250 SpecOps Deployed to Syria

Posted on April 25, 2016April 25, 2016 by Denise Simon

The United States deployed 50 special operations members last year, some assigned to train. To begin to consolidate some advances against Islamic State, another 250 received their orders. Obama made the announcement officially during his visit in Germany. The concern of record is Aleppo falling to Islamic State and it is argued now, how will the coordination work with the ground operations of Russia.

Obama announces an additional 250 special operations forces to Syria

(CNN) U.S. President Barack Obama has announced an additional 250 special operations forces will be sent to Syria in the coming weeks in a speech in Hannover, Germany in an effort to stem the influence and spread of ISIS.

“Just as I approved additional support for Iraqi forces against ISIL I’ve decided to increase US support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria, a small number of special operations forces are already on the ground in Syria and their expertise has been critical as local forces have driven ISIL out of key areas,” Obama said, using another acronym for the jihadist group.

“So given their success I’ve approved the deployment of up to 250 additional US personnel in Syria including special forces to keep up this momentum.”

He stressed that U.S. troops will not be leading the fight on the ground but they will be essential in training and assisting local forces.

“So make no mistake these terrorists will learn the same lesson as others before them have, which is ‘your hatred is no match for our nations united in the defense of our way of life,'” he said.

He said the increase would bring the number of U.S. special forces in the country to as many as 300 troops, including special forces.

Obama added that his administration would continue to pursue diplomatic solutions to ending the Syrian civil war.

“Just as we remain relentless on the military front we’re not going to give up on diplomacy to end the civil war in Syria because the suffering of the people in Syria has to end and that requires an effective political transition,” he said.

Supporting Syrian allies

The troops will be expanding the ongoing U.S. effort to bring more Syrian Arab fighters into units the U.S. supports in northern Syria that have largely been manned by the Kurds, an official told CNN earlier.

The plan calls for the additional U.S. forces to “advise and assist” forces in the area whom the U.S. hopes may eventually grow strong enough to take back territory around Raqqa, Syria, where ISIS is based.

These troops are not expected to engage in combat operations or to participate in target-to-kill teams but will be armed to defend themselves, one official said.

“As we have noted in recent days, the President has authorized a series of steps to increase support for our partners in the region, including Iraqi security forces as well as local Syrian forces who are taking the fight to ISIL,” a senior administration official CNN, using a different acronym for ISIS.

“The President during his remarks at the Hannover Messe fairgrounds on Monday will speak to this additional step.”

The official said the president was persuaded to take this additional step because of recent successes against ISIS.

*****

FNC: Islamic State oil man Abu Sayyaf was riding high a year ago. With little industry experience, he had built a network of traders and wholesalers of Syrian oil that at one point helped triple energy revenues for his terrorist bosses.

His days carried challenges familiar to all oil executives—increasing production, improving client relations and dodging directives from headquarters. He also had duties unique to the extremist group, including approving expenses to cover the upkeep of slaves, rebuilding oil facilities damaged by U.S. airstrikes and counting towers of cash.

Last May, U.S. Special Forces killed Abu Sayyaf, a nom de guerre, at his compound in Syria’s Deir Ezzour province. The raid also captured a trove of proprietary data that explains how Islamic State became the world’s wealthiest terror group.

Documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal describe the terror group’s construction of a multinational oil operation with help from officious terror-group executives obsessed with maximizing profits. They show how the organization deals with the Syrian regime, handles corruption allegations among top officials, and, most critically, how international coalition strikes have dented but not destroyed Islamic State’s income.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter called the May 16, 2015, raid a “significant blow” against Islamic State and heralded the death of Abu Sayyaf, the terror group’s No. 2 oil executive.

Comrade Ayatollah, it Always Points Back to Russia/USSR

Posted on April 22, 2016April 22, 2016 by Denise Simon

“Is Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei a graduate of the Patrice Lumumba People’s Friendship University in Moscow? Did the KGB recruit Khamenei as a spy in the 1960’s? Is Soviet indoctrination and ideological training to blame for Khamenei’s hatred of the United States? The Persian blogosphere is boiling over with speculations about Khamenei’s alleged Soviet connections. The affair started Wednesday, as Iranian bloggers discovered Russia Today’s February 5, 2010 report on the 50th anniversary of the People’s Friendship University in Moscow, in which Khamenei is mentioned among the university’s “most notable graduates.” A claim also appears on Russia Today’s website, although the reference is made to “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khomeini,” an obvious mistake. Subsequently, Iranian bloggers identified other Russian sources making the very same claim: The November 25, 2003 issue of Kommersant presents Khamenei as a People’s Friendship University graduate…………….”

