Category Archives: Russia

Anyone Paying Attention to Putin?

Posted on by

The domestic scandals continue to mount while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and even Yemen seem to be dismissed. Why no attention to Ukraine or the Baltic States? Ah, leaving that to NATO leadership is the solution, but NATO leadership is the United States.

(Reuters) – Russia’s Foreign Ministry said on Friday it would not follow “American diktat” over the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Treaty between the two countries.

The ministry said in a statement that the United States continues to follow a logic of confrontation in its dealings with Russia and referred to accusations made recently in the U.S. Congress that Russia had violated the missile treaty.

What does need to be understood? Russia is a nuclear weapons state and in violation of treaties. Then Putin has a very aggressive operation underway against the West. America has an outgoing Secretary of Defense and his replacement has not been confirmed. So? Well consider countermeasures…

Pentagon Planning Military Counter to Russia’s Treaty-Prohibited Cruise Missiles

Russian violation of an arms control agreement poses a threat to U.S. and its allies’ security interests, leading the Joint Staff to conduct a military assessment of its threat, a senior defense official said here today.

Brian P. McKeon, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for policy, testified alongside Rose Gottemoeller, undersecretary of state for international security, in a joint hearing before the House Armed Services Committee’s subcommittee on strategic forces, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade regarding Russian noncompliance with the Intermediate Nuclear-Range Forces treaty.

In the course of “closely” monitoring compliance of arms control treaties, McKeon said, it was determined that Russia was in violation of the INF treaty. . . .

“As a result of Russia’s actions,” McKeon said, “the Joint Staff has conducted a military assessment of the threat were Russia to deploy an INF treaty-range ground-launch cruise missile in Europe or the Asia-Pacific region.

“This assessment has led us to review a broad range of military response options,” he said, “and to consider the effect each option could have on convincing Russian leadership to return to compliance with the INF treaty, as well as countering the capability of a Russian INF treaty-prohibited system.”

McKeon emphasized that the department doesn’t want to engage in an “escalatory cycle” of action and reaction.”

However, Russia’s lack of meaningful engagement on this issue — if it persists — will ultimately require the United States to take actions to protect its interests and security along with those of its allies and partners,” he added. “Those actions will make Russia less secure.”

Treaty Importance, Steps Taken

“We believe the INF treaty contributes to not only U.S. and Russian security,” McKeon said, “but also to that of our allies and partners. For that reason, Russian possession, development or deployment of a weapons system in violation of the treaty will not be ignored. . . .”

“Such a violation threatens our security and the collective security of many allies and partners,” he added. “This violation will not go unanswered, because there is too much at stake”

Former Commander Urges NATO to Send Arms to Ukraine  

Full text of requirements is here.

A former commander of Nato in Europe has called for the alliance to send arms and military advisers to Ukraine to help it fight Moscow-backed separatists.

James Stavridis said during a visit to London: “I think we should provide significant military assistance to the Ukrainian military. I don’t think we should limit ourselves to, non-lethal aid. I think we should provide ammunition, fuel, logistics. I think cyber-assistance would be very significant and helpful, as well as advice and potentially advisers.

“I don’t think there needs to be huge numbers of Nato troops on the ground. The Ukrainian military can resist what’s happening, but they need some assistance in order to do that.”

Ukraine announced on Friday that it would conscript 40,000 more soldiers next year and double its military budget, in an attempt to counter the separatist threat in the east. . . .

Bob Corker, the senior Republican member of the Senate foreign relations committee, said: “The hesitant US response to Russia’s continued invasion of Ukraine threatens to escalate this conflict even further. Unanimous support for our bill demonstrates a firm commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty and to making sure [Vladimir] Putin pays for his assault on freedom and security in Europe.”

 

Covering for Hillary and the Shame of Hillary

Posted on by

State Department delays turning over files on Hillary Clinton requested by media outlets  

The State Department has failed to turn over government documents covering Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state that The Associated Press and others requested under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act ahead of her presumptive presidential campaign. They include one request AP made four years ago and others pending for more than one year.

The agency already has missed deadlines it set for itself to turn over the material.

The State Department denied the AP’s requests, and rejected the AP’s subsequent appeals, to release the records sought quickly under a provision in the law reserved for journalists requesting federal records about especially newsworthy topics.

In its requests, the AP cited the likely prospect of Clinton entering the 2016 race. The former first lady is widely considered the leading Democratic contender hoping to succeed President Barack Obama. She has made scores of recent high-profile speeches and public appearances.

On Wednesday, the conservative political advocacy group Citizens United sued the State Department for failing to disclose flight records showing who accompanied Clinton on overseas trips.

