Category Archives: Energy Agenda

Defense Intelligence Agency on Global Threats

Posted on by

Worldwide Threat Scope, Complexity on the Rise

Taken in aggregate, recent political, military, social and technological developments have created security challenges more diverse and complex than any the nation has ever experienced, Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Vincent R. Stewart, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told Congress Feb. 3.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on the subject of worldwide threats, Stewart was joined by Army Lt. Gen. William Mayville, Joint Staff director for operations, and Mark S. Chandler, acting director for intelligence for the Joint Staff.

“Our challenges range from highly capable near-peer competitors, to empowered individuals with nefarious intentions. Increasing demands, coupled with today’s challenging fiscal environment, have stressed our defense intelligence establishments and forced us to accept greater risk,” Stewart said.

The existing strategic environment isn’t going away any time soon, he said.

The increasing scope, volatility and complexity of threats are “the new normal,” Stewart said.

The Defense Intelligence Agency is focused on three areas of special concern, the general said.

Military Competitors

“Capable military competitors — Russian military activity, for example — [are] at historically high levels,” he said. “Moscow is pursuing aggressive foreign and defense policies, including conducting destabilizing operations in the Ukraine, conducting a record number of out of area naval operations and increasing its long-range aviation patrols.

“In addition,” Stewart continued, “Beijing is focused on building a modern military capable of achieving success on a 21st century battlefield and advancing its core interests — which include maintaining its sovereignty, protecting its territorial integrity and projecting its regional influence.”

Breakdown of Law and Order

Vulnerable and ungoverned territory is on the rise due to the erosion of moderate and secular Islamic states, Stewart said.

“While coalition strikes have degraded [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s] ability to operate openly in Iraq and Syria, the group retains the ability to conduct limited offensive operations and is seeking to expand its presence and influence beyond these two countries,” he said. “Governments in countries such as Egypt, Algeria, Jordan and Lebanon are under stress from a variety of sources, thereby reducing their capability as a region to confront the threat posed by violent extremists.”

And the breakdown of order in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya and northern Nigeria has created “fertile spawning grounds” for terrorist organizations with far-reaching influence, the general said.

Space, Cyber Threats

The space and cyber domains are increasingly threatened, he said. Russia and China are recognizing the strategic value of space and are focusing on diminishing the advantages held by the U.S. and its allies.

“Both countries are conducting anti-satellite research and developing anti-satellite weapons, with the intent of denying the U.S. the use of space in the event of conflict,” Stewart said.

For the Defense Department, the cyber threat is particularly alarming because of the interconnected nature of weapons, communications and networks, he said.

“At low cost, with limited technical expertise, our adversaries have the potential to cause severe damage and disruption to U.S. systems, leaving little or no footprint behind,” the general said. And the speed and influence of mobile communications and social media have the potential to magnify international crises and shorten an already compressed decision-making cycle, Stewart added.

Sequestration

The demand for intelligence has never been greater, he said, but sequestration and operational demands have forced the military intelligence community to accept increased risk.

This “will have a direct and lasting impact on our ability to provide high-quality, nuanced intelligence required by policy makers and war fighters. I fear that the true cost of these difficult choices today may be paid on the battlefield of the future,” the general said.

*** Is war between Hezbollah and Israel inevitable?

The delicate status quo, which has ensured peace between Hezbollah and Israel since the 2006 war, is rapidly unravelling. After that war, both Hezbollah and Israel subscribed to a deterrence theory, which stood the test of time. Until two weeks ago.

Now, tensions between the two sides are at their highest since the last ceasefire. Indeed, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Monday that a third Lebanon war is now inevitable.

On Jan. 18, an Israeli helicopter gunship hit a convoy of vehicles in the Syrian province of Quneitra. The attack killed six Hezbollah operatives, one of whom was Jihad Mughniyeh, the son of Imad Mughniyeh, who was assassinated by Israel in an operation involving the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, as the Washington Post revealed last week.

The hope on the Israeli side must have been that Hezbollah would not seek immediate retaliation for the Jan. 18 attack. It was not to be. On Jan. 28, Hezbollah attacked an Israeli convoy in broad daylight in the Shebaa Farms, an area long occupied by Israel but claimed by Lebanon. Two Israelis were killed, a major and a sergeant of the Israel Defence Forces.

