Category Archives: Russia

Sequester Destroying Military Readiness

Posted on by

A hearing on Capitol Hill yesterday revealed that a2 year program funded with $500 million to train local forces to fight against Islamic State has only reached a achievement of 60 troops when the goal is 5000 by the end of the year 2015.

The Syrian recruits must meet several criteria in order to be trained by the United States, including taking a pledge to fight ISIS rather than the regime of Assad. The trainees must also agree to abide by the laws of war.

The requirement to not fight Assad is a particularly high hurdle; most of the Syrian rebels have been fighting the government in a long-running civil war.

The meager training figure gave new ammunition to critics who say the administration’s ISIS strategy is flailing.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a member of the committee, said his constituents were confused about the rebel-training program, which cost $500 million in 2015 and will cost $600 million next year. 

“They’re confused about in Syria, trying to spend the money to find people to train when you acknowledged that we only had 60 of them successful right now and the amount of effort we’re spending there,” he said.

It gets worse….

The Russians are taking over the Arctic.

From the Washington Times: Coast Guard Commandant Paul F. Zukunft says that the U.S. is essentially ceding the Arctic’s emerging trade routes and natural resources to Russia.
Warming temperatures have opened up the trade routes and access to natural resources, which Russia is taking advantage of with its increased military presences and 27 icebreakers. The U.S. has two icebreakers.
“We’re not even in the same league as Russia right now,” said Adm. Zukunft, who oversees 88,000 personnel, Newsweek reported. “We’re not playing in this game at all.”

Fran Ulmer, chair of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, told Newsweek that if the U.S. wants to devote resources to the region this late in the game, then it will be difficult to catch up. Mr. Ulmer said “it takes years,” to build a single icebreaker, with each one costing roughly $1 billion.
The magazine reported that in addition to the resources Russia is sending to the Arctic, it also has filed claims with the U.N. to claim an additional 200 miles of land extending off its continental shelf. The claims will then be examined by U.N. scientists operating under a treaty called the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Still gets worse….

From the Army Times:

The Army plans to cut 40,000 soldiers from its ranks over the next two years, a reduction that will affect virtually all its domestic and foreign posts, the service asserts in a document obtained by USA Today.

The potential troop cut comes as the Obama administration is pondering its next moves against the Islamic State militant group in Iraq and Syria. President Obama said Monday he and military leaders had not discussed sending additional troops to Iraq to fight the Islamic State. There are about 3,500 troops in Iraq.

“This will not be quick — this is a long-term campaign,” Obama said at the Pentagon after meeting top military brass in the wake of setbacks that have prompted critics to call for a more robust U.S. response against the Islamic State.
[12:33:48 PM] The Denise Simon Experience: An additional 17,000 Army civilian employees would also be laid off under the plan officials intend to announce this week. Under the plan, the Army would have 450,000 soldiers by the end of the 2017 budget year. The reduction in troops and civilians is due to budget constraints, the document says.

The Army declined to comment on the proposed reductions in its forces.

Meanwhile, all NYSE trading stopped early Wednesday due to a ‘technical glitch’ when the Chinese markets are tanking, cyber attacks continue and United Airlines went offline as well.

Danger lurks and the threat matrix expands.

 

Thirteen Miles Away, Those are Russian Bombers

Posted on by

The US Air Force reportedly scrambled fighter jets to intercept two pairs of Russian bombers that flew off the coast of California and Alaska on July 4.

The first incident occurred off the coast of Alaska, forcing the Air Force to send two F-22 jets from their base in Alaska to intercept two Tupolev Tu-95 long-range nuclear bombers, Fox News reports, citing US defense officials.

The second incident happened off the central coast of California, where another pair of Tu-95 Bear bombers were intercepted by two F-15 jets.

A defense official said that neither pair of Russian bombers entered US airspace–12 nautical miles off the coast.

Such incidents are not an uncommon occurrence between Russia and the United States.

A US Air Force reconnaissance aircraft encountered with a Russian fighter jet over the Black Sea in May, American military officials said last month.

According to officials, the Russian Sukhoi Su-27 fighter jet, flying at high speed, flew alongside the US RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft at the same altitude, and shadowed the plane before leaving the area.

Also in May, the Russian military deployed Su-24 jets to ward off The US Navy destroyer USS Ross in the Black Sea after it was found heading into Russia’s territorial waters, according to several Russian media outlets.

The number of flights by Russian bombers over the US Air Defense Identification Zone doubled last year from their norm, according to data from the North American Aerospace Defense Command, known as NORAD.

