Conspiracy of Fire Cell

Conspiracy of Cells of Fire (CCF) is an anarchist organization that first surfaced in Greece in 2008 with a wave of 11 firebombings against luxury car dealerships and banks. Monthly arson attacks followed with proclamations expressing solidarity with arrested anarchists in Greece and elsewhere. They are perhaps most famous for a parcel bomb campaign that targeted European politicians in 2010.  In a manifesto written in September 2016, members of CCF espoused famous anarchists Nicola Sacco and Bartholomeo Vanzetti, “No act of rebellion is useless; no act of rebellion is harmful.”Enemies and FriendsCCF strongly apposes Golden Dawn an extremist right wing group also in Greece.  CCF has a chapter in Mexico please see TRAC Profile Conspiracy of Cells of Fire (CCF) – Mexico 2016On 13 October 2016, Conspiracy of Cells of Fire claimed credit for a small bombing in central Athens underneath the house of prosecutor Georgia…

Conspiracy of Cells of Fire (CCF-FAI-FRI), also known as CCF / SPF, CoCoF , CCFN, Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei, Conspiracy of Fire Cells, Synomosia Pyrinon SPF, Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei , Informal Anarchist Federation (FAI), Revolutionary Organization Conspiracy of Cells of Fire, Συνωμοσία Πυρήνων της Φωτιάς is an active group formed c. 2008.
So?

Greek extremists go abroad for training in revolution

From anarchists to nihilists, militant Greek youth are increasingly networking with other global forces of violence. Left unchecked, they risk turning into loose cannons, disregarding all costs, reports Anthee Carassava.

Greek extremists are fleeing to Syria to fight against the so-called “Islamic State” (IS) group, and the surge is stoking concerns among authorities in Athens that a fearless, new-fangled generation of militants could usher a fresh wave of domestic violence here.

Although the flight has long been speculated among leading security circles here, concerns mounted recently as local media published pictures showing Greek anarchists fighting alongside the International Revolutionary People’s Guerilla Forces in Rojava, near Syria’s northern border with Turkey.

Brandishing AK-47s and wearing ski masks with military fatigues, the so-called Greek contingent is seen posing against a brick wall emblazoned with an ominous message: “From Rojava to Athens.” In another picture, the extremists feature alongside a French team, part of the so-called 161 crew, warning in a separate banner: “No step back.”

Authorities contacted by DW said police were examining the pictures published in the Athens daily Eleftheros Typos to detect homegrown extremists evading arrest for years.

“There is serious concern about this development and we are on alert as we are in the midst of a flare-up of domestic violence here,” said a senior police official.

The official refused to elaborate, but security experts said the Rojava recruits risked returning back to Greece with an updated cause. Worst yet, they could return with more dangerous means and methods to upgrade their long-standing fight to subvert the state.

“There is a growing networking among violent anti-establishment forces,” says Mary Bossi, professor of international security in Pireaus University. “The recruitment is extremely rigorous because unlike traditional terror groups of the past, these groups are open – posting, recruiting and spreading their messages freely,” she explains.

Regular attacks

In a recent interview, a leading IRPGF member said the Rojava movement was bent on fighting IS. But its purpose, he explained, was also to “train [anarchists with] both guerilla and conventional warfare for their respective struggles back home and to gain experience in how a revolution functions on a social level.”

Greek anarchists in Rojava posed with a message for back home from Rojava Greek anarchists in Rojava posed with a message for back home from Rojava

Greek anarchists are the latest to join in the Rojava movement since Amir Taaki, an Iranian-British Bitcoin coder, set out to Syria’s northern border to fight against IS.

For Greece, though, the stakes are high. Any revival of violence here could erase gains made after the successful bust up of November 17, a deadly terror group that evaded arrest for more than two decades. It could also add to lingering financial woes that have already dealt a devastating blow to Greek society.

Experts are concerned.

About 480 extremist groups, ranging from far-left anarchists to self-proclaimed nihilists, have emerged since the breakup of November 17, targeting symbols of wealth and the state as Greeks grapple with seven years of brutal austerity.

With two to three militant groupings claiming responsibility for mainly low-grade attacks that rattle the country almost daily, a resurging tide of domestic terror is swelling, intelligence officials concede.