This escalation is happening at a time of important shifts in the relationship between Iran, Hezbollah and Israel.

One development, of concern to Israel, is the deepening of relations between Hezbollah and Iran in recent weeks. One day before Hezbollah’s attack on Israeli forces, Hezbollah’s leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, met with the Iranian Major General Qasem Suleimani, the legendary commander of the Iranian al-Quds force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Although the two men had met many times before, this is the first known meeting in Lebanon that has been publicized.

The meeting was all the more remarkable because of the publicity given to it. Suleimani paid respects to Hezbollah fighters killed by Israel and also visited the grave of Jihad Mughniyeh.

Hezbollah has also declared, in a recent statement, that it no longer recognizes the rules of engagement with Israel that were mediated, on an informal basis, by the United Nations in order to prevent clashes. Hezbollah’s declaration is a tacit rejection of the de facto understanding between the two bitter foes that has existed for years and has, up until now, ensured peace.

In a defiant statement after Hezbollah’s attack, Nasrallah reiterated Hezbollah’s rejection of previous the rules defining Hezbollah’s policy towards Israel. It was this status quo that had, for example, allowed for the group to negotiate a swap of its prisoners in exchange for Israeli war dead in 2008. In a clear departure from the past, where Hezbollah would not take revenge on Israeli attacks, Nasrallah stressed that the group has the right to respond in any way or time it deems fit.

“If Israel is banking that we fear war, then I tell it that we do not fear war and we will not hesitate in waging it if it is imposed on us,” he continued. “We did not hesitate in making the decision that Israel should be punished for its crime in Quneitra even if it meant going to an all-out war,” he revealed, an admission he may regret.

“The Israeli people discovered that their leadership put them on the brink of war, jeopardizing their economy and security,” he added in the wake of the operation. “Israel learned that it should not test us again given the Quneitra strike and Shebaa Farms operation,” he warned.

Not surprisingly these are not the conclusions that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in Jerusalem are likely to draw.

There has been a dangerous deterioration in Israel’s strategic position because of the open boast by Nasrallah that it is now fighting Israel not only from the Blue Line with Lebanon, but, also, on Syria’s frontline with Israel in the Golan. In other words, Hezbollah’s front with Israel now extends from the Mediterranean all the way to the disputed Golan on the Syrian border. Israel is unlikely to leave a threat like that unanswered. Moreover, Israel never shrinks from retaliation when its soldiers are killed, and especially when one of them is a middle-ranking officer.

But the strategic options before Netanyahu are limited. A further strike at Hezbollah will lead to a major war that would probably eclipse that of 2006 in its severity. Moreover, the prime minister will be conscious of the fact that elections are to be held in Israel on March 17. He may not want become embroiled in a war right now for that reason.

Despite these difficulties, some new realities would work in Israel’s favor. Netanyahu knows that, unlike during the 2006 war, Hezbollah would not find much support from the Arab world in the eventuality of a conflict with Israel. Deep sectarianism between Sunni and Shi’ites across the region means that few Arab states would be upset today by an Israeli offensive against Hezbollah, the stalwart defender of the hated Assad regime.

Hezbollah, in other words, is playing a dangerous game. It may yet find itself wishing to return to the days of stability and peace, which it is abandoning with such troubling rapidity.

 

WH/State Dept. Begging Iran for Deal

Posted on by

A top Iranian military leader claims that U.S. officials have been “begging us” to sign a nuclear deal during closed door negotiations with Tehran over its contested nuclear program, according to recent comments made to the Iranian state-controlled media.

Mohammad Reza Naghdi, the commander of the Basij, a paramilitary group operating under the wing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), recently claimed that the “Americans are begging us for a deal on the negotiation table,” according to comments published in Persian and independently translated for the Washington Free Beacon.

Naghdi added that American officials routinely “plea” with Iran in talks and that the United States is negotiating from a position of weakness, according to his comments, which follow earlier reports claiming that Iran’s leading negotiator “frequently shouts” at U.S. officials.

The military leader’s remarks appear to jibe with new reports that the United States is conceding ground to Iran in talks and will now allow it to “keep much of its uranium-enriching technology,” according to the Associated Press.

Iran, the AP reported, “refuses to meet U.S.-led demands for deep cuts in the number of centrifuges it uses to enrich uranium, a process that can create material for anything from chemotherapy to the core of an atomic bomb.”