Congressional hawks see the moves as a veiled message by Moscow over the conflict in Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Putin is KGB’ing Barack Obama:

While the two leaders have not had any communications since February, Putin allegedly reached out to the White House first in a phone call and then in a written communication.

Ultimatums abound, but who is listening.

Vladimir Putin and Barack Obama have reason to be disappointed after their telephone conversation on June 25.

It was the first direct communication between these leaders since February, and both the Kremlin and the White House reported that the conversation ranged over the Ukraine crisis, the civil wars in Syria and Iraq and the NATO buildup in Eastern Europe, as well as the impending conclusion of the talks with Iran over suspect nuclear weapons.

Putin initiated the exchange, but Obama did all of the asserting and exhorting that, in the end, came to a standoff in all the threatened regions. Chiefly, Obama is said to have insisted upon actions by Putin without offering anything in exchange. Obama’s conduct, according to Kremlin informants, was a premeditated performance of ultimatum.

Demands and provocations

First, Obama pressed Putin with the claim that Russia must withdraw from Ukraine, including the Crimean peninsula.

The White House reported Obama’s remarks in terms of last February’s Minsk agreement between the so-called Normandy Four, Ukraine, France, Germany and Russia: “President Obama reiterated the need for Russia to fulfill its commitments under the Minsk agreements, including the removal of all Russian troops and equipment from Ukrainian territory.”

At no point before or after that agreement has the Kremlin acknowledged there are Russian troops or weapon systems inside Ukraine in support of the Donbass separatists. There is no language in the agreement saying that there exist Russian armed forces in Ukraine to be withdrawn. There is mention of “foreign armed formations, military equipment, and also mercenaries.” Since then, the U.S. has deployed both military units and military equipment into Ukraine in support of the Kiev government. Kiev claims it has deployed 60,000 troops along the Donbass cease-fire line. The U.S., Great Britain and Canada speak of sending trainers for the elite national guard units (though not the neo-fascist Azov Battalion).

Obama’s remarks to Putin about Ukraine took the form of a diktat. From the Russian point of view, Obama sounded peculiarly unrealistic. There was the suggestion of desperation in Obama’s demands in order to create a foreign policy legacy despite the disorder in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia.

Obama also demanded that Russia support the pending deal between the P5+1 powers — the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany — and Iran over Tehran’s suspected secret nuclear weapons program. Russia, a party to the negotiations, has not voiced its opinion of a deal yet to be concluded. Obama told Putin that Russia must go along with the deal because this is what the international community demands.

Read more details here.

Bunker Busters vs. Kerry’s Pro-Iran Lobby

Posted on by

Sanctions and Ballistic Missiles

From Reuters:

A dispute over U.N. sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missile program and a broader arms embargo were among issues holding up a nuclear deal between Tehran and six world powers on Monday, the day before their latest self-imposed deadline.

“The Iranians want the ballistic missile sanctions lifted. They say there is no reason to connect it with the nuclear issue, a view that is difficult to accept,” one Western official told Reuters. “There’s no appetite for that on our part.”

Iranian and other Western officials confirmed this view as the foreign ministers of the six powers – Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States – gathered in Vienna to try to strike a deal with Iran by Tuesday night.

“The Western side insists that not only should it (ballistic missiles) remain under sanctions, but that Iran should suspend its program as well,” an Iranian official said.

“But Iran is insisting on its rights and says all the sanctions, including on the ballistic missiles, should be lifted when the U.N. sanctions are lifted.”

Lobbying on Behalf of Tehran

From Reuters:

It’s always awkward to defend your enemies. But that’s the position U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration has found itself in with Iran as it pushes for an historic accord that would end a 12-year nuclear standoff.

Tehran and Washington, which have called each other the “Great Satan” and a member of the “Axis of Evil” during 36 years of hostility, are more used to exchanging insults than defending each other. The two foes cut diplomatic ties after Iranian revolutionaries seized 52 hostages in Tehran’s U.S. embassy during the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Yet for a month now the U.S. State Department has been defending Iran from suggestions that it was on the verge of violating a requirement to reduce its low-enriched uranium stockpile under a 2013 interim nuclear with major powers.

Offensive Measure, Bunker Busters

From LA Times:

As diplomats rush to reach an agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program, the U.S. military is stockpiling conventional bombs so powerful that strategists say they could cripple Tehran’s most heavily fortified nuclear complexes, including one deep underground.

The bunker-busting bombs are America’s most destructive munitions short of atomic weapons. At 15 tons, each is 5 tons heavier than any other bomb in the U.S. arsenal.

In development for more than a decade, the latest iteration of the MOP — massive ordnance penetrator — was successfully tested on a deeply buried target this year at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The test followed upgrades to the bomb’s guidance system and electronics to stop jammers from sending it off course.

