Category Archives: Russia

Soviet Loyalists, Patriotic Hackers

Posted on by

IN 2014: Russian Hackers Amass Over a Billion Internet Passwords

NYT: A Russian crime ring has amassed the largest known collection of stolen Internet credentials, including 1.2 billion user name and password combinations and more than 500 million email addresses, security researchers say.

The records, discovered by Hold Security, a firm in Milwaukee, include confidential material gathered from 420,000 websites, including household names, and small Internet sites. Hold Security has a history of uncovering significant hacks, including the theft last year of tens of millions of records from Adobe Systems.

“Hackers did not just target U.S. companies, they targeted any website they could get, ranging from Fortune 500 companies to very small websites,” said Alex Holden, the founder and chief information security officer of Hold Security. “And most of these sites are still vulnerable.” Full story here.

In 2015: Russian Hackers Read Obama’s Unclassified Emails, Officials Say

‘Patriotic hackers’ attacking on behalf of Mother Russia

FNC: A proxy war is underway in cyberspace, according to I.T. security analysts, and it is pitting numerous foreign institutions against Russian-speaking cyber militias beholden to President Vladimir Putin.

As has been evidenced by a steady wave of sophisticated cyberattacks targeting nation states and private sector organizations whose policies run counter to that of Moscow, Fox News is told groups of patriotic Eastern European hackers are using cyberattacks as a means to achieve Russia’s geopolitical goals.

Intelligence sources with knowledge of these cyberattacks tell Fox News the cyber militias are acting on behalf of the Putin regime. Furthermore, Fox is told security analysts have found evidence that Russian government-linked individuals have distributed cyberattack tools to these groups via underground web forums.

Over the last two years, analysts have researched web-based attacks leveraged against NATO, France’s TV5Monde, segments of the Polish financial sector, and the Dutch Safety Board – which concluded that doomed Malaysia Airlines flight 17 was actually brought down by a Russian-made missile. Researchers found evidence that each of those cyberattacks was carried out by different Russian-speaking cyber militias.

“We see this confluence of motive, where what looks like some recycled criminal malware has been upgraded in a sophisticated way,” said Keith Smith, vice president of threat intelligence for Colorado-based cybersecurity firm root9B. “A lot of people suspect that that’s Russia’s attempt to force us as analysts to ascribe to a criminal organization what is in fact the actions of a nation state – Russia.”

The United States is in these hackers’ crosshairs as well. As economic sanctions were leveled against Russia after its incursion into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, the cyber militias began widespread attacks aimed at U.S. government officials and segments of the financial and defense sectors. The hack attacks were in furtherance of a campaign dubbed “Operation Pawn Storm” by cybersecurity firm Trend Micro.

The Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment on this activity, but in congressional testimony last year, DNI James Clapper publicly acknowledged the pervasiveness of Russian cyber activity aimed at the United States.

“The Silicon Valley of talent that exists in the world on a cyberattack and cybercrime perspective exists in Eastern Europe,” according to Trend Micro chief cybersecurity officer Tom Kellermann. “Most of those actors – who are the best hackers in the world, period – are beholden and pay homage to the legacy and the power of the former Russian and Soviet regime. They do so by acting out patriotically.”

Perhaps the most dramatic show of patriotic Russian cyber aggression came on December 23 when some 800,000 Ukrainians were left in the dark following a widespread power outage.

Soon after the incident, researchers at U.S. cyber intelligence firm iSight Partners found evidence that the blackout was the result of a cyber intrusion by one such patriotic hacking militia. The culprit, as determined by iSight’s analysis, was likely a Russian-speaking group dubbed “Sandworm Team,” whose name comes from its references to the science fiction series “Dune.”

ISight drew its conclusion after a piece of malicious computer code was found on the Ukrainian Power Authority’s system. That destructive malware, known as BlackEnergy3, is unique to that particular hacking group, according to iSight.

Sandworm has been implicated by the company for having carried out numerous cyberattacks with Russian interests in mind; most notably, attacks carried out against the Ukrainian government and NATO in 2014. And according to iSight officials, the group is one of many.

“We are actively monitoring seven different cyber espionage groups right now that we believe are of Russian origin,” said Steve Ward, iSight Partners senior director.

Researchers have found that the attackers utilized wiper malware to disable Ukrainian Power Authority computer systems, which is similar in nature to the destructive malware used in the 2014 cyberattack on Sony Pictures. But what makes the December hack on the Ukrainian grid a watershed moment, according to researchers, is the combination of the destructive component and the actual target of the attack.

According to Trend Micro’s Tom Kellermann, the December 23 incident is the first instance in which a specifically directed cyberattack was used to take down the energy sector in a given nation state.