Citizens United, which in 2009 mounted a legal battle that led to the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning campaign finance limits, said the department unlawfully was withholding the records it sought nearly five months ago.

The State Department is among the U.S. government’s worst-performing federal agencies under the Freedom of Information Act. There is no direct evidence that political considerations in a Democratic presidential administration have delayed the release of files about the party’s leading contender for 2016. But the agency’s delays, unusual even by government standards, have stoked perceptions about what could be taking so long.

“There may not necessarily be political interference, but if the department went out of its way to speed these documents there would be no way for people to accuse them of it,” said Thomas Blanton, who has previously sued the State Department for access to records as director of George Washington University’s National Security Archive, a research organization.

The department “is stonewalling us,” said Citizen United’s president, David Bossie. He asserted that “these decisions are being made with Hillary Clinton’s intentions at heart,” but acknowledged he could provide no evidence of political interference.

Bossie, a former Republican congressional investigator who researched figures in the Clinton administration, said his group’s film unit wants the records for a sequel to its documentary about Clinton, which spurred the Citizens United court decision.

The group first asked Air Force officials for passenger lists from Clinton’s overseas trips but was told all flight records were under the State Department’s control. “These were Air Force flights and crews but State has the records?” he said, adding that his group has submitted 15 Clinton-related requests in the past six months.

The AP’s requests go further back.

The AP requested copies of Clinton’s full schedules and calendars from her four years as secretary of state; her department’s decision to grant a special position for longtime aide Huma Abedin; Clinton’s and the agency’s roles in the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices; and her role overseeing a major Defense Department contractor. The AP made most of its requests last summer, although one was filed in March 2010.

State Department spokesman Alec Gerlach cited the department’s heavy annual load of FOIA requests _ 19,000 last year _ in saying that the department “does its best to meet its FOIA responsibilities.” He said the department takes requests “first in, first out,” but noted that timing depends on “the complexity of the request.” He declined to comment on Citizen United’s suit.

In a previous communication, a State Department official apologized for its own delays responding to AP’s records requests without offering any explanation for the delays.

“We sincerely regret the delay,” said Lela H. Ross of the Office of Information Programs and Services, which administers the agency’s requests. The official did not explain the delays but cited the agency’s “complex and lengthy administrative FOIA process.”

Last May, the State Department told the AP that its search for records pertaining to Clinton and the defense contractor would be completed by August. The agency said it now expects the files to be available later this month. Similarly, the agency said the Clinton and Abedin records would likely be completed in September. Now it says it will not finish until next April. The 4-year-old FOIA request still has no estimated completion date.

The agency’s pace responding to requests for Clinton-related files has frustrated news organizations, archivists and political groups trying to research her role at the State Department in the months before Clinton decides whether to formally enter the 2016 race.

At stake is the public’s access to thousands of documents that could help understand and define her activities as the nation’s chief diplomat under Obama.

Other major document repositories have released thousands of pages of files about Clinton’s private and public life.

Since February, lots of previously restricted records from her years as first lady to President Bill Clinton have been made public by the Clinton Presidential Library. Last month, the University of Virginia’s Miller Center presidential oral history collection unveiled dozens of interviews with key players from the Clinton White House.

The State Department generally takes about 450 days to turn over records it considers to be part of complex requests under the Freedom of Information Act. That is seven times longer than the Justice Department and CIA, and 30 times longer than the Treasury Department.

An inspector general’s report in 2012 criticized the State Department’s practices as “inefficient and ineffective,” citing a heavy workload, small staff and interagency problems. A study in March by the nonpartisan Center for Effective Government said the State Department was the worst-performing agency because of its delays and frequent failure to deliver the full number of files that people requested.

***

Meanwhile another Benghazi hearing occurred today 12/10/14.

Of particular note, the February 17 Brigade hired for supplemental security at the mission post were not only fully vetted, some members were on strike over pay disputes and even worse, the organization did not have a license to operate in Libya.

When asked by Congressman Jim Jordan why we were in Libya in the first place, he was told that the single point of contact for that question and decision to be in Libya was between Hillary Clinton and Ann Patterson. Not only was Patterson a major part of the failure during the Arab Spring in Egypt, but she was Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.

The witnesses included Greg Starr, Assistant Secretary of State for Diplomatic Security, left, and Steve Linick, State Department Inspector General and the questioning was narrowed to pre-attack security violations. The Inspector General delivered oral and written testimony stating that the Accountability Review Board recommendations have yet to be fully implemented after two years and waiver are often signed for non-compliance.