“I don’t want to think of the warfare these recruits in Rojava are going to bring back home and the situation that will transpire,” said a senior intelligence official.

Experts warn of deaths to come

In recent weeks, conservative lawmakers and security experts have urged action, accusing authorities of not doing enough to crush a new generation of extremists feeding on resentment of the country’s feckless political elite and seven years of austerity measures prescribed by Western monetary institutions.

“Any state that wants to do away with its homegrown extremists, can do so,” Bossi told DW. “Greece has both the technology and resources for the task.

“Unfortunately, though, amateurism is at play.

“Once an attack happens authorities scramble with crackdowns for a few days and then interest in addressing the real causes of the violence fade.”

Last week, and in a major escalation of violence, homegrown terrorists attacked former Prime Minister Lucas Papademos as he was being driven home, in Athens. Two members of his security entourage were also injured as the former central bank governor opened a booby-trapped envelope in his car, suffering major injuries from shrapnel that darted into his chest, groin and stomach as a result of the powerful explosion.

Forensic officers inspect the car in which a bomb in an envelope detonated in Athens Attacks like the one last week on a former prime minister have become frequent

No group has claimed responsibility for the attack but the hit bears the hallmarks of a homegrown militant anti-authority group of anarchists called the Conspiracy of the Cells of Fires.

Known also for posting a similar parcel of explosives to German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble earlier this year, the small band of extremists has rapidly evolved into an urban guerilla force, upgrading its attacks from crude pressure-cooker bombs to more sophisticated explosives in recent years.

Even so, Greece’s new vintage of extremists remain dangerously reckless.

Unlike the careful and calculating tactics used by older terror groups, their pursuit of disrupting and destabilizing the state comes at a high cost. Worse yet, any deployment of militarized techniques in upcoming attacks risks turning them into volatile loose canons, plunging Greece into a new reign of deadly terror.

“Their complete disregard for any collateral damage is alarming,” Bossi says. “That alone should have authorities on extra alert, trying to bust them up before it’s too late.

“Left unchecked,” she warns, “any future hits are bound to come with a kill.”

Classified Information Sent to Clinton Foundation Employees

Hey FBI, can you fellas look at this again and have another presser to explain it?

Hey Hillary, how about that separate plane? Don’t you owe the taxpayers some money for demanding exclusive luxury because you did not want to share a plane with Michelle?

Image result for hillary on military plane NYDailyNews

Clinton and her top aide, Huma Abedin, discussed in a July 2011 exchange Clinton’s plans to attend the funeral of fellow former First Lady Betty Ford in Grand Rapids, Mich.

“Looks like plane won’t be an issue,” Abedin wrote. “Also, looks like Michelle Obama also going.”

“Is it ok [sic] that we and Mrs. O take two separate planes?” Clinton asked.

“I think it’s ok [sic]. But let me see what kind of plane she’s taking,” Abedin responded.

“I would rather have our own of course,” Clinton added.

***

Emails also show Abedin providing government plane and hotel reservations to Chelsea Clinton for trip to Germany while employed at Clinton Foundation

Abedin tells Band that she has ‘hooked up’ people from the Russian American Foundation with ‘the right people’ at the State Department

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch today released 2,078 pages of documents revealing more instances of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sending and receiving classified information via an unsecured email server. They also show Clinton’s daughter Chelsea and others involved with the Clinton Foundation receiving special favors from Huma Abedin, the former secretary’s deputy chief of staff.

The records were obtained in response to a court order from a May 5, 2015, lawsuit filed against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684)) after it failed to respond to a March 18, 2015, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking: “All emails of official State Department business received or sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013 using a non-‘state.gov’ email address.”

The new documents included 115 Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 432 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department. These records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails were turned over to the State Department.

On December 6, 2010, Secretary Clinton shared classified information with non-U.S. government employees Justin Cooper, then-aide to President Clinton who helped manage Hillary Clinton’s unsecure email system, and Clinton Foundation director Doug Band (neither of whom held security clearances). The email instructs her aide Oscar Flores to “print for Bill” (presumably Bill Clinton). The email exchange, which involved allegations of the theft of foreign aid by Bangladeshi banker and major Clinton Foundation donor Muhammad Yunus, started with an email from an unidentified person to State Department official Melanne Verveer, who forwarded her exchange on to Hillary Clinton, who then sent it on to Flores, Cooper and Band.