U.S. officials say the huge bombs, which have never been used in combat, are a crucial element in the White House deterrent strategy and contingency planning should diplomacy go awry and Iran seek to develop a nuclear bomb.

Obama has made it clear that he has no desire to order an attack, warning that U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s air defense network and nuclear facilities would spark a destabilizing new war in the Middle East, and would only delay Iran by several years should it choose to build a bomb.

“A military solution will not fix it,” Obama told Israeli TV on June 1. An attack “would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program, but it will not eliminate it.”

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, speaking to reporters Thursday at the Pentagon, sought to downplay the likelihood or the utility of an attack. He said no plan under consideration, including use of the bunker-busters, could deliver a permanent knockout blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and enrichment plants.

Iran Gets GOLD

Posted on by

An Iran nuclear czar? Zarif and Kerry today, Friday said a deal was never closer.

Iran has had 13 tons of their gold stored in South Africa for at least 2 years and due to lifted sanctions, the gold has been released and delivery in a handful of shipments under high security is complete. The gold was delivered to the central bank.

Since 2013 under the Obama White House agreement, Iran has received $4.2 billion in unfrozen assets and was awarded another $2.8 billion by Obama just to stay at the table and committing to continued talks.

Iran Violations:

Iran has been found in non-compliance with its International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards agreement, and accordingly is in non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).1 Iran is continuing its uranium enrichment program and heavy water-related activities in defiance of Security Council resolutions calling for their suspension. The IAEA is trying to resolve a number of matters indicating a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program, but Iran is not cooperating with the IAEA’s investigations. There are well-founded concerns that the Iranian enrichment and heavy water programs have a military objective – to give Iran the capability to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so. What is not clear is how far Iran intends to proceed down this path – will it cross the nuclear weapon threshold, or if not, how far short will it stop?

Amongst other issues, this paper addresses the commonly held belief that Iran is entitled to undertake uranium enrichment, and the closely related question whether nuclear hedging – establishing a nuclear weapon break-out capability in the guise of a civilian program – is a legitimate activity under the NPT. If a negotiated solution with Iran is achieved that allows for continued enrichment, this must also adequately address international concerns that Iran’s nuclear program has a military purpose. A “solution” that allows continued development of a military dimension would be pointless. Many more details in this report.

Going back a decade, it has been well known that Iran has been using the black market to skirt sanctions.  The audio discussion on the black market and violations is here. Additionally, you would be stunned at who does business with Iran and the value of that commerce.

What about the secret low enriched uranium? Glad you asked.

The controversy over the status of Iran’s newly produced low enriched uranium (LEU) hexafluoride under the Joint Plan of Action (JPA) initially surprised us at ISIS. We have been monitoring the various provisions of the JPA since its inception, including Iran’s pledge to convert its newly produced LEU hexafluoride stocks into uranium dioxide form during the JPA term and its extensions. We would have expected the public controversy to center on other issues, including the near 20 percent LEU stocks in Iran. These stocks are far too large, and if left in place, will undermine the administration’s central case that Iran would need 12 months to break out, if it reneged on a long term deal. Yet, upon reflection, this issue of the newly produced LEU is a microcosm of the legal, technical, and political challenges in the on-going negotiations with Iran. It is also another indication that U.S. secrecy is excessive and contributing to problems on its own. Finally, it is necessary to state that this case is a lesson in how difficult it is to understand all the issues in these negotiations, even for those of us who spend enormous amount of time following and assessing provisions in these negotiations.

Concessions

From CNN:

Concessions checklist

So what has the U.S. ceded so far? And what has it gotten in return? Supporters and opponents of the Iran talks are both keeping their checklists ready. They’re tallying the wins and losses and keeping a close eye on the remaining sticking points.

Breakout time

Breakout time is the amount of time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear bomb. In the event of a final deal, if Iran were to dash toward weaponization, it would take 12 months to build a nuclear bomb, according to U.S. calculations.

That figure is a considerable improvement over the two- to three-month breakout time that Iran currently has.

Some worry, however, that one year is not enough to guarantee the U.S. and other countries could actually prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon should Iran decide to race toward one, given the number of diplomatic and verification steps that would precede the use of military force.

Centrifuges

Iran will be allowed to keep 6,104 centrifuges, and just over 5,000 of those will continue enriching uranium, based on the preliminary agreement.

That’s a far ways from where American officials initially said they wanted to end up, first demanding Iran cut its centrifuges to between 500 and 1,500 and then floating 4,000.