Recent Significant OIG Findings Concerning Security Issues
In addition to the ARB process review, OIG has issued a variety of reports covering significant security matters. I take this opportunity to highlight four areas of concern: (1) physical security deficiencies; (2) exceptions and waivers; (3) “stovepiping” of security issues within the Department; and (4) vetting of local guard forces protecting overseas facilities and personnel. P hysical S ecurity D eficiencies
Making Department personnel and facilities safe depends in large part on understanding and closing the gaps between established physical security requirements and the real world situations found at each post around the world. Recent OIG reports demonstrate that the Department is at increased risk because it lacks sufficient processes, planning, and procedures to ensure that the Department understands the security needs at posts around the world. For example, in March 2014, OIG reported, in its audit on requesting and prioritizing physical-security activities, that the Department lacked a comprehensive list of physical security deficiencies and funding requests at overseas posts.8 As a result, the Department could not ensure that the highest priority physical security needs at overseas posts were addressed and that the posts’ vulnerabilities to threats had therefore been reduced sufficiently.9 If the Department cannot identify security vulnerabilities, it cannot adequately implement or fund solutions.  In 2012, OIG conducted a series of audits and reviews of posts located in Europe, Latin America, and Africa, which identified physical security deficiencies at nine embassies and one consulate that required immediate attention.10 OIG auditors found that the posts were generally not in compliance with the Department’s physical and procedural security standards. Security deficiencies common among the posts included the failure to meet minimum compound perimeter requirements; to properly conduct inspections of vehicles before entering posts; to maintain functioning anti-ram barriers, as required; and to install and/or maintain functioning forced-entry/ballistic-resistant doors, as required. Some regional security officers (RSOs) at the audited posts stated that they were not aware of the security requirements, and one RSO explained that the deficiency in question was in place prior to the RSO’s arrival at post; however, no action had been initiated to remedy the security deficiency.  Exceptions and Waivers
Exceptions and waivers granted from compliance requirements of the Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act11 (SECCA) or the security standards established by the Overseas Security Policy Board (OSPB) also contribute to increased security risks at posts.
8 Audit of the Process To Request and Prioritize Physical Security – Related Activities at Overseas Posts (AUD-FM-14-17, March 2014). 9 Ibid. 10 AUD-SI-13-32, June 2013, and AUD-HCI-13-40, September 2013. 11 Sec. 606(a) of H.R. 3427 of the 106th Congress (113 Stat. 1501A-454-255) (22 U.S.C. § 4865), incorporated by reference pursuant to sec. 1000(a)(7) of Pub. L. 106-113 as Appendix G (1999).
4
OIG has found conditions of non-compliance with security standards for which posts had not sought exceptions or waivers.12 A common example is the use of warehouse space for offices. Under the Department’s security rules, office space must meet more stringent physical security standards than warehouse space; Department employees who work in warehouse spaces, which do not meet required physical security standards for offices, are at risk.  OIG also found that a number of overseas posts had not maintained accurate exception and waiver records.13 In some cases, OIG inspectors found that RSOs were unable to locate an exception or waiver approval or denial that was on file with DS. When a new RSO, chief of mission, or deputy chief of mission arrives at post, accurate, up-to-date records can help ensure that the RSO and senior management have current knowledge of outstanding exception and waiver requests. Only in this manner can the RSO ensure that mitigating steps are understood and completed and that restrictions, such as building use, are enforced. To address these issues, OIG recommended that DS require overseas posts to: (1) submit an annual written certification that exceptions and waivers have been requested for all circumstances where standards cannot be met and (2) provide a statement of assurance signed by the chief of mission certifying that post is adhering to all stipulations in existing waivers and exceptions. To date, this recommendation remains unresolved.

But the U.S. State Department was much worse under Hillary Clinton than is reported.

CBS News’ John Miller reports that according to an internal State Department Inspector General’s memo, several recent investigations were influenced, manipulated, or simply called off. The memo obtained by CBS News cited eight specific examples. Among them: allegations that a State Department security official in Beirut “engaged in sexual assaults” on foreign nationals hired as embassy guards and the charge and that members of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s security detail “engaged prostitutes while on official trips in foreign countries” — a problem the report says was “endemic.”

The memo also reveals details about an “underground drug ring” was operating near the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and supplied State Department security contractors with drugs.

 

 

 

 

Rotation NATO Operation Atlantic Resolve

Posted on by

Atlantic Resolve (OAR) Land Forces training mission Dec. 15 from the Texas-based 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division, to the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, based in Vilseck, Germany.