Image result for grameen bank hillary

Yunus was accused of embezzling $100 million from the Grameen Bank he founded and was removed from it, although the charges were never proven, and Yunus reportedly returned the money. Subsequently, Clinton’s State Department was accused of threatening IRS action against the Bangladesh prime minister’s son in an attempt to stop a Bangladesh government investigation of Yunus.

In a similar instance on March 14, 2011, State Department official Maria Otero emailed Clinton information about the Grameen Bank/Foundation that was again deemed classified as Confidential by the State Department and redacted under FOIA exemption B1.4(D) – “Information specifically authorized by an executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy … Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.” Clinton then responds to Otero using her HDR22@clintonemailcom account and copies Abedin on Abedin’s unsecure email account, huma@clintonemail.com.

In May 2010, Ben Ringel, whose donations to the Clinton Foundation Judicial Watch previously documented, asked Abedin to intervene in an employment dispute on behalf of a USAID employee. Abedin agreed, telling Ringel to forward the woman’s documents to her official State Department email account.

In a May 21, 2011, email exchange sent to Abedin’s unsecure account, then- Ambassador Princeton Lyman sent information relating to his conversation with South Sudan President Salva Kiir Mayardit that is also redacted and classified as “Confidential.”

On July 17, 2012, Abedin forwarded to her private email account for printing a call briefing sheet for Clinton’s upcoming call with Joint Special Envoy Kofi Annan, which was classified Confidential and redacted under FOIA exemption B1.4(D).

The new Abedin emails also reveal additional instances in which Clinton’s then- scheduler Lona Valmoro forwarded the former secretary of state’s detailed daily schedule to top Clinton Foundation officials.

The new emails also reveal a number of favors that were requested and carried out.

Image result for doug band Doug Band and Chelsea/DailyMailUK

In May 2010, Abedin tells Band that she has “hooked up” people from the Russian American Foundation with “the right people” at the State Department after Abedin received a request from Russian American Foundation Vice President Rina Kirshner, forwarded by Clinton Foundation donor Eddie Trump (no relation to President Trump).

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Huma Abedin <Huma@clintonemail.com> wrote:

Hi Rina – wanted to connect on meeting at state department. Eddie trump passed on your email. Will be in touch soon

From: Rina Kirshner

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 11:29 AM

To: Huma Abedin

Subject: Re: Eddie Trump/Doug Band

Ms. Abedin,

Just wanted to follow up and express our gratitude. I was contacted today by Ms. Christina Miner who invited us to be part of the US-Russia Cultural Sub-Working Group meeting next week. Thank you very much for all your assistance – if there is any way we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Rina Kirshner

From: Huma Abedin [Huma@clintonemail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 12:19:12

To: Doug Band

Subject: FW: Eddie Trump/Doug Band

fyi – we hooked her up with the right people here

The Russia-American Foundation was staffed by Clinton political supporters and operatives, received over $260,000 in grants for “public diplomacy” from the Clinton State Department, and its leadership was supportive of Obama’s Russia policies.

In July 2011, when Chelsea Clinton, using the alias Diane Reynolds and the email address dreynolds@clintonemail.com, was planning to fly to Germany to see the U.S. women’s soccer team play, her travel agent asked Abedin to confirm that Chelsea’s travel costs could be placed on her parents’ credit card. In response, Abedin tells the agent that she can “stand down” from making arrangements to get Chelsea to Germany, as Chelsea and Bari Luri, Chelsea’s Clinton Foundation chief of staff, would be made part of the “official delegation” going to the match and she would “fly on official govt plane both ways and they will take care of hotels and all transportation.” Chelsea was a fully employed Clinton Foundation executive at this time.

In July 2011, Clinton tells Abedin that she doesn’t wish to fly on the same airplane with Michelle Obama on their way to Betty Ford’s funeral: “I’d be honored to speak. Is it ok that we and Mrs. O take two separate planes?”

A December 15, 2012, email chain shows that a committee of Clinton staffers, including Cheryl Mills, Huma Abedin, Jake Sullivan and Philippe Reines, was required to draft a “doctors statement” as to why Hillary supposedly fainted due to “dehydration,” causing her supposedly to hit her head and suffer a “concussion” in December 2012. The same committee then prepared a “discharge statement” when Hillary was released from the hospital.