Patrice Lumumba University was named after the murdered first Congolese prime minister after independence from Belgium. Lumumba was allegedly killed by Congolese rivals and Western intelligence services. I believe that to be true: Lumumba was perceived as a ‘communist’ by the West during the peak of the Cold War. The Soviet university attracted many third world students, and it is possible that a young Khamenei was among them, but it is highly unlikely. I doubt it very much: he must have started as a student of Islamic faith at a young age. Or maybe he was groomed as a communist mole inside Qom, a potential Manchurian Ayatollah. If true this would mean that Khamenei also speaks Russian in addition to Persian, Arabic, and Turkish. He is as much a communist as the Saudi Mufti is a secret Shi’a, as much as Bashar al-Assad is a Salafi.

Introduction:

For close to a century, destiny has played a bitter game with our ancient homeland. The winds of bizarre events have left us Iranians in a historical abeyance. Addicted to our shared agony and engrossed in our daily demise, we have even lost the ability to ponder the starting point of this common grief. Perhaps if our fathers sought out the root of this shared agony, a feasible solution would have emerged. What you are about to read is the result of two decades of chasing after questions that have perplexed me for half of my life. Finally when I started writing this book four years ago, I anticipated many possible outcomes. I expected this book to evolve into the biography of a ruthless dictator or the discovery of an old Soviet espionage network. But in my wildest dreams I could not have imagined that Comrade Ayatollah would turn into perhaps one of the largest research collections that sheds light on the darkest political and criminal dossiers in Iranian history. Today I declare with certainty that I have identified the root of the historical agony of our people and I have no doubt that all those who follow me on this journey to the conclusion of the book will acquire a new viewpoint on what has come to pass in our nation during the past century. The key to identifying the root cause of this shared agony lies not in our country but far away in the heart of Iran’s Northern neighbor — in the vast nation of Russia. The same place where in 1905 sparks of revolution were ignited in Tsarist Russia. Twelve years later, the flames of the Bolshevik Revolution at first engulfed the people of this expansive country and then spread to ancient Iran and other parts of the world to reduce their history, culture and identity to ashes.

Comrade Ayatollah investigates in ten chapters documents related to the pivotal role of the Soviet Union’s security agency in the planning and execution of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and this terrifying organization’s subsequent covert facilitation of the ascent of Seyed Ali Khamenei to the position of Absolute Supreme Leader in Iran. In each of these ten chapters you will encounter one of the hidden secrets and terrifying mysteries in the history of the Islamic Revolution. While deciphering these enigmas, I also provide material for independent research and a suggested topic for case studies.

The first chapter is a review of the history of the Cold War the origins of which can be traced back to the rivalry between two victors of World War I — the Russians and the British — for the control of the partitioned Ottoman territory. The Ottomans were the big losers of the war and the most prized spoils of war left behind by their defeated army were the historic lands of the Middle East and North Africa. The Bolshevik Revolution that coincided with the end of World War I kept the Russians from controlling a part of this valuable territory and thus Great Britain and France remained the two powers that won control over the lion’s share of the Middle East. After the 1917 revolution and the establishment of the Soviet Union, the Russians once again began eyeing territories outside the boundaries of this newly established empire.

Their creeping influence accelerated in the former Ottoman territories, from Mesopotamia to Palestine and from Morocco to Egypt. With the advent of World War II, the Russian and the British armies entered Iran from the north and south, respectively, and occupied the entire country with the excuse that Iran was a supporter of Nazi Germany. The clandestine influx of the Soviet intelligence service’s spies and agents under the guise of the Red Army provided the opportunity for the Russians to penetrate all strata of society in the broad geographical expanse of Iran. At the end of World War II, the British army immediately began to withdraw. The Soviet Red Army months later under international pressure especially from the United States withdrew, but its intelligence service’s spies never left Iran. The result of their three-decade long operations in Iran to recruit and train elements loyal to the Soviet Union was the December 1979 Islamic Revolution. What transpired during this bitter era in Iran, the Middle East and North Africa has been depicted in this chapter.