The 2nd Cavalry Regiment assumes responsibility as the next rotational U.S. Army unit to take part in ongoing multinational land forces exercises across NATO’s eastern border to include Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland.

Advance elements of 3rd Squadron, 2nd Cavalry regiment have already arrived in the Baltic nations and Poland to prepare for the arrival of the unit’s personnel and equipment. The squadron is expected to complete the deployment of its personnel and equipment to the four nations by the second week of January.

1/1 CAV will rotate back to its home base in Fort Hood, Texas, in time for the holiday season.

Operation Atlantic Resolve demonstrates U.S. commitment to NATO Allies following Russian aggressive actions in Ukraine.

“As the main enabler for NATO land forces in the U.S. European Command, we are absolutely committed to assuring and defending our NATO allies. We’ve been executing Army operations with a combination of forward stationed and rotational forces since early spring of 2014,” said Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, U.S. Army Europe commander. “Our commitment to each other and interoperability are stronger than ever. USAREUR is the leadership laboratory for the Army as we have the unique advantage of working side by side with our Allies and partners every day.”

In close coordination with the host nations, both allied and U.S. Army units will conduct a transitional period over the holiday break from mid December to early January to allow the flow of outbound and inbound unit equipment and for Soldiers to spend the holidays with family.

Meanwhile:

U.S. army may station tanks in Eastern Europe

The U.S. Army plans to deploy about 150 tanks and armored vehicles to NATO countries next year and some of the heavy armor may be stationed in Eastern Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, Commander of U.S. Army Europe, said on Tuesday, cites LETA/AFP. 

The move is part of a U.S. effort dubbed “Operation Atlantic Resolve” in the Baltic states and Poland to reassure allies anxious about a resurgent Russia, with American troops deploying for several months at a time to conduct joint exercises.

Nearly 50 armored vehicles are already in place and another 100 “M1 Abrams” tanks and “Bradley” fighting vehicles will be pre-positioned in Germany and possibly elsewhere for the U.S. troops conducting drills with NATO partners, Hodges told AFP in a phone interview from Estonia.

“The troops will come over and train, and they’ll go back. The equipment will stay behind,” Hodges said.

The arrangement was “a lot cheaper” than transporting tanks across the Atlantic and more efficient for the training mission, the general said.

Hodges said he would soon make a recommendation on whether to store some of the tanks and armored vehicles among NATO’s eastern members.

“I’m going to look at options that would include distributing this equipment in smaller sets, company-size or battalion-size, perhaps in the Baltics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, places like that,” he said.

The United States has about 29,000 forces permanently stationed in Germany, Italy and Belgium but has stepped up temporary deployments of troops for training and exercises designed to send a signal to Russia and NATO partners.

About 600 U.S. Army troops from the 1st Cavalry Division are to depart in mid-December after a three month stint in the Baltic countries and Poland. They will be replaced by soldiers from the 2nd Cavalry Regiment based in Vilseck, Germany, who then will hand over in the spring to members of the 3rd Infantry Division, he said.

Hodges said the troop rotations will continue through 2015 and into 2016.

Then Zerohedge reports: Having grown used to images and clips of “Russian” tanks rolling through Ukraine, crossing borders, and generally creating havoc, we thought the following clip was of note. With NATO and Russia rattling sabres ever louder, the site of a trainful of American tanks passing through Latvia will, we are sure, do nothing to calm both sides. Video is here.

As LiveLeak reports,

According to the representative of national armed forces of Latvia, till December 6 transportation of heavy military equipment of the first cavalry division of army of the USA from Adazhi and Estonia was carried out to Lithuania.

*  *  *

As NATO builds its forces…

Before:

After:

 

and “incidents” surge…

 

 




 

Putin’s Secret Submarines and Strategy

Posted on by

Russia has been placing, flying and deploying strategic military assets around the globe that appear in some curious locations, like aircraft near Newfoundland, aircraft near Alaska and ships near Nicaragua and Cuba.

Now it seems that a submarine that was detected and vanished has gained the attention of several countries.

Many countries are paying attention however, no one is saying if this is aggression, surveillance or part of a Putin Cold War Part 2 operation.

Few speak to the matter of Ukraine and even less when it comes to the risk of the Baltic States.

LONDON—The U.K. called in assistance to help hunt for a foreign submarine off the west coast of Scotland starting in late November.

Maritime patrol aircraft (MPAs) from France, Canada and the U.S. conducted patrols in conjunction with British surface warships in the search for the submarine in late November and the first week of December, operating out of RAF Lossiemouth in northern Scotland.