“These shocking new Clinton emails show why the Justice Department should reevaluate, reopen, or reinvigorate Clinton, Inc. investigations,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The casual violation of laws concerning classified material and noxious influence peddling show the Clinton State Department was ‘corruption central’ in the Obama administration.  No wonder Clinton’s allies in the State and Justice Departments had been slow-walking and hiding these emails.”

U.S. of Paris Accord, will take 3 Years However

Paris Accord TALKERS

Topline: The Paris Accord is a BAD deal for Americans, and the President’s action today is keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first. The Accord was negotiated poorly by the Obama Administration and signed out of desperation. It frontloads costs on the American people to the detriment of our economy and job growth while extracting meaningless commitments from the world’s top global emitters, like China. The U.S. is already leading the world in energy production and doesn’t need a bad deal that will harm American workers.

UNDERMINES U.S. Competitiveness and Jobs

According to a study by NERA Consulting, meeting the Obama Administration’s requirements in the Paris Accord would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next several decades.

By 2040, our economy would lose 6.5 million industrial sector jobs including 3.1 million manufacturing sector jobs

It would effectively decapitate our coal industry, which now supplies about one-third of our electric power

The deal was negotiated BADLY, and extracts meaningless commitments from the world’s top polluters

The Obama-negotiated Accord imposes unrealistic targets on the U.S. for reducing our carbon emissions, while giving countries like China a free pass for years to come.

 Under the Accord, China will actually increase emissions until 2030

The U.S. is ALREADY a Clean Energy and Oil & Gas Energy Leader; we can reduce our emissions and continue to produce American energy without the Paris Accord

America has already reduced its carbon-dioxide emissions dramatically.

Since 2006, CO2 emissions have declined by 12 percent, and are expected to continue to decline.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the U.S. is the leader in oil & gas production.

The agreement funds a UN Climate Slush Fund underwritten by American taxpayers

President Obama committed $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund – which is about 30 percent of the initial funding without authorization from Congress

With $20 trillion in debt, the U.S. taxpayers should not be paying to subsidize other countries’ energy needs.

The deal also accomplishes LITTLE for the climate

According to researchers at MIT, if all member nations met their obligations, the impact on the climate would be negligible. The impacts have been estimated to be likely to reduce global temperature rise by less than .2 degrees Celsius in 2100.

*** Image result for paris accords climate

The Legal and Economic Case Against the Paris Climate Treaty

Canceling U.S. Participation Protects Competitiveness and the Constitution

President Trump should keep his two-part campaign promise to cancel U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments to United Nations global warming programs. The Paris Agreement is a costly and ineffectual solution to the alleged climate crisis. It is also plainly a treaty, despite President Obama’s attempt to implement it without the Senate’s advice and consent. Failure to withdraw from the agreement would entrench a constitutionally damaging precedent, set President Trump’s domestic and foreign policies in conflict, and ensure decades of diplomatic blowback.

For those and other reasons, the Paris Agreement imperils both America’s economic future and capacity for self-government.

The Paris Agreement and the 1992 treaty it purports to modify, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, both contain provisions for withdrawal. Concerns about diplomatic blowback if President Trump withdraws from the Agreement or submits it for the Senate’s advice and consent actually confirm the wisdom of exercising one of those options. The Paris Agreement is designed to institutionalize a running campaign of diplomatic blowback unless the U.S. submits to ever-tightening constraints, ratcheting up every five years. If Trump withdraws, any diplomatic blowback would largely be a muted one-off event, without the economic, political, and security costs that staying in the Paris Agreement entails.