Regional experts say that the Iranians feel that they are in a position of power in the talks and believe that the Obama administration is desperate to ink a deal.

“Iran feels the administration needs the deal, and this belief is supported by the way the administration is acting,” said Saeed Ghasseminejad, an Iranian dissident and associate fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

America’s “hostility toward its traditional allies in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia, is at its historical peak and the Obama administration either supports Iran to expand its influence in the region or at least does not oppose it at all,” Ghasseminejad explained. “Iran feels as long as the negotiation is going on, it has a green light to do whatever it wants in the region, so why should they bother to sign a deal?”

Sen. Mark Kirk (R., Ill.) said a bad nuclear deal would endanger the security of America and its allies.

“The Iranian terror state continues to show its true nature as it sidesteps the international sanctions regime during negotiations, and expands its threat into Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. Worse, the administration’s reported nuclear concessions to Ayatollah Khamenei will only keep Iran at the threshold of getting nuclear bombs.  A bad nuclear deal will further empower Iran and endanger the security of America, Israel, and other allies in the Middle East.”

As the nuclear talks continue, Iranian leaders have stepped up their rhetoric against the United States, with top officials declaring that “Iran prepares itself for war with global powers.”

Hossein Salami, the deputy commander of the IRGC, celebrated a recent attack on Israel by the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah and promised that Tehran is readying itself to go to war with America.

“Iran prepares itself for war with global powers, and the Israeli’s are much smaller than them,” Salami was quoted as saying by the state-controlled Fars New Agency (FNA).

“The response of Hezbollah to the Zionist regime shows a quick reaction, clear will, and their iron-like strength, resistance, and power,” he added. Salami also reiterated Iran’s commitment to fund and arm Palestinian terror groups. “Opening up a new front across the West Bank, which is a major section of our dear Palestine, will be certainly on the agenda, and this is part of a new reality that will gradually emerge,” Salami said in a recent television interview. Similar remarks were made by Mohammad Ali Jafari, the IRGC’s commander, who celebrated Hezbollah’s “martyrdom” and vowed that the “fight against Zionists would not be brought to a halt.” While U.S. officials have claimed multiple times in recent months that progress is being made in the talks, Iranian officials deny that this is the case. Abbas Araqchi, a top Iranian negotiator, said in recent days that it is too early to say that progress has been made. “We still are not in a position where we can say we have had progress,” Araqchi was quoted as saying by the FNA. “It is still too early to judge.” “If the counterpart shows realism, political resolve, and good will, we believe we are not so far from reaching an agreement,” he said.

*** But there is more to understand.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — Tehran and P5+1 mediators will make all possible efforts to establish a general political framework for Iran’s nuclear deal in March, the head of Iran’s expert team at talks on Iran’s nuclear program said Wednesday.
Iran and the P5+1 group of international mediators, comprising Russia, China, the United States, Britain, France and Germany, are in talks to clinch a comprehensive agreement to end more than a decade of impasse over Tehran’s controversial nuclear program.

“All efforts will be made to develop the political framework of the agreement in March,” Iranian Foreign Ministry’s Director General for Political and International Security Affairs Hamid Baeidinejad told reporters in Moscow after meetings with Russian officials to coordinate Iran-Russia cooperation in talks.
Baedinejad added that the date for the next round of Iran nuclear talks had not been determined yet. *** Yet Iran has other attitudes towards to United States.

A senior Iranian commander has dismissed as “meddlesome” the recent US claims that Tehran’s defense might would be part of the nuclear talks with six world powers, saying Iran’s missile capability is non-negotiable.

“Iran’s missile programs and defense capability, irrespective of their purpose, are not negotiable in any foreign circle,” Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri said on Wednesday.

“We don’t allow the US and others to interfere in the country’s defense affairs,” he added.

The commander underlined that Iran will use its defense might against bullying powers whenever it deems necessary.

He said Iran’s military might serves to defend the nations, adding that if the US oversteps the red lines, then it will have to be worried about Iran’s missiles.

“Gone are the days when the US was a superpower, but some still haven’t realized it,” he said.

Jazayeri’s comments came in reaction to the Monday remarks by US State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, who claimed that Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities are part of the ongoing talks between Tehran and the P5+1 group of world powers over Tehran’s nuclear energy program.