The incident began when a periscope was sighted in waters where U.K. and other submarines would normally surface as they head into or out of the Royal Navy’s submarine base at Faslane, home of the U.K.’s ballistic missile submarines.

At the height of the operation, aircraft involved in the hunt included two U.S. Navy P-3 Orions, a single CP-140 Aurora from the Royal Canadian Air Force and a Dassault Atlantique 2 of the French navy. Also involved was one of the U.K.’s Raytheon Sentinel radar-reconnaissance aircraft.

The U.K. defense ministry and the participating air arms have not confirmed they were hunting for a submarine. But a U.K. defense ministry spokesman told Aviation Week that Britain had “requested assistance from allied forces for basing of maritime patrol aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth for a limited period.

The aircraft are conducting Maritime Patrol activity with the Royal Navy; we do not discuss the detail of maritime operations.”

A spokesman for the Royal Canadian Air Force said: “Following a request for assistance from the United Kingdom, the Canadian Armed Forces deployed one CP-140 Aurora Aircraft to RAF Lossiemouth for a limited time.”

Maritime patrol aircraft are occasionally deployed to Scotland, mainly for NATO’s Joint Warrior exercise. Such exercises are usually announced in advance, but November’s deployment was unexpected, with the aircraft and supporting airlifters arriving around Nov. 26. The deployment appeared to end last last week.

The incident comes more than a month after Swedish authorities halted a search for a foreign submarine operating in its territorial waters in the Stockholm archipelago. While the Swedish search was unsuccessful, defense officials said there was no doubt that the country’s waters had been violated by a foreign power.

It is not clear whether the submarine being hunted by the U.K. and other Western nations had entered U.K. territorial waters, or if the maritime patrol aircraft successfully located the sub.

The Sentinel may have been using its radar to try to spot periscope-sized objects on the surface and then cue MPAs onto the target.

On Nov. 28, the U.K. reported it was tracking four Russian warships passing through the Strait of Dover and into the English Channel heading out into the Atlantic. The surface ships included a Ropucha-class landing ship and an Udaloy-class destroyer. These were shadowed by HMS Tyne, a Royal Navy offshore patrol vessel.

The U.K. retired its own fixed-wing maritime patrol capability provided by the Nimrod in 2010, and has been limited to the use of ships and helicopters for the anti-submarine mission.

Further, another look at Putin’s aggression and certain risks are worthy of immediate attention especially as the Russian currency is unstable due in part to the falling price of crude oil.

Russia and the West

The Geopolitical Nihilist

Jakub Grygiel

Putin’s Russia may be able to wreck the geopolitical status quo, but it doesn’t have the power to replace it.

Russia’s bold moves into Crimea and Eastern Ukraine give one the impression that a calculating strategist sits in the Kremlin. Putin’s own public pronouncements tell us that his apparent aim is to restore Muscovite power and influence over territories deemed by him to be historically Russian. Putin is thus feared to be a shrewd competitor willing to use all forms of Russian power—from nuclear innuendo to a superiority in conventional forces to relentless information warfare—in order to build methodically a new regional order. In other words, he may be a geopolitical master.

But there is another possibility. It’s plausible that he has no such well thought out vision of geopolitical reconstruction, and little or no planning for how to establish and maintain whatever new rules Moscow might impose. Even if Putin did have a new regional order in mind, he may be incapable of translating it into reality. By choice and by necessity, Putin may simply be eager to wreck the status quo with nary a thought given to what comes after. In other words, he may be a geopolitical nihilist.

Consider, for instance, that it is unclear what Putin’s desired “international order” would look like. His own statements on this subject are increasingly more detached from reality, rants fueled by his own propaganda. (He suggests, for instance, that Ukraine is oppressing Russians, or that the U.S. and the West more broadly have been aggressors against Russia for the better part of two decades.) Whether he believes this nonsense or not will never be known, but there is little in such harangues to suggest that he has a positive vision of an alternative political order. We know—and he knows—what he viscerally hates, but the destruction of what he hates does not imply a replacement.

Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, even if Putin has a long-term vision of the order he wants to establish, he may be unable to implement it. Weak and declining revisionist powers, such as today’s Russia, do not have the capacity to establish a stable regional order. They lack the strength necessary to maintain it, even though they may have a deep desire to demolish the existing one. The best they can do is to increase uncertainty about their behavior, flailing here and there, expanding their influence and control in weakly defended adjacent regions, and more broadly, increasing the perception of risk in the mind of their opponents. The result is a volatile and unpredictable situation—costly to all, but seen by the declining revisionist as perhaps more costly to its rivals (and thus in the selfish logic of relative gains, beneficial!). A declining revisionist power is a wrecker of order.