To safeguard America’s economic future and capacity for self-government, President Trump should pull out of the Paris Agreement. There are several options for doing so, which are discussed in this paper. Regardless of which option Trump selects, his  administration should make the case for withdrawal based on the following key points:

  1. The Paris Climate Agreement is a treaty by virtue of its costs and risks, ambition compared to predecessor climate treaties, dependence on subsequent legislation by Congress, intent to affect state laws, U.S. historic practice with regard to multilateral environmental agreements, and other common-sense criteria.
  2. In America’s constitutional system, treaties must obtain the advice and consent of the Senate before the United States may lawfully join them. President Obama deemed the Paris Agreement to not be a treaty in order to evade constitutional review, which the Agreement almost certainly would not have survived.
  3. Allowing Obama’s climate coup to stand will set a dangerous precedent that will undermine one of the Constitution’s important checks and balances. It will allow a future president to adopt any treaty he and foreign elites want, without Senate ratification, just by deeming it “not a treaty.”
  4. The Agreement endangers America’s capacity for self-government. It empowers one administration to make legislative commitments for decades to come, without congressional authorization, and regardless of the outcome of future elections. It would also make U.S. energy policies increasingly unaccountable to voters, and increasingly beholden to the demands of foreign leaders, U.N. bureaucrats, and international pressure groups.
  5. The United States cannot comply with the Paris Agreement and pursue a pro-growth energy agenda. Affordable, plentiful, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern economic life. Yet, the Paris Agreement’s central goal is to make fossil fuels, America’s most plentiful and affordable energy source, more expensive across the board. Implementing the agreement’s progressively more restrictive five-year emission-reduction pledges—called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—would destroy U.S. manufacturing’s energy price edge.
  6. The Agreement entails more cost and risk than the country is willing to bear. A majority of states have sued to overturn the Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s end-run around Congress, the Clean Power Plan, which is also the centerpiece of the U.S. NDC under the Paris Agreement. Yet, the CPP is only a start. All of Obama’s adopted and proposed climate policies would only achieve about 51 percent of just the first NDC, and the Paris Agreement requires parties to promise more “ambitious” NDCs every five years.
  7. The Agreement has no democratic legitimacy. President Obama kept mum about climate change during the 2012 elections. Only after being reelected did he unveil a climate agenda featuring an EPA-redesigned electric power system and the most “ambitious” climate agreement in history.
  8. Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is a humanitarian imperative. The Agreement will produce no detectable climate benefits. Instead, it will divert trillions of dollars from productive investments that would advance global welfare to political uses. Worse, the Agreement’s mid-century emission-reduction goals cannot be achieved without drastically reducing energy-poor countries’ current access to affordable energy from fossil fuels.

For all the foregoing reasons, President Trump should stick to his campaign promises to end America’s participation in the Paris Climate Agreement and stop payments to the U.N. Green Climate Fund.

State Dept. Spent $22.8 Mil to Resettle Muslim Refugees

A short list of VOLAGS  Image result for refugee resettlement

Church World Service (CWS)Visit disclaimer page

How lucrative is the resettlement business? Check out the summary document here.

Image result for refugee resettlement

State Dept. Redacts Big Chunks of $22.8 Mil Contract to Resettle Muslim Refugees

The U.S. government spends billions of dollars to “resettle” foreign nationals and transparency on how the money is spent depends on the agency involved. Judicial Watch has been investigating it for years, specifically the huge amount of taxpayer dollars that go to “voluntary agencies”, known as VOLAGs, to provide a wide range of services for the new arrivals.

Throughout the ongoing probe Judicial Watch has found a striking difference on how government lawyers use an exemption, officially known as (b)(4), to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to withhold records. All the cases involve public funds being used to resettle foreigners on U.S. soil and Americans should be entitled to the records.

The (b)(4) exemption permits agencies to withhold trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person which is privileged or confidential. Depending on the government agency and the mood of the taxpayer-funded lawyers handling public records requests, that information is exempt from disclosure. In these cases, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) disclosed a VOLAG contract to resettle tens of thousands of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC) that entered the U.S. through Mexico under the Obama administration while the State Department withheld large portions of a one-year, $22.8 million deal to resettle refugees from Muslim countries.

Most of the UACs came from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala and the Obama administration blamed the sudden surge on violence in the three central American nations. The agency responsible for resettling the minors and issuing contracts for the costly services is HHS.

As a result of Judicial Watch’s work HHS furnished records with virtually nothing redacted. Disclosed were employee salaries of VOLAGs contracted by the agency to provide services for the illegal immigrant minors, the cost of laptops, big screen TVs, food, pregnancy tests, “multicultural crayons” and shower stalls for the new arrivals. The general contract was to provide “basic shelter care” for 2,400 minors for a period of four months in 2014. This cost American taxpayers an astounding $182,129,786 and the VOLAG contracted to do it was government regular called Baptist Children and Family Services (BCFS). The breakdown includes charges of $104,215,608 for UACs at Fort Sill, Oklahoma and an additional $77,914,178 for UACs at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.