In relevant remarks on Tuesday, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Abbas Araqchi rejected Psaki’s claims, saying that Tehran’s “missile program has a completely defensive nature and the Islamic Republic of Iran does not regard the country’s defense issues as negotiable and will not hold such negotiations with any foreign side.”

Araqchi, who is also Iran’s deputy foreign minister for Legal and International Affairs, said that in line with Tehran’s nuclear talks with the P5+1 countries, no permission has been or will be issued in the future to hold negotiations on Iran’s defense and missile capabilities.

Iran and the P5+1 group – Russia, China, France, Britain, the US and Germany – are in talks to secure a final comprehensive deal over Tehran’s nuclear work.

Since an interim deal was agreed in the Swiss city of Geneva in November 2013, the negotiating sides have missed two self-imposed deadlines to ink a final agreement.

Iran and the P5+1 countries now seek to reach a high-level political agreement by March 1 and to confirm the full technical details of the accord by July 1.

Cold War Turning Hot, 90 Miles from our Shore.

Posted on by

Old news is new again when it comes to the relationship between Cuba and Russia. The Cold War is turning hot at the hands of the generosity of Barack Obama normalizing the relationship between the United States and Cuba. How can it be?

Back in 1964, Cuba had an agreement with Russia which allows Moscow to maintain a signals intelligence facility near Havana at Torrens [23°00’01″N 82°28’56″W], also known as Lourdes, which is the largest Russian SIGINT site abroad. The strategic location of Lourdes makes it ideal for gathering intelligence on the United States. It has been reported that the Lourdes facility is the largest such complex operated by the Russian Federation and its intelligence service outside the region of the former Soviet Union. The Lourdes facility is reported to cover a 28 square-mile area with 1,000-1,500 Russian engineers, technicians, and military personnel working at the base. Experts familiar with the Lourdes facility have reportedly confirmed that the base has multiple groups of tracking dishes and its own satellite system, with some groups used to intercept telephone calls, faxes, and computer communications, in general, and with other groups used to cover targeted telephones and devices.

According to American intelligence, an unusually large number of Soviet ships delivered military cargoes to Cuba beginning in late July 1962, to support the construction of a variety of military activities, including setting up facilities for electronic and communications intelligence. In the area just south of Havana city, a number of farms were evacuated and the boys’ reformatory at Torrens, two and one half miles on the road to San Pedro from Havana, was converted for living quarters for numbers of foreign personnel. The numerous Soviet personnel who moved in early in August 1962 wore casual, dirty, civilian clothes.

The SIGINT facility at Lourdes is among the most significant intelligence collection capabilities targeting the United States. This facility, less than 100 miles from Key West, is one of the largest and most sophisticated SIGINT collection facilities in the world. It is jointly operated by Russian military intelligence (GRU), FAPSI, and Cuba’s intelligence services. The Federal Agency for Governent Conununications (FAPSI) evolved in the early 1990’s from the former KGB’s SIGINT service. According to Russian press sources, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) also has a communications center at the facility for its agent network in North and South America.

The complex is capable of monitoring a wide array of commercial and government communications throughout the southeastern United States, and between the United States and Europe. Lourdes intercepts transmissions from microwave towers in the United States, communication satellite downlinks, and a wide range of shortwave and high-frequency radio transmissions. It also serves as a mission ground station and analytical facility supporting Russian SIGINT satellites.

The facility at Lourdes, together with a sister facility in Russia, allows the Russians to monitor all U. S. military and civilian geosynchronous communications satellites. It has been alleged that the Lourdes facility monitors all White House communications activities, launch control communications and telemetry from NASA and Air Force facilities at Cape Canaveral, financial and commodity wire services, and military communications links. According to one source, Lourdes has a special collection and analysis facility that is responsible for targeting financial and political information. This activity is manned by specially selected personnel and appears to be highly successful in providing Russian leaders with political and economic intelligence.

*** Then in 2014, and while Putin was in Cuba, he agreed to forgive 90 percent or $32 billion of Cuba’s Soviet-era debt. This move is now being interpreted as a quid pro quo for reopening the spy base at Lourdes.