The second chapter details the names of some of the powerful political figures who were trained in Moscow by the Soviet intelligence service for the roles they would play during the days leading up to the revolution and the years that followed, along with their respective biographies highlighting the services they rendered to the Russians. All this information is based on secret documents that are published for the first time in this book. We will see that all three influential factions in the Islamic Republic’s closed political circle in the past three decades have been in the service of Soviet intelligence. Seyed Ali Khamenei who leads the conservative or hardliners’ faction, Seyed Mohammad Moussavi Khoeiniha who is the spiritual father of the Reformist faction, and some of Mahmoud Amadinejad’s closest advisors including Kamran Daneshjoo, Mahmoud Mollabashi and Arsalan Ghorbani who comprise the neo-conservative faction are all graduates of the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow, the official international spy training center for the Russians since 1960.

Read more here if you have the courage for history.

Terrifying Facts on ISIS Operatives in America

Posted on April 22, 2016April 22, 2016 by Denise Simon

WashingtonPost: The Justice Department on Thursday revealed that a well-known Islamic State operative instructed a Boston-area man to kill Pamela Geller, the organizer of a controversial Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas last year.

In court documents, prosecutors said that Junaid Hussain, a British militant, had been communicating with Usaamah Abdullah Rahim, 26, who along with two friends discussed beheading Geller.

Rahim, however, changed his mind and instead decided to target a police officer. He was shot and killed in June 2015 in Roslindale, Mass., after he attacked members of an FBI-led surveillance team while wielding a large knife, officials said.

[Boston terrorism suspect had planned to attack police officers, FBI says]

Hussain, 21, was killed in Raqqa, Syria, in August 2015 in a drone strike. He was a well-known militant involved in not only spreading Islamic State propaganda but also recruiting and planning attacks, officials said.

FBI Director James B. Comey has said previously that a Phoenix man who tried to attack the Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas was trading encrypted messages with an Islamic State operative. A senior U.S law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the case, declined to identify that operative but said it was not Hussain. Another official described the person as a member of the group’s unit that runs external operations.

Prosecutors said Rahim, along with two associates, Nicholas Alexander Rovinski, 25, of Warwick, R.I., and his nephew, David Wright, 26, of Everett, Mass., began plotting a terror operation in the United States in early 2015.

According to the Justice Department, Wright in March 2015 drafted organizational documents for a “Martyrdom Operations Cell” and conducted Internet searches about firearms, tranquilizers and the establishment of secret militias in the United States. Rovinski conducted research on weapons that could be used to behead people, the authorities said.

Prosecutors said Hussain communicated directly with Rahim, who then communicated instructions to the other conspirators to kill Geller in New York, where she lives. They planned to kill her around the July 4 holiday, court documents show.

The FBI was closely monitoring the men, officials said, and would have arrested them had they tried to travel to New York.

After Rahim’s death, prosecutors charged Rovinski and Wright with conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist organization. Prosecutors also revealed that Rovinski has written letters to Wright from prison “discussing ways to take down the U.S. government and decapitate non-believers.” Rovinski also pledged his allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State, according to court documents.

On Thursday, Rovinski and Wright were also charged in a superseding indictment with conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.

*****

There is more…. As published on this website on April 21, the deeper details on Gules Ali Omar and his cell, note below. Further, months ago, an investigation revealed ISIS operatives all the way to Chicago.

ISIS suspect reveals plans to open up route from Syria to U.S. through Mexico

FoxLatino: One of the American men accused in Minnesota of trying to join the Islamic State group wanted to open up routes from Syria to the U.S. through Mexico, prosecutors said.

Gules Ali Omar told the ISIS members about the route so that it could be used to send members to America to carry out terrorist attacks, prosecutors alleged in a document filed this week.

The document, filed Wednesday, is one of many filed in recent weeks as prosecutors and defense attorneys argue about which evidence should be allowed at the men’s trial, which starts May 9.