And while experts argue that achieving a similar result against the U.S. power grid would be a far more complex task, nonetheless, this recent cyber-induced blackout has added fuel to already loud concerns over hackers’ mounting abilities to cause physical harm and destruction.

“You’re seeing this cyber manifestation of attacks that can change, alter and diminish your physical reality,” said Kellermann. “What you have in cyberspace right now is a free fire zone.”

Russia’s long-term Agreement with Assad Published

Posted on by

It was only last August 2015 that:

The Syrian government has received six MiG-31 ‘Foxhound’ interceptor aircraft from Russia under a deal that was said to have been signed in 2007, a regional media source has reported.

The aircraft recently arrived at Mezze Airbase on the outskirts of Damascus, the Turkish BGN News agency reported on 16 August.

Syria was reported to have ordered eight MiG-31 combat aircraft as part of a wider defence deal with Russia in 2007. Although this deal was confirmed at the time by the head of the United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), Alexei Fyodorov, it was later denied by Anatoly Isaykin, director of state arms export bureau Rosoboronexport, who in 2010 described the sale as “a journalistic hoax”. Neither the Russian nor the Syrian authorities have so far commented publicly on the reported deliveries.

The MiG-31 first entered Soviet service in the early 1980s as a long-range, high-altitude, and high-speed interceptor. Although relatively old, it is still a highly capable platform that features some of the latest sensor and weapons fits.

In particular, the MiG-31’s NIIP N007 S-800 SBI-16 (RP-31) Zaslon or Zaslon-A electronically scanned phased-array fire-control radar (NATO codename ‘Flash Dance’) affords it an impressive beyond-visual range capability, enabling it to see airborne targets out to a range of 108 n miles (200 km; 124 miles) in a clutter-free forward sector, or 48 n miles (90 km; 56 miles) to the rear. It is capable of tracking 10 targets and attacking four simultaneously. Coupled with this radar, the MiG-31’s R-33 (NATO codename AA-9 ‘Amos’) or R-37 (AA-X-13/AA-13 ‘Arrow’) long-range air-to-air missiles afford it a highly potent beyond-visual range (BVR) air-to-air capability.

According to IHS Jane’s World Air Forces , Russia has approximately 200 MiG-31s in service that it is currently in the process of upgrading to keep them operational through to the 2030s. With the exception of Russia and now possibly Syria, only Kazakhstan flies the type.

COMMENT

Until the arrival of the MiG-31s in Damascus is confirmed, it should be treated with an element of scepticism. With the regime of Bashar al-Assad finding itself increasingly hard-pressed on the ground, it has to be noted that a state-of-the-art high-altitude interceptor is probably of limited use right now.

The delivery has been linked to Western proposals for a no-fly buffer zone to be established over Syria, but while the MiG-31s would certainly give NATO planners pause for thought, their small number and single basing location would mean that they would likely be destroyed in the early hours of any alliance effort to establish air dominance over the country ahead of implementing such a no-fly zone.

This surely keeps the United States out of the Syria Islamic State, Jabhat al Nusra war theater.

MOSCOW (AP) —Russian warplanes in Syria have flown their first joint combat mission with the Syrian air force, Russia’s Defense Ministry said Thursday.

The Defense Ministry said that a pair of Syrian MiG-29 fighter jets escorted two Russian Su-25 ground attack aircraft during Thursday’s mission.

The ministry said that Syrian pilots had previously visited the Russian base to discuss details of the mission. It released a video showing the Russian planes taking off from Hemeimeem air base and being joined in flight by the Syrian jets.

Russia has conducted an air campaign in Syria since Sept. 30. Moscow has insisted that Russian warplanes are focusing their strikes on the Islamic State group and other extremists, but the U.S. and its allies say they also hit moderate groups fighting Syrian President Bashar Assad‘s army.

Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Syrian Arab Republic on the stationing of an aviation unit of the armed forces of the Russian Federation on the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic on August 26, 2015 year (temporarily applied with August 26, 2015 onwards)

Reuters: Russia is allowed to deploy its air force in Syria for an open-ended period under the terms of an agreement signed between Moscow and Damascus in August, the RIA news agency said today, citing the text of the document.Russian planes flying out of a base in Syria’s Latakia province have been bombing Islamic militants since September 30 as part of a push to help Syrian President Bashar al-Assad defeat his opponents on the battle field.REUTERS SHS AN2241

Bloomberg: Russia’s military is operating in Syria without a time limit under an accord between the two governments, which also agreed to a one-year notice period for either side to terminate the pact, according to the text of the deal dated Aug. 26 and published Thursday.