It is likely that Russia was motivated to reopen the surveillance station in part because of the Edward Snowden leaks about the U.S. National Security Agency’s extensive spying operations. In addition, Ivan Konovalov, head of the Moscow-based Center for Strategic Trends Studies, told Reuters: “One needs to remember that Russia’s technical intelligence abilities are very weak. This will help.” In addition, U.S.-Russian relations have deteriorated sharply since Putin returned to the presidency for a third term in 2012. In fact, U.S. sanctions over the conflict in the Ukraine have led some senior legislators in Russia’s State Duma to advocate withdrawing from the New START nuclear reduction treaty.

During his Latin America trip, Putin also signed agreements with Argentina, Brazil and Cuba to open more positioning stations for Russia’s GLONASS satellite navigation system. *** Then still old news is current news. Nothing has changed in Cuba and why should it when it has worked and fills the pockets of the Castro clan.

 When foreign tourists bask in the sun at a Sol Melia or Club Med beach resort in Cuba, get away to one of the island’s remote pristine keys on commuter airline Aerogaviota, visit Havana’s famed Morro Castle, enjoy typical Cuban cuisine at a restaurant, or indulge in a Cohiba cigar after dinner (1), they are also unwittingly contributing to the bottom line of the Cuban military’s diverse business ventures that bring in an estimated US$1 billion a year. (2)

     The armed forces are involved not only in the international tourist industry but in the lucrative domestic economy as well. The military-owned retail chain TRD Caribe S.A. operates more than 400 locations throughout the island and caters to Cubans with U.S. dollars. “TRD” is an acronym for “Tiendas de Recuperacion de Divisas,” or foreign currency recovery stores. Employing a Wal-Mart-like strategy, TRD Caribe distinguishes itself from other state-owned competitors by “continuously offering discounts” on Chinese-sourced consumer goods that it reportedly “buys cheap and makes a resale kill” on. (3)

GAESA, or Grupo de Administracion Empresarial S.A. (Enterprise Management Group Inc.), is the holding company for the Cuban Defense Ministry’s vast economic interests. Among its more visible subsidiaries are Gaviota S.A., which directly controls 20-25 percent of Cuba’s hotel rooms in partnership with foreign hoteliers, and Aerogaviota, a domestic airline that carries tourists on refurbished Soviet military aircraft flown by Cuban air force pilots. Under GAESA’s management team, Cuba’s military-industrial complex — the Union de la Industria Militar (Defense Industry Group) — provides outsourcing services, such as rental car maintenance and tour bus repairs, to foreign companies and joint ventures on the island.

     The man behind the transformation of Cuba’s Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias (FAR) into a major economic force is Gen. Raul Castro, Cuba’s defense minister and designated successor to elder brother Fidel. Beginning in the late 1980s, as materiel and subsidies from Moscow progressively dwindled, Raul Castro introduced the “Sistema de perfeccionamiento empresarial (SPE),” or enterprise management improvement system, that streamlined the Cuban military’s operations. With the disappearance of the Soviet bloc by 1991 and the ensuing severe economic crisis that threatened the regime’s survival, the younger Castro went further and established state corporations like the Gaviota tourism group for joint ventures with foreign capital. Today, the military is not only a largely self-financing institution but a major player in the overall Cuban economy.

     Raul Castro entrusts a military managerial elite for the day-to-day oversight of the FAR’s business empire. Vice minister of defense, General Julio Casas Regueiro, and Maj. Luis Alberto Rodriguez Lopez-Callejas, son-in-law to Raul Castro, serve as GAESA’s chairman and CEO, respectively. Key money-making enterprises are also headed by high-ranking officers, as in the case of Gaviota whose CEO is Brig. Gen. Luis Perez Rospide.

     The military managerial elite surrounding Raul Castro extends its reach far beyond GAESA’s direct holdings. An increasing number of senior military leaders have taken over civilian-run ministries and industries. Former Interior Ministry (state security) head and newly-appointed member of Fidel Castro’s ruling Council of State, Comandante Ramiro Valdes Menendez, has been at the helm of the electronics industry since becoming president of the Grupo de la Electronica in 1996. General Ulises Rosales del Toro was assigned to the strategic Sugar Ministry (MINAZ) in 1997. A second civilian ministry with close ties to the military is Basic Industries (MINBAS). Led by engineer Marcos Portal Leon, another of Raul Castro’s confidants, MINBAS oversees state energy, mining, and pharmaceutical sectors that are second only to tourism in foreign exchange earnings.