The men — Omar, 21; Hamza Naj Ahmed, 21; Mohamed Abdihamid Farah, 22; and Abdirahman Yasin Daud, 22 — have pleaded not guilty to multiple charges, including conspiracy to commit murder outside the U.S. Prosecutors have said they were part of a group of friends in Minnesota’s Somali community who held secret meetings and plotted to join the Islamic State group.

Five other men have pleaded guilty to one count each of conspiracy to support a foreign terrorist organization. A tenth man charged in the case is at-large, believed to be in Syria.

The government’s document was filed in response to a defense request that prosecutors be barred from introducing evidence about possible attacks in the U.S.

Last week, Daud’s attorney wrote that, absent any specific evidence that his client threatened the United States, any references to discussions about attacks would be prejudicial. To permit such references, as well as references to the Sept. 11 attacks or exhibits that show violent images of war crimes, “would cause the jurors to decide out of fear and contempt alone,” defense attorney Bruce Nestor wrote.

But prosecutors said audio recordings obtained during the investigation show the defendants spoke multiple times about the possibility of attacks in the U.S. Among them, Omar spoke of establishing a route for fighters, Farah spoke of killing an FBI agent and another man who pleaded guilty talked about shooting a homemade rocket at an airplane.

Prosecutors wrote that they should be allowed to “play for the jury the defendants’ own words, in which they discuss the possibility of returning to attack the United States.” They also said the defendants watched videos and gruesome images, which they also want to play for the jury, and that a blanket ban on mentioning the 2001 attacks is inappropriate, noting that Omar had pictures of the burning World Trade Center towers and Osama bin Laden on his cellphone.

A phone message left with Omar’s attorney wasn’t immediately returned.

The FBI has said about a dozen people have left Minnesota to join militant groups fighting in Syria in recent years. In addition, since 2007 more than 22 men have joined al-Shabab in Somalia.

After Subpoena: State Removed Benghazi Docs

Posted on April 21, 2016April 21, 2016 by Denise Simon

Obstruction of a government process and investigation. That is a violation of the law. Hillary, what say you and your team? Ever notice that the Democrats never ask questions or complain about lack of compliance or cooperation?

Exactly how many had access to Hillary’s office or permission to remove files? Ahem….

State Department Office Removed Benghazi Files After Congressional Subpoena

Release of records delayed over a year due to removal

FreeBeacon: State Department officials removed files from the secretary’s office related to the Benghazi attack in Libya and transferred them to another department after receiving a congressional subpoena last spring, delaying the release of the records to Congress for over a year.

Attorneys for the State Department said the electronic folders, which contain hundreds of documents related to the Benghazi attack and Libya, were belatedly rediscovered at the end of last year.

They said the files had been overlooked by State Department officials because the executive secretary’s office transferred them to another department and flagged them for archiving last April, shortly after receiving a subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

The new source of documents includes electronic folders used by senior officials under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They were originally kept in the executive secretary’s office, which handles communication and coordination between the secretary of state’s office and other department bureaus.

The House Benghazi Committee requested documents from the secretary’s office in a subpoena filed in March 2015. Congressional investigators met with the head of the executive secretary’s office staff to discuss its records maintenance system and the scope of the subpoena last April. That same month, State Department officials sent the electronic folders to another bureau for archiving, and they were not searched in response to the request.

The blunder could raise new questions about the State Department’s records process, which has come under scrutiny from members of Congress and government watchdogs. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blasted the State Department’s Freedom of Information Act process as “broken” in January, citing “systematic failures at the agency.”

The inspector general for the State Department also released a report criticizing the agency’s public records process in January. The report highlighted failures in the executive secretary’s office, which responds to records requests for the Office of the Secretary.

Since last fall, the State Department has taken additional steps to increase transparency, recently hiring a transparency coordinator.

But the late discovery of the electronic folders has set back the release of information in a number of public records lawsuits filed against the State Department by watchdog groups.

The State Department first disclosed that staffers had discovered the unsearched folders in a January court filing. Attorneys for the department asked the court for additional time to process and release the documents in response to a 2014 lawsuit filed by the government ethics group Judicial Watch.

Around the same time, the State Department alerted the House Select Committee on Benghazi to the discovery. On April 8, the department turned over 1,100 pages of documents from the electronic folders to the House Benghazi Committee, over a year after the committee’s subpoena. The committee had received other documents from the production in February.