The document also states that Russia bears no responsibility for any damage it causes during the operation and that the Syrian government will have to settle any disputes against the Russian aviation group from third parties, according to the agreement, signed in Damascus last year and now published by the Kremlin.

Russian personnel have diplomatic immunity under the deal and Syrian authorities can’t enter their base without the permission of its Russian commander. They are also not allowed to inspect Russian shipments into the country or search Russian planes, it says.

President Vladimir Putin launched the air campaign on Sept. 30 and doubled the fleet of warplanes involved in bombing missions to about 70 in November. Russian bombers made more than 5,500 sorties since the strikes began, according to the Defense Ministry in Moscow.

More historical data on Jabhat al Nusra is found here.

Russia Invading NATO Air Space, Rising

Posted on by

NATO interception of Russian planes in Baltics rise

Lithuania says Russian incursions into the airspace of countries in the Baltics has increased 14 percent.

VILNIUS, Lithuania, Jan. 11 (UPI) — NATO fighters scrambled 160 times last year to intercept Russian aircraft violating the airspace of alliance members in the Baltics, which used to be part of the Soviet Union.

The Lithuanian Ministry of Defense said the number of interceptions in 2015 were a 14 percent rise from the previous year.

“The number of times jets were scrambled last year was up on the 140 occasions in 2014,” the ministry said. “Russian military aircraft activity over the Baltic Sea has significantly increased since 2014 amid a heightening of tensions between Moscow and Western countries over Russia’s annexation of the Crimea and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine.”

NATO’s Baltic members — Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia — have no air forces of their own. Other NATO countries fill the defense vacuum by sending aircraft in rotating four-month deployments to the region. Aircraft from Spain and Belgium take up station in the Baltics this week, relieving those from Hungary and Germany.

NATO in 2016

WASHINGTON — As European countries scramble to buy new next-generation air and missile defense systems or upgrade existing systems, the battle for business between Raytheon and Lockheed is set to continue into 2016, even in countries where key decisions appear to have already been made.

Both Germany and Poland made major decisions this year to procure new missile defense systems. Germany chose Lockheed Martin and MBDA Deutschland to build its new system while Poland chose Raytheon’s Patriot.

But no signatures have been scrawled on a finalized contract in either case, and both companies are closely watching for any opening that could help them get back in the running.

Both Germany and Poland are expected to finalize contracts for a system in 2016 while it’s anticipated other countries will determine what they can afford to buy or develop alone, which will guide what type of role Raytheon or Lockheed could play in future procurement across NATO.

Patriot already has a robust international community with 13 international partners, but many of these countries are looking for upgrade opportunities or a newer replacement. Raytheon’s answer to that is its next-generation Patriot with an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) Gallium-Nitride (GaN) radar and an open command-and-control architecture.

Lockheed has built a Medium Extended Air Defense System with a 360-degree threat-detection capability that has gone through a challenging dual-intercept test in 2013 and is said to be about 85 percent fully developed.

The year ahead will carve a more defined path for NATO countries looking to upgrade or replace air and missile defense systems. Here’s a look at the state of play in several countries that are close to making critical procurement decisions in a missile defense market projected to be worth more than $100 billion in the next 15 years:

Poland

Poland announced this past spring that it chose Raytheon’s Patriot system for its new air and missile defense program called Wisla. The plan was to buy two Patriot systems in the current configuration, followed by next-generation systems that include the AESA GaN radar and an open architecture that would allow a variety of interceptors to plug into the system. The two initial Patriot systems would then be retrofitted with next-generation capabilities.

Poland and the US government began negotiations to purchase the first two Patriot batteries, expecting to sign a contract within a year.

Yet officials close to the project and outside experts were quick to note that Raytheon should not declare victory just yet.

Poland has expedited its missile system purchase due to escalating tensions in Russia. The country changed its requirements during the Wisla competition, declaring it could only consider already fielded systems. Originally, Poland considered MEADS, Israel’s David’s Sling and a French consortium’s offering. MEADS and David’s Sling were taken out of the running because they are still in development.

Also due to Poland’s need to procure something quickly, the country decided not to just wait for a next-generation system, but to buy something that could be deployed by 2019.

Poland would then buy two more batteries with the capabilities it wanted including a radar capable of seeing threats from 360 degrees and an open command-and-control system, which would be fielded by 2022. Four more systems would be procured by 2025 and the original systems would be upgraded.

But even back in the spring, Poland hinted that it would consider capabilities for its next-generation system outside of Patriot. Col. Adam Duda of Poland’s Armaments Inspectorate acknowledged the US is making changes to its own air and missile defense system, which includes a new command-and-control system built by Northrop Grumman – the Integrated Battle Command System – that Poland might explore in the future.