The agreement still cuts down most of the nearly 19,000 currently installed — about 10,000 of which are now used for enrichment — but even the additional centrifuges won’t be scrapped entirely. They’ll remain in Iran under the control of the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and will be freed up at the end of the period of constraints on its program.

Enrichment activity

Under the framework for negotiations, Iran has already significantly reduced the level to which it enriches uranium, capping those levels far below what is needed for a nuclear weapon.

Iran has agreed to restrict all of its enrichment activity to one reactor site — Natanz. This is reassuring to the U.S. and Israel because it would be easier for them to take effective military action to degrade Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Furthermore, Iran will only use its first-generation centrifuges, which are slow to enrich uranium and are unreliable.

Duration of the deal

The restrictions that will keep Iran to a one-year breakout time will expire after 10 years.

President Barack Obama has conceded that “in year 13, 14, 15 … the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”

After the 10th year, Iran would be able to start upping its uranium enrichment. And after 15 years, the program would be completely unbridled.

There was always going to be a sunset — it’s inconceivable that Iran would accept restrictions and inspections on its nuclear program indefinitely — but the Obama administration’s starting ask was for restrictions lasting 20 to 25 years.

Even if political change doesn’t come to Iran in that period — which he hopes it will — Obama insisted this spring that the U.S. will have “much more insight into their capabilities” as a result of the rigorous inspections, and 10 to 15 years improves considerably upon the status quo.

But the sunset provision has experts like Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies worried that Iran will simply “go back to what they were doing before” — and without the limitations of sanctions.

“We think 10 to 15 years is a long time,” he said. “They think it’s a blip in history.”

Revealing past Iranian military activities

For years the United States and the rest of the international community has demanded that Iran come clean about suspected past efforts to militarize its nuclear program.

Tehran even pledged to the IAEA in 2007 that it would do so, and the fact that it hasn’t raises questions about the reliability of its commitments.

When Kerry was asked by PBS in April about Iran’s obligation to answer such questions, he said bluntly, “They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal, it will be done.”

Kerry, though, recently indicated such a “confession” was no longer essential to a deal.

“We’re not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another. We know what they did,” Kerry said last month.

Underground nuclear sites

Under an eventual deal, Iran would stop enriching uranium at Fordow, its fortified, underground nuclear site, for 15 years and only use the facility for research with some inactive centrifuges remaining onsite. It also won’t be able to store any fissile material at the site.

Though the West had originally called for Fordow to be shut down entirely, cutting off enrichment at the site is a relief not just for the U.S. but also for Israel, which was concerned its military arsenal would not be able to reach the site — buried deep in the side of a mountain.

The U.S. has a more powerful bunker-busting bomb than Israel, one that may be able to penetrate the site, though not with total certainty.

Heavy water reactor

Iran will significantly modify its heavy water reactor so it can no longer produce weapons-grade plutonium, a possible component for a nuclear bomb.

Iran has already begun redesigning the reactor to limit its capacity — a key change for a country that has repeatedly defended the reactor’s medical and scientific applications.

Israel had previously called for the reactor’s total dismantlement, but serious modifications have quelled many concerns about Iran’s ability to use the reactor for non-peaceful purposes.

Outstanding issues

Officials still have to determine whether Iran will dilute or export its eight-ton stockpile of highly enriched uranium and determine the parameters for Iran to use more highly enriched uranium for scientific research purposes.

But it’s the two other remaining issues that are the most contentious, and will ultimately determine for most experts whether they have confidence that the deal will keep Iran from getting a nuclear bomb.

Inspections

The West is insisting that Iran give inspectors unfettered access to any site they suspect of nuclear activity — military sites included. Without that, officials fear that Iran could try to sneak its way to a bomb by using a secret facility, especially given its history of cheating and concealing its nuclear work.

“The most likely form of cheating would be at undeclared or secret facilities, and so you’ve got to have strong inspections,” said Gary Samore, who previously served as Obama’s top arms control adviser.

Iranian officials, though, have insisted that they won’t relent on that point, certainly not when it comes to military facilities.

Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken insisted Thursday on CNN that the U.S. will “walk away” if Iran doesn’t agree to the rigorous inspections and verification regime the U.S. is seeking.

Negotiators have floated the idea of a commission of countries that would hear Iran’s objections to inspections requests. But if Iran still refuses to allow inspections at the site, international sanctions would be reimposed.

Ilan Berman, a skeptic of the deal, said that type of “managed access” could give the Iranians the chance to scrub evidence from a site while they stall for time.

“You want to do snap inspections, not ones where they can move things around,” said Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council.