     Given Fidel Castro’s rapprochement with Beijing since the demise of Soviet communism, several Cuba analysts see parallels between Cuba’s FAR and China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA), particularly with the PLA’s “bingshang,” or military officers turned businessmen, and their pivotal role in the Chinese authoritarian transition to a limited market-oriented economy. “China offers an interesting case,” argues professor Frank Mora, “because it is comparable to Cuba in terms of revolutionary experience and government and as a model of party/civil-military relations, economic reform…and institutional involvement in the civilian economy.” (4)

     In November 1997, Raul Castro went to China “to learn more about China’s experience in economic construction.” (5) According to Domingo Amuchastegui, formerly with Havana’s Higher Institute of International Relations, “when Raul Castro went to China [in 1997], he spent long hours talking to Zhu [Rongji, Chinese premier and architect of economic reforms under Jiang Zemin] and invited [Zhu’s] main adviser to Cuba. This famous adviser went to Cuba, caused a tremendous impact, talked to [military] leaders and executives for many hours and days…” However, adds Amuchastegui, “there was one person who refused to [listen to Zhu’s economic adviser]: Fidel Castro.” (6)

     While supporting the militarization of the Cuban economy, Fidel Castro is opposed to any economic liberalization in the island. The elder Castro, on his recent visit to China in February 2003, seemed bewildered by the capitalistic changes in the People’s Republic: “I can’t really be sure just what kind of a China I am visiting,” confessed Castro, “because the first time I visited [in 1995], your country appeared one way and now when I visit it appears another way.” (7)

 

Arm Ukraine Against Russia? Yes, No, Maybe

Posted on by

If you think executing the war against militant Islam is in flux in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, Yemen and North Africa you are quite right. Yet when it comes to forward and offensive measures against Soviet loyalists in Ukraine, the Baltic States, Poland and beyond, there is as much confusion and a strategy is still undecided. Imagine the policy and war gaming desks at the Pentagon and at NATO when it comes to action plans and they continue to be in full opposition to the NSC chief, Susan Rice. Some action was taken last year placing some hard military assets in key locations as well as troops, but as of this writing they are static. Read on to see the United States is nowhere on the matter of Russian aggression, leading to the real question as to why.

The Ukraine is an ally and has not been able to rely on the West. An official decision was to call up 1000,000 troops, perhaps coming from within and elsewhere. Question is where do the weapons come from?

U.S. Taking a Fresh Look at Arming Ukraine’s Forces, Officials Say

WASHINGTON — With Russian-backed separatists pressing their attacks in Ukraine, NATO’s military commander, Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, now supports providing defensive weapons and equipment to Kiev’s beleaguered forces, and an array of administration and military officials appear to be edging toward that position, American officials said Sunday.

President Obama has made no decisions on providing such lethal assistance. But after a series of striking reversals that Ukraine’s forces have suffered in recent weeks, the Obama administration is taking a fresh look at the question of military assistance.

Secretary of State John Kerry, who plans to visit Kiev on Thursday, is open to new discussions about providing lethal aid, as is Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, officials said.

In recent months, Susan E. Rice, Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, has resisted proposals to provide lethal assistance, several officials said. But one official said that she was now prepared to reconsider the issue.

Ukraine Crisis in Maps

The latest updates to the current visual survey of the continuing dispute, with maps and satellite imagery showing rebel and military movement.

 

Fearing that the provision of defensive weapons might tempt President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to raise the stakes, the White House has limited American aid to “non-lethal” items, including body armor, night-vision goggles, first aid kits and engineering equipment.

But the failure of economic sanctions to dissuade Russia from sending heavy weapons and military personnel to eastern Ukraine is pushing the issue of defensive weapons back into discussion.

“Although our focus remains on pursuing a solution through diplomatic means, we are always evaluating other options that will help create space for a negotiated solution to the crisis,” said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council.

Fueling the broader debate over policy is an independent report to be issued Monday by eight former senior American officials, who urge the United States to send $3 billion in defensive arms and equipment to Ukraine, including anti-armor missiles, reconnaissance drones, armored Humvees and radars that can determine the location of enemy rocket and artillery fire.