Such a comment gave new hope for earlier contenders like Lockheed that were hoping to be reconsidered.

Then there was a big election this year in Poland that upended major defense procurement decisions made by the former government. Poland’s new conservative government last month called into question the previous liberal cabinet’s choice of US-made Patriot missiles – an estimated €5 billion (US $5.5 billion) deal.

New Defense Minister Antoni Macierewicz said during a November parliamentary defense commission meeting that the conditions of the potential contract to buy US missiles “have changed a lot since the public announcement.”

Macierewicz said he wasn’t happy with the price and “in no way makes it possible, even with the farthest-reaching promises, not confirmed by any documents or any international obligations, for such a defense before the years 2023 to 2030.

“The price is much higher, the delivery time much longer … in short, this contract is practically non-existent,” he said.

The new government will, at the very least, study the previous government’s decisions, sources close to the situation say. What that will amount to remains to be seen.

Several sources in Poland have theorized that the new government blasting the Patriot deal is a ploy to get Raytheon and the US government to drop the price and that no other systems are actually being considered.

Michal Jach, chairman of the Polish parliament’s defense committee, said in a Dec. 22 report in Polska Zbrojna, “It appears that with [the Americans’] back to the wall they are capable of putting forward a more favorable offer compared to the one presented so far. Let me recall that the first offer did not even meet operational requirements. Today it is difficult to say if we announce a new bid. It all depends on what Patriot’s manufacturer will propose to us.”

Others close to the issue believe Poland could ultimately decide to wind back the clock and re-examine the four systems, open an entirely new competition or model an indigenous development off of the US Army’s nascent plan to build an Integrated Air and Missile Defense System (AIAMD).

A visit to Washington by representatives of Poland’s defense minister scheduled before Christmas is expected to be crucial, Marek Swierczynski, an analyst for Poland’s Polityka Insight, wrote in a recent report.

Deputy ministers in Poland have also suggested that the country pursue next-stage weapon projects like electromagnetic and laser weaponry and abandon Wisla, Swierczynski reports.

The country is also focused on developing a short-range air defense system it is calling Narew through a competitive process and may choose to prioritize that over Wisla, sources say. Lockheed Martin’s MEADS technology is in the running for the Narew competition.

The new year will determine whether Raytheon is able to sell Patriot to Poland and whether that sale will go beyond just the first two systems.

Also up for reconsideration is the old government’s plan to buy 50 Airbus helicopters worth €3 billion (US $3.3 billion). Macierewicz said he hoped US manufacturer Sikorsky and British-Italian group AgustaWestland – Airbus’ competitors for the chopper deal – would take part in any potential new tender.

And because Connecticut-based Sikorsky is now a Lockheed Martin company, Lockheed now has a chance to establish a larger footprint both in missile defense and in the helicopter business in Poland.

Germany

The fate of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) hung in the balance for more than a year before Germany announced in June it had decided to continue developing the system with Lockheed and MBDA Deutschland.

The decision was crucial for MEADS’ survival after the US government decided not procure it after co-developing the system with Germany and Italy. The US had planned to replace Patriot with MEADS. The missile defense system was essentially orphaned while Germany weighed all its options following the system’s proof-of-concept phase that culminated in a successful 2013 test.

But while Germany works toward signing a contract with Lockheed and MBDA to continue work on what it is calling the TLVS program, Raytheon and Lockheed continue to grapple for business.

Patriot is already in the German inventory and Raytheon continues to seek ways for the system to remain. Raytheon’s Vice President John Baird has said that if, at any point, MEADS doesn’t meet certain technological or schedule criteria over the next few years then the German government could discuss modernizing the Patriot systems it already has – perhaps with a next-generation system like Poland. The expectation is that Patriot will be around in Germany until 2030, while the country waits to bring MEADS online.

But according to Lockheed’s MEADS director, Marty Coyne, the system is 85 percent developed and the system will be ready for delivery four to five years after a contract is signed.

What’s left to do is integrate a German interceptor – the IRIS-T – and complete logistics planning, training materials and software qualification. The MEADS program will also need to ensure its battle manager network node can integrate with Germany’s Airbus-made Surface-to-Air Missile Operations Center (SAMOC).

Coyne recently told Defense News that he doesn’t see any of the upcoming work as a “risky endeavor.” The work “just needs to be done, the technical risk is behind us,” he said.

Even so, some question why a system supposedly 85 percent complete would need four to five years to be finished. The contract timeline will flesh out to something more concrete in 2016.

Germany’s call for tender for the TLVS program was expected in September but was not released until later this year. According to Coyne, Lockheed and MBDA are laser-focused on delivering a proposal by the spring. The expectation is still to sign a contract in fall 2016, meaning the program will stay on schedule despite the late release of the call for tender.