Sanctions relief

Western officials have insisted that sanctions won’t be removed until Iran holds up its end of the bargain by reining in its nuclear activity as agreed.

Iran, on the other hand, at first demanded sanctions be lifted as soon as a final agreement is signed and sealed. Iranian officials now appear to be relenting somewhat and agreeing that sanctions could fall at a later date, after they make the necessary changes to their nuclear program.

Negotiators are now looking to iron out the details of the sequence for the removal of those sanctions.

But once those sanctions come off, it’s unclear how effectively the international community could snap them back into place — if it’s even willing to. While Iran’s economy has suffered because of the restrictions, so have many companies based in the countries that have imposed them.

 

 

Obama Schedules Meeting with Communist Leader

Posted on by

There is a pattern being established, anyone paying attention? Cuba, Venezuela and now Vietnam?

From Wikipedia: The Secretariat of the Central Committee Communist Party of Vietnam (Vietnamese: Ban Bí thư Trung ương Đảng Cộng sản Việt Nam), replaced by the Politburo Standing Committee of the Central Committee in the period 1996 to 2001, is the highest implementation body of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) between Central Committee meetings. According to Party rules, the Secretariat implements the decisions of the Politburo and the Central Committee.

The members of the Politburo are elected (and given a ranking) by the Central Committee in the immediate aftermath of a National Party Congress. The current Secretariat, the 10th, was elected by the Central Committee in the aftermath of the 11th National Congress and consists of 10 members. The first-ranked member is Nguyễn Phú Trọng, the General Secretary of the Central Committee.

Okay, read on if you dare.

Reuters:

Vietnam Communist Party chief to meet Obama on landmark U.S. trip

Vietnam’s Communist Party chief will visit the United States next week in a landmark trip that could prove pivotal in Washington’s bid to bolster its Asian alliances in the back yard of an increasingly assertive China.

Nguyen Phu Trong will meet U.S. President Barack Obama at the White House as the former war enemies mark two decades of calibrated engagement since the normalization of ties that have expanded rapidly in the past year.

That meeting would skirt protocol because party boss Trong is not part of a government, but a senior state department official said Obama saw the visit as crucial and was expecting a “very big picture conversation”.

“He is the top guy… It’s a pretty big event,” the official told reporters.

“There was a broad agreement that it made sense to treat him and treat the visit as the visit of the top leader of the country.

“We don’t view the meeting as a reward for the Vietnamese. We view it much more as continuing engagement.”

The July 6-10 trip follows a year-long charm offensive by the United States launched as a fierce row over sovereignty erupted in May 2014 between communist neighbors Vietnam and China, which saw relations sink to their worst in three decades.

Washington capitalized, shifting gear in its diplomacy after China parked an oil rig unannounced in what Vietnam considers its domain.

“The relationship with Vietnam has moved to a very different place and part of that has been actually energized by China’s actions,” Deputy Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, said last week.

“We now have more countries in Southeast Asia looking to the United States and striking stronger relationships with us than we’ve ever had, less because of what we’ve done than because of what China has done.”

LINGERING SUSPICION

A lot is riding on a visit that the United States hopes will build more trust. Experts say progressives in Vietnam favor closer U.S. ties, but suspicion lingers among conservatives about Washington’s end-game.

The United States has been courting the communist leadership with visits to Vietnam by some of the biggest names in Washington: top General Martin Dempsey, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ash Carter, Senator John McCain, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell and several legislators.

Former President Bill Clinton met Trong, 71, on Thursday and was guest at an Independence Day celebration in Hanoi, where he described the 1995 normalization of ties as “one of the most important achievements of my presidency.”

A lot has changed since.

Vietnam is Southeast Asia’s biggest exporter to the United States, with which it shares annual trade of $35 billion. Both countries are among 12 negotiating a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) accord covering combined GDP of $28 trillion.

A lethal arms embargo on Vietnam was eased in October, allowing joint military exercises and $18 million in loans for U.S. patrol boats. It also allowed consultations on defense procurement, as Hanoi seeks to build up a deterrent to counter Beijing’s expansionism in the South China Sea.

Vietnam has been speaking to Western defense companies, including U.S. firms Lockheed Martin Corp and Boeing, according to informed sources.

But scope for deals could be limited until the embargo is fully lifted. Washington says that requires greater improvements in Vietnam’s human rights record.

Ernest Bower, a Southeast Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Trong’s visit was “historic and timely” and aimed to break down trust barriers.

“The two countries … are about to enter a new era of deeper cooperation in areas such as security, political and diplomatic alignment,” he said.

“The countries’ political leaders must develop a level of trust and mutual respect. That is what this visit is about.”