                                                     

Michèle A. Flournoy, a former senior Pentagon official who was among those considered to replace Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, joined in preparing the report. Others include James G. Stavridis, a retired admiral who served as the top NATO military commander, and Ivo Daalder, the United States ambassador to NATO during Mr. Obama’s first term.

“The West needs to bolster deterrence in Ukraine by raising the risks and costs to Russia of any renewed major offensive,” the report says. “That requires providing direct military assistance — in far larger amounts than provided to date and including lethal defensive arms.”

In his State of the Union address last month, Mr. Obama noted that the economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies had hurt the Russian economy.

But American officials acknowledge that Russia has repeatedly violated an agreement, reached in Minsk in September. The agreement called for an immediate cease-fire in Ukraine, the removal of foreign forces and the establishment of monitoring arrangements to ensure that the border between Ukraine and Russia would be respected.

In recent weeks, Russia has shipped a large number of heavy weapons to support the separatists’ offensive in eastern Ukraine, including T-80 and T-72 tanks, multiple-launch rocket systems, artillery and armored personnel carriers, Western officials say.

Some of the weapons are too sophisticated to be used by hastily trained separatists, said a Western official who, like others discussing the issue, declined to be identified because he was discussing intelligence reports and internal policy debates. NATO officials estimate that about 1,000 Russian military and intelligence personnel are supporting the separatist offensive while Ukrainian officials insist that the number is much higher.

Supported by the Russians, the separatists have captured the airport at Donetsk and are pressing to take Debaltseve, a town that sits aside a critical rail junction.

All told, the separatists have captured 500 square kilometers — about 193 square miles — of additional territory in the past four months, NATO says. The assessment of some senior Western officials is that the Kremlin’s goal is to replace the Minsk agreement with an accord that leaves the separatists with a more economically viable enclave and would be more favorable to the Kremlin’s interests.

A spokesman for General Breedlove declined to comment on his view on providing defensive weapons, which was disclosed by United States officials privy to confidential discussions.

“General Breedlove has repeatedly stated that he supports the pursuit of a diplomatic solution as well as considering practical means of support to the government of Ukraine in its struggle against Russian-backed separatists,” the spokesman, Capt. Gregory L. Hicks of the Navy, said.

But a Pentagon official who is familiar with the views of General Dempsey and Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said they believed the issue of defensive weapons should be reconsidered.

“A comprehensive approach is warranted, and we agree that defensive equipment and weapons should be part of that discussion.” the Pentagon official said.

Russian casualties remain a delicate political issue for Mr. Putin, who has denied that Russian troops have been ordered to fight in Ukraine.

The report by Ms. Flournoy and the other former officials argues that the United States and its allies should capitalize on this fact to dissuade the Russians and the separatists from expanding their offensive.

“One of the best ways to deter Russia from supporting the rebels in taking more territory and stepping up the conflict is to increase the cost that the Russians or their surrogates would incur,” Ms. Flournoy said.

The current stock of Ukrainian anti-armor missiles, the report notes, is at least two decades old, and most of them are out of commission.

So the report recommends that the United States provide the Ukrainian military with light anti-armor missiles, which might include Javelin antitank missiles.

“Providing the Ukrainians with something that can stop an armored assault and that puts at risk Russia or Russian-backed forces that are in armored vehicles, I think, is the most important aspect of this,” she added.

                                                                  

The Obama administration has provided radars that can locate the source of mortars. But the report urges the United States to also provide radars that can pinpoint the location of rocket and artillery fire. Enemy rocket and artillery attacks account for 70 percent of the Ukrainian military’s casualties, the report says, citing statistics provided by a Ukrainian officer.

Ukraine, the report notes, also needs reconnaissance drones, especially since the Ukrainian military has stopped all flights over eastern Ukraine because of the separatists’ use of antiaircraft missiles supplied by Russia.

The report also urged the United States to provide military communications equipment that cannot be intercepted by Russian intelligence and recommended the transfer of armored Humvees and field hospitals.

Poland, the Baltic States, Canada and Britain, the report says, might also provide defensive weapons if the United States takes the lead.

The report was issued jointly by the Atlantic Council, the Brookings Institution and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. The other officials who prepared it are Strobe Talbott, who served as deputy secretary of State in the Clinton administration; Charles F. Wald, a retired Air Force general who served as deputy commander of the United States European Command; Jan M. Lodal, a former Pentagon official; and two former U.S. ambassadors to Ukraine, John Herbst and Steven Pifer.

