts to build political influence in the Maldives led to enhanced co-operation between the democracies on Indian Ocean security.”