The inability to formulate and implement a cogent and viable alternative does not mean, however, that Putin’s Russia is not a serious menace to the security of Europe and the interests of the United States. Geopolitical nihilism is not the same as geopolitical passivity. Russia presents perhaps a greater problem than a strong revisionist state with clear and implementable plans for how to reorganize the international or regional order.

Russia has neither the power nor the authority to maintain an order, but it has plenty of force and abundant desire to destroy the existing one.

Russia is in fact still a formidable military power. It has a massive nuclear arsenal that is presented to the world as superior to the American one and as a symbol, if not a symptom, of great resilience and strength. As many analysts have observed, Russian conventional forces have undergone a dramatic, though still limited, improvement since the 2008 war in Georgia (and in any case, they are superior in size, firepower, and sophistication to those of Russia’s European and Central Asian neighbors). Yet the economy is in shambles, producing little of value and drawing wealth mostly from the extraction of natural resources. Moreover, Russia’s authoritarian political system is fragile, based on the so far unchallenged rule of Putin and his clan, a large propaganda apparatus fanning nationalist hysteria and resentment toward the West, and a good dose of violence targeted at political opponents and potential claimants to power. Russia is a ramshackle gas station run by a small group of well-armed, delusional gangsters.

This political, social, and economic fragility means that Russia cannot replace the existing order on Europe’s eastern frontier—an order that is based on exactly those pillars fraying or outright missing in Russia. But she can destroy it because of her military might. Russia cannot compete as an economic potentate or as a politically attractive entity, but can and does employ its military force to destabilize the region. It is not surprising therefore that Ukraine can be Western and European by the Ukrainians’ free choice but may still fall under Russian vassalage by the sheer brutality of Muscovite firepower. This is 21st century competition meeting 19th century extortion.

Extortion—brute force—creates an order that lasts as long as the fear it generates lasts. Were Russia a rising power, that fear and the resulting order might have some staying power. But today’s Russia is not China; neither is she the post-World War II superpower that could roll over a large swath of the Eurasian landmass and impose a bloody Soviet order. Whatever Moscow may establish in its immediate region through its armor, artillery, and nuclear threats will be backed by a flimsy state, seeking its own justification through invented myths of Western frauds, perversions, and belligerence.

The fact that Russia is unable to replace the existing order with her own stable and durable one does not mean therefore that the threat is nonexistent. On the contrary, the threat is more pronounced because the risks presented by Russia are higher. If Moscow had a clear idea of what it wanted to achieve—how far it wants to extend its influence, and what new rules of international behavior and domestic comportment it will enforce—the uncertainty would be smaller. We may, as we should, still deeply dislike and oppose the proposed order, but at a minimum the boundaries of the conflict would be well defined.

In this case, however, the vision seems to be nihilistic in the long term. Hence the on-and-off Russian interventions in Ukraine, the constant provocations in the Baltic regions, the boasts about nuclear capabilities and the willingness to use them, the Russian aerial forays from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico, and so on. These are all attempts to shake the existing order. These actions have varied intensity and outcomes: While Ukraine is being broken apart by Russian artillery and armor, Alaska and Diego Garcia are safe from the occasional Tu-95s sputtering near their airspace. But the principle unifying all these actions is a negative one: to destabilize by introducing elements of greater risk.

Putin as the geopolitical nihilist is therefore different than the various tsars that he wants to emulate. In mostly unpleasant and violent ways, the past tsars built and rebuilt the Russian empire by expanding into adjacent lands while seeking some diplomatic arrangement with the more distant great powers. Putin expands into Russia’s southern and western neighborhood but with the aspiration to destroy the stability of the post-Cold War era. He seeks no grand diplomatic bargain that could underpin a new settlement.

What such a view of Russia entails is worrisome. Geopolitical nihilism indicates that a whole spectrum of actions, deemed unlikely because of the dangers they carry, is on the table. We now know, for instance, that Putin is willing to invade —not once, but twice (Georgia in 2008 preceded Ukraine). He is likely to continue that pattern and push farther westward irrespective of the costs. He has also engaged in nuclear saber-rattling for several years (for example, the Zapad 2009 military exercises ended with a simulated use of a nuclear weapon), and he is lowering the nuclear threshold. Nihilism is not order-building; it revels in destroying it. The spectrum of actions that establish an order is limited by their effectiveness at implementing the rules, whatever they may be, of behavior: their purposefulness is constraining. The spectrum of actions that destroy order, on the other hand, is much more open-ended.