According to media reports in Germany earlier this month, Katrin Suder, the state secretary responsible for arms procurement, said MEADS is moving forward and the reason for the delayed tender was a careful legal assessment that included successfully driving down a tax risk of €600 million to €700 million, which has now been reduced to a less than €100 million.

And a spokesperson for the Bundestag’s Defence Committee added that the US and Germany reached an agreement to get complete transfer of data and software, and that the IRIS-T integration will be complete by the end of 2016.

But there is still some risk associated with the TLVS program, according to a letter outlining questions and answers posed from parliament to the Ministry of Defence printed in a September issue of the trade publication Griephan Briefe. The letter signed by Markus Grubel, the Ministry of Defence’s parliamentary state secretary, and addressed to Wolfgang Hellmich, the chairman of the Defence Committee, states much of the MEADS development data risk is already reduced significantly.

Grubel notes however that further risks are covered by the restrictions and termination criteria set by the inspector general of the Bundeswehr. “Sensor technology, communication tools, the competence of the contractor, target and threat databanks, as well as the amount of the import turnover tax are in the focus,” he writes, according to a translation.

The letter also lists a number of risks that if not reduced could lead to withdrawal from the contract, such as “technical feasibility of the Exciter built in the multifunction radar, availability of the long-range sensor, availability of the medium-range sensor, commencement regarding the feasibility of the short-range radio communication system” and “operability of the target and threat databank.”

The letter also outlines the cost of the TLVS development program through 2023 which amounts to a total of €963 million (US $1 billion). The procurement portion of the program will cost €3 billion (US $3.3 billion) starting in 2019 and continuing through 2027.

Turkey

Turkey sent shockwaves through the US and European missile defense communities when it picked a Chinese air and missile defense system not interoperable with NATO systems.

China Precision Machinery Import Export Corp. defeated a US partnership of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, offering Patriot; Russia’s Rosoboronexport, marketing the S-300; and Italian-French consortium Eurosam, maker of the Aster 30.

Then Turkey slowly walked back that decision over nearly two years amid complaints from other NATO countries that a Chinese system could not work within a NATO missile defense network. Turkey kept the lines open with both Eurosam and Raytheon as it mulled its options.

Turkey finally decided to scrap the $3.4 billion air and missile defense program called LORAMIDS last month. Now Turkey is looking to develop a system internally. Most likely, work will be given to two state-controlled companies, Turkey’s biggest defense firm military electronics specialist Aselsan and the missile maker Roketsan.

Lockheed, Raytheon and Eurosam are likely to look for ways into Turkey’s development program. Relationships with the US companies and Turkish companies already exist.

Lockheed and Roketsan, for instance, minted a contract in September to co-develop the SOM-J missile intended for integration into the US Air Force and Navy versions of the F-35 fighter jet.

Raytheon said in a recent statement that “as Team USA we remain prepared to collaborate and engage with the Turkish industry and the Turkish government to help ensure that our NATO partner is able to achieve their program objectives.”

According to Lockheed’s Coyne, “Turkey is actually similar to Poland in many respects. They seek a modern capability for a good price and on a reasonable timeline to counter an obvious threat posed by ballistic missiles and air-breathing threats that can attack from all directions. Like Poland, they also want their very capable defense industry to play a significant role in the development and production of this system, which is obviously understandable. This is the MEADS model.”

Coyne said that for Lockheed, Turkey and Poland would be a major focal point in 2016.

For several years Turkey has had to rely on other countries to loan air-and-missile defense systems to secure its border with Syria. The US, the Netherlands, Spain and Germany have all bolstered Turkey’s missile defense by loaning Patriot systems. However, the Netherlands, the US and Germany have all withdrawn their aging Patriot batteries out of Turkey in 2015, citing the need to upgrade them. Germany withdrew its systems in December.

Spain plans to keep its Patriots in Turkey and Italy may send its SAMP/T middle defense batteries to bolster Turkey’s border security as well.

Turkey has said it will likely need to purchase a bridge-gap solution to deal with the current threat while it builds its own system.

“The natural contenders in the new race will be the same US and European groups,” according to an industry source. “Delivery timetables will be crucial since Turkey consider this as an urgent buy.”

The US consortium commits to deliver the Patriot system within 40 months and the European group commits to deliver the SAMP/T (Aster 30) system in 18 months.

The Netherlands

While Lockheed was eyeing the Netherlands as a possible MEADS customer, a Dutch official said some discouraging things this fall during a parliament defense committee hearing.