HHS rightfully provided all sorts of details in the records, including the cost of emergency surge beds ($104,215,608) for just four months; food for the illegal alien minors and staff ($18,198,000); medical supplies such as first aid kits, latex gloves, lice shampoo and pregnancy tests ($1,120,400); recreation items such as board games, soccer balls and jump ropes ($180,000); educational items like art paper and multicultural crayons ($180,000); laptops ($200,000) and cellphones ($160,000). Hotel accommodations for the BCFS staff was $6,765,000, the records show, and the salary for a 30-member “Incident Management Team” was $2,648,800, which breaks down to $88,293 per IMT member for the four-month period. It was outrageous that the Obama administration spent nearly $200 million of taxpayer funds to provide illegal alien children with the types of extravagant high-tech equipment and lavish benefits many American families cannot even afford for their own children.

This has become a heated issue for the government which may explain why other agencies aren’t as forthcoming in providing specific figures, thus abusing the (b)(4) exemption. The State Department, for instance, redacted huge portions of records involving contracts with VOLAGs to resettle refugees from mostly Muslim countries.

The files illustrate the disparate redaction treatment given by different government agencies to the same types of records. The State Department paid a VOLAG called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) a ghastly $22,838,173 in one year to resettle refugees that came mostly from Muslim countries. Unlike HHS, the agency redacted information related to what the USCCB charged the government for things like furniture, personnel, equipment and other costs associated with contracts to resettle refugees. Why did one government agency hand over the same types of records that another agency claims are trade secrets? Judicial Watch is challenging the State Department’s (b)(4) exemption and will provide updates as they become available.

HHS and the State Department work with nine VOLAGs to resettle refugees and the voluntary agencies have hundreds of contractors they like to call “affiliates.” It’s a huge racket that costs American taxpayers monstrous sums and Judicial Watch is working to pinpoint the exact amount. Besides BCFS and USCCB, other VOLAGs with lucrative government gigs to resettle refugees are: Church World Service, Ethiopian Community Development Council, Episcopal Migration Ministries, Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, International Rescue Committee, U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, Lutheran Immigration Refugee Services and World Relief Corporation.

Germany’s Secret Bundeswehr

The secret German army, with soldiers from other countries has a variety of duties. There is a growing concern in Europe, but what about NATO? That question goes to President Trump. The secret is, no one is talking about it openly, further there was no real reason given on why VP Pence travel to meet top NATO officials to calm the nerves regarding the viability of NATO due to President Trump. Article 5 remains a large question with European leaders.

Image result for secret army bundeswehr

The original Bundeswehr has a scandalous history. Nazi Veterans Created Illegal Army

First, there will be cyber soldiers

The German military (Bundeswehr) on Wednesday is launching a brand new “cyber army” to fight against digital attacks on networks and weapons systems. But some are concerned about how this new unit might engage in cyber assaults itself.

Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen will announce the new unit in Bonn on Wednesday afternoon. The ministry wants to deploy around 13,500 soldiers and civilian workers by 2021 to protect the Bundeswehr’s networks and weapons systems, but the unit must also be capable of launching their own attacks against hackers.

The Chief of Staff of the new cyber army is Lieutenant-General Ludwig Leinhos, who is an expert in electronic warfare.

Cyber attacks are a growing concern in Germany, with the Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) reporting last year that the government’s computer networks are hit by around 20 highly specialized attacks per day.

German intelligence agencies and the BSI last year began work on setting up their own special cyber response teams.

According to broadcaster N-tv, the Bundeswehr’s new cyber soldiers will be on equal ranking with their colleagues in the army, air force and marines – and their new beret colour will be grey.

Parliamentary ombudsman for the Bundeswehr, Hans-Peter Bartels (SPD), warned that the new cyber unit should be kept under parliamentary control, though, as part of their work would entail launching cyber attacks of their own.

Bartels told the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung on Wednesday that the cyber army must seek permission from the Bundestag (German parliament) before launching such assaults.