The delay has had consequences. The Benghazi Committee had already completed the majority of its interviews with diplomats and government officials regarding the Benghazi attack before it received the latest tranche of documents.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), chairman of the Benghazi Committee, said in an April 8 statement it was “deplorable that it took over a year for these records to be produced to our committee.”

“This investigation is about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans, and it could have been completed a lot sooner if the administration had not delayed and delayed and delayed at every turn,” Gowdy said.

The decision by State Department officials to transfer the electronic folders to another bureau after receiving the subpoena could also raise questions.

The subpoena requested Benghazi-related documents and communications from 10 of Hillary Clinton’s top aides for the years 2011 and 2012.

The requests included standard language that “Subpoenaed records, documents, data or information should not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.”

The State Department’s attorneys said the executive secretary’s office transferred the folders to the Office of Information Programs and Services for “retiring” in April 2015. Public records officials did not realize for almost eight months that the folders had been moved, and so they were not searched in response to FOIA requests or subpoenas.

“In April 2015—prior to its search in this [Judicial Watch] case—the Secretariat Staff within the Office of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-S”) retired the shared office folders and transferred them to the custody of the Bureau of Administration, Office of Information Programs and Services,” the State Department said in a Feb. 5 court filing.

“The IPS employees working on this FOIA request did not initially identify S/ES retired records as a location to search for potentially responsive records because they were operating with the understanding that, to the extent responsive records from the Office of the Secretary existed, they resided within [the executive secretary’s office].”

According to congressional sources, officials on the House Benghazi Committee had a meeting with the executive secretary’s office to discuss the subpoena and the locations of potentially relevant records on April 10, 2015. Electronic folders of senior staff members were discussed during the briefing.

State Department officials at the meeting included the director of the executive secretary’s office staff, who was responsible for handling the office’s records maintenance, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs, and Catherine Duval, the attorney who oversaw the public release of Hillary Clinton’s official emails. The officials gave no indication that electronic folders had recently been transferred out of the office.

The State Department declined to comment on whether the folders were transferred after the meeting took place.

A State Department official told the Washington Free Beacon that personnel did not mislead congressional investigators, and added that no officials at the meeting were involved in transferring the folders.

“The Department personnel who briefed the Select Committee in April 2015 did not play a role in the transfer of these files to State’s Bureau of Administration,” the State Department official said.

The official added that department files are often moved as a routine matter.

“Files that are generated in an office are regularly moved to the Bureau of Administration for storage according to published records retirement schedules,” the official said. “This is a routine action that would not involve a senior supervisor. It also continues to make them available to respond to either Congressional or FOIA requests.”

Duval left the State Department last September. She had previously overseen document production for the IRS during the targeting controversy. Republicans had criticized that process after agency emails were reportedly destroyed and a key IRS official’s hard drive was shredded months after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.

In recent months, the State Department has been working to increase transparency.

“The Department has worked closely with the Select Committee in a spirit of cooperation and responsiveness,” a State Department official said. “Since the Committee was formed, we have provided 48 witnesses for interviews and more than 95,000 pages of documents.”

The efforts drew some praise from the House Benghazi Committee last fall.

“It’s curious the Department is suddenly able to be more productive after recent staff changes involving those responsible for document production,” committee spokesman Jamal Ware said in a Sept. 25, 2015 press release.

Still, it could be months before the public is able to see many of the Benghazi-related documents belatedly discovered by the State Department. The House Benghazi Committee is still completing its investigation and has not released them.

The department’s attorneys have also been granted extensions to produce the documents in response to several public records lawsuits. In one FOIA case, first filed by the watchdog group Citizens United in 2014, a judge has given the State Department until next August to turn over the new materials.

Correction: The original version of this article stated that the House Select Committee on Benghazi had submitted two subpoenas to the State Department. The Committee only submitted one subpoena, on March 4, 2015. The November 2014 request was an official letter from the Committee to Secretary John Kerry.