The Western strategy of waiting Russia out through a 21st-century version of containment—a mix of economic sanctions, ostracism in global fora, and very modest, mostly rhetorical, shoring up of deterrence—will not suffice. Russia cannot be let to dwell on its internal decline and realize sooner or later its international ineptitude. Verbal rebukes and restatements of NATO’s Article 5 will not turn a geopolitical nihilist into a constructive partner or even into a rival with whom we can reach a negotiated settlement. Nothing in Putin’s statements and behavior suggests that Russia can be persuaded to accept the existing international rules and norms of behavior and to cease the belligerent posture it has adopted. On the contrary, this is a threat that is impossible to mitigate without a resolute and forceful policy that will physically stop and reverse the advance of Russian forces in Ukraine and be ready to do so in the future elsewhere. This can only be achieved now by arming Ukraine. The geopolitical nihilism of today’s Russia will not be persuaded or negotiated away or simply waited out. It has to be defeated.

Groups Behind Closing Gitmo

Posted on by

A few years ago, Marc Thiessen wrote a book titled Courting Disaster. The spirit of the book delivers proven evidence that interrogation of enemy combatants kept America safe and offered up more actionable knowledge in the terror networks globally. Thiessen provides names, organizations and lobby groups in full opposition of black sites and Guantanamo. One needs to understand all the moving parts before they offer criticism of decisions by the Bush administration.

So as Barack Obama entered the White House, his first move was to close Gitmo while almost 7 years later there are 140 detainees still there. The question is why? The team known to be the go-to operation to close Gitmo has also proven some success in getting terrorists released from the ‘other’ Gitmo, the prison(s) in Colorado that actually has more detainees than Gitmo.

These wars across the globe against terror networks involves hundreds of thousands of fighters, hence in begs the question, who no capture and interrogate? Is killing the via drone since all ground hostilities have been terminated effective? Terror cells have grown exponentially including al Nusra, Daesh, AQAP, Boko Harem and more. Their operating territory has expanded in the last 6 years as well.

Here are some facts that cannot be disputed.

If you knew who was behind “Close-Gitmo” push, you’d be shocked

On Saturday, January 11, a coalition of “Close-Gitmo” forces is expected to march on Washington to commemorate the 12th anniversary of detention and interrogation operations.

Though the march from the White House to the National Museum of American History is purportedly about advancing “human rights” and “stopping torture,” a closer look at the key participants reveals a more troubling, some might say hidden, agenda.

If more Americans knew who is behind this campaign, there would be nationwide outrage.

While everyone is for “human rights” and “stopping torture,” Americans should not be fooled by these false flags meant to damage U.S. power and prestige.

Dig a little deeper into who has been driving the anti-Gitmo disinformation campaign these past 12 years, and you will discover an international, fervently anti-American, far-left coalition attacking the nation through a savvy propaganda effort.

Just dig a little deeper into who has been driving the anti-Gitmo disinformation campaign these past 12 years, and we discover an international, fervently anti-American, far-left coalition attacking the nation through a savvy propaganda effort.

This includes those linked to Al Qaeda financiers, communist groups, anarchist movements – backed by sympathetic press and politicians.

Regrettably, it’s a coalition President Barack Obama has sided with in his priority to release as many Al Qaeda, Taliban and “affiliates” as humanly possible.

Let’s take a look at the key players:

Amnesty International. Along with Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International was revealed as partner organization to Al Karama, a human rights non-profit run by Qatar’s Abdul Rahman Omeir Al-Naimi.

Al-Naimi was recently exposed by the U.S. Treasury Department in December 2013 as a long-term major financier of Al Qaeda.  According to an expose by Eli Lake in the Daily Beast, “Terrorists for Human Rights,” the Treasury Department’s designation said he, “oversaw the transfer of hundreds of thousands of dollars to Al Qaeda and its affiliates in Iraq, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen over the last 11 years.”

Center for Constitutional Rights. CCR was founded by far-left civil rights lawyer William Kunstler in the 1960s, a man who told the press his goal was to “destroy society from within.”

Kunstler represented the “Chicago 7,” a group that was charged with conspiracy to start a riot at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, and later he defended domestic militant/terror groups like the Black Panthers, Weather Underground, and Attica Prison Rioters.

CCR is currently funded by groups like the “1848 Foundation,” named after the year Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto was published and revolutions swept through Europe.

Kunstler would be proud of CCR’s signature work over the past decade in coordinating the “Gitmo Bar Association” of 500 lawyers representing detainees.