“Every offensive measure of our constitutionally enshrined parliamentary army needs to have the explicit mandate of the Bundestag,” Bartels said, adding that this policy goes for not only military assaults, but also virtual attacks on the data network of an adversary.

Bartels stressed that the cyber army was desperately needed to protect the Bundeswehr’s computer and weapons systems. But he also criticized the fact that the new unit is only now being created.

“Germany is not a pioneer here,” he said. “One can already learn from the experiences of other countries, like the USA or Israel.”

Second, the conventional forces

Germany is to increase the size of its armed forces amid growing concerns over the security of Europe.

Troop numbers in the Bundeswehr will be raised to almost 200,000 over the next seven years, under new plans announced on Wednesday.

The move comes days after Mike Pence, the US vice-president, called on Nato’s European members to increase military spending.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly demanded Europe pay more towards the cost of its own defence.

The move also comes amid growing concern in European capitals over Mr Trumps’ commitment to Nato, after he described the alliance as “obsolete”.

Under the new plans, Germany will recruit 20,000 more troops by 2025, bringing its total service personnel to 198,000.

That is slightly more than the British armed forces’ current strength of 196,410.

In a statement announcing the plans, Ursula von der Leyen, the defence minister, said: “The Bundeswehr has rarely been as necessary as it is now.

“Whether it is the fight against Isil terrorism, the stabilization of Mali, continuing support of Afghanistan, operations against migrant smugglers in the Mediterranean or with our increased Nato presence in the Baltics.”

The announcement came as Germany deployed tanks and hundreds troops to Lithuania as part of a Nato force to deter Russian aggression.

During the Cold War, West Germany was considered the first line of defence against a Soviet invasion and at its height the Bundeswehr had 500,000 active service personnel.

But in the years following the fall of the Berlin Wall and German reunification defence spending dropped sharply.

Germany ended conscription in 2011 and troop numbers fell to an all-time low of 166,500 in June last year.

Cold War historians described West Germany’s army as “perhaps the best in the world”.

But in more recent years it has been better known for embarrassing equipment shortages that saw soldiers forces to use broomsticks instead of guns on Nato exercises, and use ordinary Mercedes vans to stand in for armoured personnel carriers.

The German air force was forced to ground half of its ageing Tornado fighters last year over maintenance issues, including six that are deployed on reconaissance missions against Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil) in Syria.

There are growing calls for Europe to do more to secure its own defence after Mr Trump described Nato as “obsolete” in an interview in January, and earlier this month Angela Merkel’s government was forced to take the unusual step of denying that it is interested in becoming a nuclear power.

Mr Trump has repeatedly accused Nato’s European members of not paying enough towards the cost of their defence and during the US presidential campaign Mr Trump warned the US may not necessarily come to the aid of Nato allies if they are attacked.

German Bundeswehr Soldiers of the 'battalion of armored infantryman' called 'Panzergrenadierbataillon 122' sit on a wrecker called 'Bueffel' during vehicles wait to be loaded onto a train in Grafenwoehr, Germany, 31 January 2017, before being deployed as part of a NATO force in Lithuania
German Bundeswehr Soldiers of the ‘battalion of armored infantryman’ called ‘Panzergrenadierbataillon 122’ sit on a wrecker called ‘Bueffel’ during vehicles wait to be loaded onto a train in Grafenwoehr, Germany, 31 January 2017, before being deployed as part of a NATO force in Lithuania Credit: LUKAS BARTH/EPA

Mr Pence sought to reassure jittery European allies in a speech at Nato headquarters in Brussels on Monday in which he said the US’ “commitment to Nato is clear”. But he demanded “real progress” in increased European defence spending.

Ms von der Leyen has been attempting to reverse the decline of Germany’s armed forces, and already announced a smaller increase in troop numbers last year. Those targets were revised upwards with Wednesday’s announcement.

It is estimated the increases will cost Germany between around €900m (£760m) a year. But the amount is still far short of the extra €25.4bn Germany would have to spend on defence each year to meet Nato’s annual target of 2 per cent of GDP.

The UK is one of only five Nato members to meet the target at present, along with the US, Greece, Estonia and Poland.

Despite boasting the largest economy in Europe, Germany lags far behind, spending only 1.19 per cent of its GDP on defence in 2016.