Russian Aggression Higher than Cold War Era

Posted on April 21, 2016April 21, 2016 by Denise Simon

Former Soviet Fighter Pilot: Russian Jets ‘More Aggressive’ Than During Cold War

DailySignal: KYIV, Ukraine—As the NATO-Russia Council prepared to meet for the first time in almost two years, U.S. and Russian officials traded barbs over who’s to blame for a recent spike in military tensions.

The ambassadorial level meeting set for Wednesday at alliance headquarters in Brussels was to be the first time the format, which comprises NATO and Russian officials, has been convened since June 2014.

Looming over the talks are provocative Russian warplane intercepts. These include a pair of Russian Su-24 fighter jets that buzzed within 30 feet of the USS Donald Cook in the Baltic Sea on April 11 and 12, and a Su-27 fighter jet that performed a barrel roll within 50 feet of a U.S. RC-135 spy plane April 14.

“These kinds of planned maneuvers are especially dangerous because they bring us very close to an unplanned accident,” a former Soviet fighter pilot told The Daily Signal.

The U.S. and NATO say Russia has demonstrated a pattern of military aggression and reckless brinksmanship across Eastern Europe that risks sparking a military conflict.

Russia says NATO’s military buildup on the alliance’s eastern frontier is a threat to Russian national security.

“It was definitely done on purpose, and with the NATO summit in mind,” Oleksiy Melnyk, a former Ukrainian air force lieutenant colonel who served as a fighter pilot in the Soviet air force, said of the aerial antics by the Russian jets in an interview with The Daily Signal.

“Having the same background, I’m sure the pilots were not too young and too stupid to realize that these kinds of maneuvers would create an international scandal,” said Melnyk, now co-director of foreign relations and international security programs at the Razumkov Centre, a Ukrainian think tank.

Beginning in 1986, Melnyk flew Mig-21s for the USSR. He said the intent of the recent Russian intercepts was likely twofold: To send a diplomatic message to NATO that the Baltics are Russian turf and to test NATO’s military responses.

Russia’s current pattern of intercepting NATO ships and aircraft is “more aggressive and more frequent” than what the Soviet Union authorized pilots to perform during the Cold War, Melnyk said.

Under Soviet rules of engagement governing intercepts of NATO aircraft, the recent actions would have been forbidden, he said.

Soviet rules governing air intercepts were tightened after the 1983 incident in which Soviet fighter jets shot down a Korean Air Lines 747. Melnyk described this month’s Russian intercepts as “reckless,” and said Soviet pilots would have been punished for such maneuvers if commanders had not approved them beforehand:

These kinds of planned maneuvers are especially dangerous because they bring us very close to an unplanned accident. And any unplanned accident can have grave consequences.

Underscoring the strain on U.S.-Russian relations after the USS Donald Cook incident, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the American ship could have fired on the Russian jets.

“It is reckless. It is provocative. It is dangerous. And under the rules of engagement, that could have been a shoot-down,” Kerry said in an interview with CNN Espanol.

Russia’s Defense Ministry claimed the U.S. version of the incident was “not consistent with reality” and that the Russian warplanes had “performed strictly in accordance with the international regulations on the use of airspace.”

Visitors check out Soviet-era aircraft on display at Ukraine’s State Aviation Museum in Kyiv. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)

Eastern Front

NATO-Russian relations chilled in March 2014 after Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula and began providing military support for pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine.

A senior Obama administration official told The Daily Signal in an email that Wednesday’s NATO-Russia Council meeting “does not indicate a return to business as usual between NATO and Russia.” The official added:

As a direct result of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, NATO decided to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation with Russia. However, NATO also decided to keep political channels of communication open at the ambassadorial level and above. This meeting is consistent with that policy.

According to NATO, the meeting was to focus on the Ukraine conflict as well as the security situation in Afghanistan.

The meeting comes as fighting in eastern Ukraine continues to escalate in periodic bursts, threatening a complete collapse of the tenuous Minsk II peace accord.

More than 9,200 Ukrainians have died in the conflict, according to the United Nations.

Buildup

Also on the docket: improved communications between NATO and Russia to prevent incidents such as the air intercepts from sparking a conflict.

Russia has shown a pattern of provocative actions in Eastern Europe, particularly in the Baltics, for more than two years. These include the alleged abduction of an Estonian intelligence officer on Estonian soil in 2014.