Defense Minister Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert said, according to translated testimony, that The Netherlands could afford to do nothing more to enhance its missile defense than upgrade its aging Patriot systems. The decision sounded like a blow to Lockheed Martin with aspirations to make MEADS the NATO system of choice.

Hennis-Plasschaert said the Patriot system is reaching the end of its lifespan and that upgrading the system was a better investment than replacing it with MEADS, which would be too costly, especially when considering upkeep of both systems until 2040.

According to an industry source, the Dutch are at the very preliminary stages of their budget process for the next fiscal year and the country has yet to review alternatives. So far, the Dutch are planning to spend a small amount on a life-extension program their Patriot batteries for upgrades such as a new touch screen.

Hennis-Plasschaert also argued the reason for upgrading Patriot was to align with Germany, which plans to keep its Patriot systems until at least 2025.

“The Dutch, like Germany have been leaders in AMD in Europe for years,” Lockheed’s Coyne said. “They have not yet made a long-term decision reference their AMD forces, only that they will spend a modest sum of money over the next few years to do basic life-extension repairs to their 30-year-old Patriots. Our goal is to show them a path to MEADS that is both affordable and maintains their leadership role and strong connection to Germany.”

Italy

While Italy was partnered with Germany and the US to co-develop MEADS, it has long been clear that it can’t afford to continue to develop the system alone. Italy was waiting for Germany to decide whether it would remain committed before considering how it might continue to invest.

“Now that Germany has chosen MEADS, we are seeing very positive signs on both the government and industry side,” Coyne said about Italy. “We are in discussions with both entities and are very optimistic a MEADS path forward for Italy will become a reality in 2016.”

The rest of NATO Europe

Several countries are interested in having a part in NATO missile defense, but these countries do not have budgets robust enough to buy complete systems.

“Even those with modest defense budgets see the opportunity to participate in AMD for the first time by adopting the MEADS open plug-and-fight architecture,” Coyne said.

For example, a country could initially invest in just the battle manager or the MEADS surveillance radar, he suggested, in order to tie into the NATO air picture.

Coyne said that smaller NATO countries like Romania, for example, are talking to the MEADS team about such an approach.

And since Raytheon’s next-generation Patriot will have an open architecture, it could likely compete with Lockheed with a similar approach.

“This is exciting for us as industry to play a small role in the development of a much needed NATO AMD umbrella,” Coyne said.

Hagel: Obama Squandered 5 Years, ISIS Prevails

Posted on by

It was always after a top ranking administration official leaves their post that larger truths are told. There was no love loss between the White House and the Pentagon when it came to previous defense secretaries under Barack Obama and this is especially the case with regard to former Secretary Chuck Hagel. It appears most of the division was born out of Hagel slowing walking approvals on transfers of Gitmo detainees. Yet there is more, where Hagel’s true message is to the next president: “Listen to the military”, which fundamentally says the Obama administration DID have real disdain for military leadership.

DefenseNews: WASHINGTON — Former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said he believes the government of Iraq “squandered” the five-year stretch from 2008 to 2013, paving the way for the rise of the Islamic State group and the chaos of the last two years.

Speaking Monday in Washington, Hagel, who served in that role from 2013 to 2015, also hinted at dissatisfaction with how the Obama administration dealt with the Pentagon during his tenure, indicating that future administrations should lean more on the opinions of the uniformed personnel when weighing foreign policy decisions.

Asked to reflect on the situation in Iraq, Hagel showed disappointment and frustration with what happened once the US President George W. Bush signed a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq in December 2008, which set off the clock for US forces to leave Iraq in the hands of the local government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

“We couldn’t run that government, we should have never tried, couldn’t impose our values,” Hagel said. “But I think the Iraqi leadership of that country so squandered five years, that allowed to happen what happened over the last two years.

“The breakdown in the Sunni-Shia relationship, the breakdown of the Shia-Kurd relationship, [the] prime minister did not fulfill any of the constitutional requirements and the promises he had made to bring Iraq together,” Hagel continued. “I don’t blame all that on him – there were forces that were probably bigger than he was able to deal with – but in my opinion, that’s what happened in Iraq. The five years were squandered, were wasted, and that’s what’s led to so much of the turmoil, the trouble, the chaos, the slaughter and the killing in Iraq today.”

Asked about the legacy of President Barack Obama on the eve of his final State of the Union speech, Hagel demurred, saying it was “nonsense” to judge Obama until years down the road, let alone before his administration has ended.

However, Hagel indicated dissatisfaction with the way the Obama administration has handled the Pentagon.

During the roundtable event hosted by the National Committee on US-China Relations, Hagel urged politicians to lean more on the advice of top DoD officials.