Reprieve. A British organization led by blogger Andy Worthington, it pressures release of British citizens and residents.  Ethiopia’s Binyam Mohammed, a British resident, allegedly plotted to blow up high rise apartment buildings in the U.S. with a dirty bomb; Ruhal Ahmed, Asif Iqbal, and Shafiq Rasul, a.k.a., the Tipton Three, ethnic Pakistanis went to fight for jihad in Afghanistan but were caught by the Northern Alliance in Nov. 2001; and Shaker Aamer, a Saudi citizen with British residence, alleged to have led a unit of Al Qaeda fighters in Tora Bora, and reportedly a former close associate of Usama Bin Laden, shoe-bomber Richard Reid and 20th hijacker, Zacharias Moussaoui.

World Can’t Wait. This organization is believed to have been founded by members and supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party & Anarchists. It organized at least 24,000 supporters during Iraq War, including actor Sean Penn and anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan.

Jason Leopold. Leopold is a former Los Angeles Times investigative journalist with a checkered past.  According to Fox News media critic Howard Kurtz, writing in a 2005 Washington Post feature, “Leopold says he engaged in ‘lying, cheating and backstabbing,’ is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life.”

So these are the folks Mr. Obama and Democrats in Congress are trying to appease by releasing more Gitmo detainees?

Nearly half the current population of 155 may be freed under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.

It would be comical if the stakes weren’t so high.

We’ve already seen Al Qaeda re-take Fallujah, site of the Iraq War’s bloodiest battles, just two years after Mr. Obama’s ordered withdrawal.  And Al Qaeda and/or “affiliates” killed our Ambassador and three other Americans in Benghazi.

Speaking of which, a Fox News report this week by Catherine Herridge reveals that the State Dept. will finally designate ex-Gitmo detainee, Libya’s Sufian Bin Qumu, and his group, Ansar Al-Sharia as “foreign terrorist entities” for their roles in the Benghazi Consulate attack.

Does Mr. Obama really think it’s in America’s security interests to free more terrorists from Gitmo, nearly one-third of whom have already returned to terrorism?

The silent majority must take this opportunity to speak up. Preventing the next Al Qaeda attack may depend on it.

J.D. Gordon is a retired Navy Commander who served as a Pentagon spokesman in the Office of the Secretary of Defense from 2005-09. He serves as senior adviser to several Washington-based think tanks.

***

Military tribunals have proved excruciatingly slow and imprisonment at Guantánamo hugely costly — $800,000 per inmate a year, compared with $25,000 in federal prison.

The criminal justice system, meanwhile, has absorbed the surge of terrorism cases since 2001 without calamity, and without the international criticism that Guantánamo has attracted for holding prisoners without trial. A decade after the Sept. 11 attacks, an examination of how the prisons have handled the challenge of extremist violence reveals some striking facts:

Lengthy sentences. Terrorists who plotted to massacre Americans are likely to die in prison. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in 2010, is serving a sentence of life without parole at the Supermax, as are Zacarias Moussaoui, a Qaeda operative arrested in 2001, and Mr. Reid, the shoe bomber, among others. But many inmates whose conduct fell far short of outright terrorism are serving sentences of a decade or more, the result of a calculated prevention strategy to sideline radicals well before they could initiate deadly plots.

¶ Special units. Since 2006, the Bureau of Prisons has moved many of those convicted in terrorism cases to two special units that severely restrict visits and phone calls. But in creating what are Muslim-dominated units, prison officials have inadvertently fostered a sense of solidarity and defiance, and set off a long-running legal dispute over limits on group prayer. Officials have warned in court filings about the danger of radicalization, but the Bureau of Prisons has nothing comparable to the deradicalization programs instituted in many countries.

¶ Quiet releases. More than 300 prisoners have completed their sentences and been freed since 2001. Their convictions involved not outright violence but “material support” for a terrorist group; financial or document fraud; weapons violations; and a range of other crimes. About half are foreign citizens and were deported; the Americans have blended into communities around the country, refusing news media interviews and avoiding attention.

About 40 percent of terrorism cases since the Sept. 11 attacks have relied on informants, by the count of the Center on Law and Security at New York University, which Ms. Greenberg headed until earlier this year. In such cases, the F.B.I. has trolled for radicals and then tested whether they were willing to plot mayhem — again, a pre-emptive strategy intended to ferret out potential terrorists. But in some cases prosecutors have been accused of overreaching.

Do we really want to close Gitmo? Do we really want to keep these terrorists in prisons around the homeland? They are quietly being released by the Justice Department while being radicalized still during their prison terms. Do you know where they are now?