In July 2015, NATO officials reported the alliance had scrambled warplanes to intercept Russian aircraft more than at any time since the end of the Cold War. And according to U.S. Navy officials, Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic now matches, and may even exceed, Cold War levels.

Since 2014, the U.S. has boosted its military presence in Eastern Europe to reassure its allies. Troops and warplanes have rotated among NATO countries across the region, and an ongoing exercise to train and equip Ukraine’s armed forces began in summer 2015.

Alexander Grushko, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, speaks to reporters after a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the alliance’s headquarters in Brussels. (Photo: Stephanie Lecocq/EPA/Newscom)

Ukraine is not a NATO member state. However, four NATO countries—Canada, Lithuania, Poland, and the U.S.—currently have troops in western Ukraine to train the nation’s military.

In 2014 the White House launched the European Resistance Initiative, pledging $1 billion to bolster U.S. military forces in Europe as a response to Russia’s military aggression in Ukraine.

Recognizing the long-term security threat Russia poses to the region, the White House included $3.4 billion in its 2017 defense budget for the European Reassurance Initiative—a fourfold increase over the $789 million tagged the previous year.

The funds finance more U.S. troops in the region, military exercises with allies, and construction of new infrastructure to house troops and store weapons and military hardware.

The U.S. buildup is intended to shore up confidence among NATO’s eastern members on the reliability of American support; it’s also a strategic deployment of troops and equipment to defend against a Russian attack.

In March 2015, a U.S. Army Stryker convoy traveled 1,100 miles through the Baltic states and across Eastern Europe on an operation called Dragoon Ride.

Thousands of civilians lined the highways waving American flags. At stops along the way, civilians swarmed U.S. troops, shaking hands and taking selfies.

Dragoon Ride was touted as a public relations event to reassure allies about U.S. commitment to defend the region.

U.S. troops on the convoy, however, said a secondary objective was to scout routes and analyze road conditions for the rapid deployment of armor across the Baltics in the event of a Russian invasion.

Ukraine’s State Aviation Museum in Kyiv displays Soviet-era aircraft such as this one. (Photo: Nolan Peterson/The Daily Signal)

Exposure

NATO’s beefed-up military posture along its eastern frontier dates in part from a September 2014 summit in Wales, during which NATO pledged to stockpile supplies and forward-deploy troops in Eastern Europe to repel a Russian attack.

The Obama administration’s defense budget follows through on that initiative, tagging funds to permanently deploy a full armored combat brigade to the region.

Beginning in February 2017, approximately 4,500 troops will rotate every 90 days among Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, and Romania.

Additionally, 250 tanks, heavy artillery, and armored personnel carriers will be stockpiled across the region.

Even with the increased U.S. presence, NATO’s Baltic states remain vulnerable to a Russian attack. A recent report by the RAND Corporation, a U.S. think tank, concluded that Russian forces could invade to the edge of Estonia’s capital of Tallinn or the Latvian capital of Riga in 36 to 60 hours.

“As currently postured, NATO cannot successfully defend the territory of its most exposed members,” the report said.

The report added that NATO needs seven combat brigades, including three heavy armored brigades, supported with airpower to “prevent the rapid overrun of the Baltic states.”

Substantial?

The Kremlin has called the U.S. plan for a rotating combat brigade in Eastern Europe a violation of NATO’s pledge not to forward-deploy troops on the alliance’s eastern frontier.

In the Russian Founding Act of 1997, NATO pledged not to station a “substantial” numbers of troops or deploy nuclear weapons among new member states from the former Warsaw Pact.

At the time, Russia criticized the deal for not setting a specific numerical limit on troop numbers. Now, Washington and Moscow are mincing words over whether a U.S. buildup in Eastern Europe would constitute a “substantial” increase in troops.

“We see an unprecedented military buildup since the end of the Cold War and the presence of NATO on the so-called eastern flank of the alliance with the goal of exerting military and political pressure on Russia for containing it,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said April 14, according to the Russian news agency TASS.

In a formal statement on the alliance’s website, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said:

What NATO has done when it comes to reinforcement of our collective defense is defensive; it is proportionate and it is a direct response to what we have seen of Russian aggressive behavior in Ukraine.

BY: Nolan Peterson

Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal’s foreign correspondent based in Ukraine.