“I would say as someone who has walked on both sides of the street, the political side and the administration side, politicians have to listen more to our military,” Hagel said. “And I don’t mean changing the Constitution. I mean listen to our military. They get it better than most politicians on things like this. And some of the finest statesmen I’ve ever met in my life are in military uniform.”

Asked later what his biggest advice for the next president would be when dealing with the Pacific, Hagel limited his response to one word: “Listen.”

The comments come weeks after Hagel told Foreign Policy magazine that the Pentagon was hamstrung by interference from the Obama White House. Hagel is long-believed to have butted heads with National Security Adviser Susan Rice, something he did not dispel in that interview.

Asked Monday if he felt advice from the Pentagon had been ignored to the detriment of the Obama presidency, Hagel did not change his tune.

“Well, I’ve made some comments on this and I think the comment I made here, I’ll let that stand,” he said.

Obama Broke the Middle East Alliance and Equilibrium

Posted on by

Imagine what the Obama administration is leaving as unfinished terror business for the next president and further, imagine what more can happen for the rest of 2016.

Shall we begin with HizBu’llah?

Russia Is Arming Hezbollah, Say Two of the Group’s Field Commanders

On the Syrian battlefield, Vladimir Putin’s planes and special forces work ever more closely with the Party of God—labeled ‘terrorist’ by Washington.
DailyBeast – BEIRUT — Lebanese Hezbollah field commanders with troops fighting in Syria tell The Daily Beast they are receiving heavy weapons directly from Russia with no strings attached. The commanders say there is a relationship of complete coordination between the Assad regime in Damascus, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. At the same time they say the direct interdependence between Russia and Hezbollah is increasing.

The United States and the European Union have both listed Hezbollah as a terrorist organization with global reach and accuse it of serving Tehran’s interests. But there is more to it than that. Organized, trained, funded, and armed by Iran with Syrian help after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, it initially gained fame for suicide bombings hitting Israeli, French, and American targets there, including the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut where 241 American servicemen were killed in 1983.

Hezbollah is directly receiving long-range tactical missiles, laser guided rockets, and anti-tank weapons from Russia.

Badran/FDD: In response to the crisis in relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, following the latter’s assault on the Saudi consulate and embassy in Iran, the Obama administration has taken to the media to unleash a furious rebuke. But the administration’s condemnation was not aimed primarily at Tehran; instead it’s been largely directed at America’s longstanding ally: Saudi Arabia.

Administration officials have charged that, by executing radical Shiite cleric Nimr al-Nimr, the Saudis have exacerbated sectarian tensions in the region and jeopardized U.S. policy in Syria. “This is a dangerous game they are playing,” an unnamed U.S. official told the Washington Post. “There are larger repercussions,” including damage to “counter-ISIL initiatives as well as the Syrian peace process.” This is a common thread that runs through the administration’s briefings against the Saudis, which reveals the White House’s backing of Iran’s regional position over and against the traditional U.S. alliance system.

The claim that the Saudis were damaging the supposed Syrian “peace process” sounds surreal on its face. But it is quite revealing, not just about how the White House defines success, but also about its overall policy in Syria.

The administration believes it has achieved a critical diplomatic feat by bringing Iran into the diplomatic talks over Syria and that this constitutes a major breakthrough in itself. “The United States has succeeded in leading the international effort to bring all sides together to try to bring about a political resolution inside of Syria,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a briefing after the Saudi-Iranian spat. The way the administration sees it, for a true discussion to take place, all so-called “stakeholders” in Syria must be gathered around the table in order to reach a settlement.

The administration’s self-congratulation aside, it’s worth exploring what this means in practice. By declaring Iran a legitimate “stakeholder,” the White House is not only saying that Syria is a recognized Iranian sphere of influence, but it also is recognizing Iran’s “stake” as legitimate. In fact, President Obama stated explicitly last month that the solution in Syria should be one that allows the Iranians to ensure “that their equities are respected.”

This begs the question of what, exactly, is Iran’s “stake” or “equities” in Syria? The answer is straightforward: Iran’s interest is to maintain a logistical bridge to Hezbollah through which it could supply the group with missiles and arms, thereby enabling it to continue to threaten U.S. allies like Israel and destabilize the region. The White House’s legitimization of Iran as a stakeholder in Syria risks licensing Iran to continue arming Hezbollah.

But this was hardly the only cost of President Obama’s policy. The key for safeguarding Iranian interests in Syria is ensuring the continuity of the Syrian President Bashar Assad regime. And so, in order to obtain Iranian “buy-in,” the administration abandoned what’s supposed to be the main objective in Syria, which is the removal of Assad and his regime. Assad, the administration now concedes, gets to stay on for an indefinite period as part of an indeterminate “transitional period.” In other words, when it comes to Syria, not only did Obama force Iran down his allies’ throat — he also fully endorsed its position.

Now, to top it off, the administration is attacking the Saudis for supposedly jeopardizing a process designed to safeguard Iran’s unchanged objectives in Syria. As the White House sees it, the Saudis’ only job is to bring the Syrian opposition to the table essentially to sign a surrender. What’s more, as part of this process, Iran, which has underwritten and partaken in Assad’s mass slaughter, gets a say in determining which opposition groups are listed as terrorists.

When it comes to the case of Nimr, the radical Saudi Shiite cleric, the administration has applied the same core premise of its Syria policy — that Iran has legitimate “equities” in Arab countries that should be “respected.”

Since his execution, the administration has made a point of repeatedly disclosing that it had tried to intervene with the Saudis not to go ahead with Nimr’s execution. The administration is now saying that the Saudis were told that the Iranians would react negatively to Nimr’s execution. Hence, the Saudi decision, the administration is saying, was a wanton provocation of Iran.

The underlying premise of the administration’s position is not only that Iran has a legitimate claim to represent Arab Shiites but also that since it has claimed Nimr, a Saudi, as a protégé, the Saudi government should not touch him. Therefore, the message the administration was effectively sending the Saudis was that Iran has a say in domestic Saudi affairs.

The truth is that the Obama administration has been aligning with Iran’s regional position for a while now — certainly since the beginning of the Syrian revolution. With the nuclear deal now in hand, and with a year left in President Obama’s term, the White House is becoming explicit about this major shift in the historic U.S. position in the region.

The president’s position on the Saudi-Iranian row is a public announcement that his administration is dissolving its traditional alliance system, along with the regional order it had underwritten for decades, and embracing Iran instead.

*** The blame actually goes deeper on the migrant crisis:

Former Obama Adviser Dennis Ross: U.S. Inaction in Syria Led to Refugee Crisis and ISIS

Amb. Ross/Tower: The Obama administration’s failure to address the brutality of the Iran-backed regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria led to a “vacuum” that allowed “a humanitarian catastrophe, a terrible refugee crisis, a deepening proxy war and the rise of ISIL in Iraq and Syria” to occur, Dennis Ross, a former White House adviser to President Barack Obama, wrote in Politico on Sunday.

Ross explained that the administration’s failure to act stemmed from a reluctance to repeat the mistakes that the United States made during the Iraq War, but added that Syria was different from Iraq, as Syria would involve aiding “an internal uprising” against Assad rather than an American invasion. According to Ross, Assad had turned the uprising against him into a sectarian conflict in the hope that his Alawite sect and other Syrian minorities would have a stake in his survival.

Soon, thereafter, it was transformed into a proxy war largely pitting Saudi Arabia and Turkey against Iran. A vacuum was created not by our replacing the Assad regime but by our hesitancy to do more than offer pronouncements—by overlearning the lessons of Iraq, in effect. And, that vacuum was filled by others: Iran, Hezbollah and Iran’s other Shia militia proxies; Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar; Russia; and ISIL. Unless the U.S. does more now to fill this vacuum, the situation will spin further out of control.

Ross observed that the vacuum in Syria was part of a greater American retreat in the Middle East, which “has helped to produce the increasing competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia.” Without fear of American action, he argued, Qassem Soleimani– the commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps elite Qods Force– was transformed from a “shadowy figure” to one who was present at seemingly every major battle in Iraq and Syria. Eventually, given Iran’s continued aggressiveness and America’s passivity, Saudi Arabia sought to push back against Tehran on its own.

While Ross argued that the growing Iranian-Saudi tensions were not likely turn into a hot war, he noted that the escalation hurts efforts to address the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria. In addition, without the U.S. taking an active role in the Middle East, Russia actively entered and further complicated the fray. Until Moscow agrees to pressure Assad “to respect a ceasefire, stop the barrel bombs, and permit the creation of humanitarian corridors” to deliver food and aid to non-ISIS opposition groups, Ross wrote, there is no hope of getting Saudi Arabia or other Sunni nations to join the fight against ISIS.

In order to address the vacuum, Ross suggested that the U.S. take a number of steps to regain control of the situation without getting too deeply involved. These include putting “troops on the ground, including deploying spotters for directing air attacks, embedding forces with local partners perhaps to the battalion level, and using special operations elements for hit-and-run raids.”

 

In 2014, Ross noted that the administration’s growing closeness to Iran was concerning American allies in the Middle East. For “the Arabs, the fear is that the deal with come at their expense,” he explained. His recent suggestion that the administration must somehow restrain Iran’s client, Assad, before it can exert any influence in Syria demonstrates that this fear still remains intact.