Afghanistan Conditions with Taliban/al Qaeda

Posted on by

Has anyone talked to Ashraf Ghani about the Taliban or the 5 detainees released from Guantanamo and handed over to Qatar? What is the near future for Afghanistan with the Talibans’ recent terror attacks? There is and remains a military stalemate between the Taliban and the government of Afghanistan. Perhaps the agreement signed with Afghanistan is a clue.

       We conclude that the security environment in Afghanistan will become more challenging after the drawdown of most international forces in 2014, and that the Taliban insurgency will become a greater threat to tan’s stability in the 2015–2018 timeframe than it is now.

The insurgency has been considerably weakened since the surge of U.S. and NATO forces in 2009, but it remains a viable threat to the government of Afghanistan. The coalition’s drawdown will result in a considerable reduction in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations by Afghan, U.S., and NATO forces. History suggests that the Taliban will use sanctuaries in Pakistan to regenerate their capabilities as military pressure on the movement declines. In the 2015– 2016 timeframe, we assess that the Taliban are likely to try to keep military pressure on the ANSF in rural areas, expand their control and influence in areas vacated by coalition forces, encircle key cities, conduct high-profile attacks in Kabul and other urban areas, and gain leverage for reconciliation negotiations. In 2016–2018, once the insurgency has had time to recover from the last several years of U.S. and NATO operations, a larger and more intense military effort will become increasingly likely.
We conclude that a small group of al Qaeda members, many of whom have intermarried with local clans and forged ties with Afghan and Pakistani insurgents, remains active in the remote valleys of northeastern Afghanistan.  However, as a result of sustained U.S. and Afghan counterterrorism operations, this group of al Qaeda members does not currently pose an imminent threat to the U.S. and Western nations. Further, so long as adequate pressure is maintained via U.S. and Afghan counterterrorism operations, the group is unlikely to regenerate the capability to become a substantial threat in the 2015–2018 timeframe.
We conclude that, in the likely 2015–2018 security environment, the ANSF will require a total security force of about 373,400 personnel in order to pro- vide basic security for the country, and cope with the Taliban insurgency and low-level al Qaeda threat.
***
The United Nations provided a report in December of 2014 that in part reads:  The present report provides an update on the situation since the fourth report of the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team was submitted to the Committee on 30 April 2014 (S/2014/402). The inauguration of the new President of Afghanistan on 29 September marked the first democratic and peaceful transition of executive authority in the history of Afghanistan. This was achieved despite intensive efforts by the Taliban to disrupt the second round of the presidential elections on 14 June 2014. The Taliban also exploited the political uncertainty following the elections until a government of national unity was formed in September 2014. Consequently, 2014 saw a significantly elevated number of Taliban attacks across Afghanistan, marking an increase in their activity.
Although the current fighting season has not yet concluded, the prospects of the Taliban breaking the strategic stalemate look slim despite the almost complete withdrawal of international combat troops. The most intensive military onslaught of the Taliban during the 2014 fighting season resulted in several district centres in the south and the east being overrun, but only briefly, as the government forces proved resilient and were able to recapture them within days. Meanwhile, an intensive Taliban effort to take control of Sangin district in Helmand Province failed.
On the political front, the Taliban leadership remains largely opposed to reconciliation, despite some elements that argue in favour. Hardliners from the “Da Fidayano Mahaz”1 (not listed), the “Tora Bora Mahaz” (not listed) and other affiliates push for renewed military efforts and argue that a campaign of attrition will wear out government forces and institutions over a period of several years. Meanwhile, the pragmatists associated with the Mu’tasim Group argue for a negotiated settlem   ent, which they believe could be to the Taliban’s advantage.
Stability in Afghanistan in 2015 and beyond will depend on two essential factors: the sustainability of external economic assistance, which is crucial to supporting the Government of Afghanistan and the national security forces and their continued development, and the persistence of Afghan confidence in government institutions and security forces, which is crucial to maintaining morale.
Regrettably, the Monitoring Team continues to receive a steady — albeit officially unconfirmed — flow of media reports indicating that some listed individuals have become increasingly adept at circumventing the sanctions measures, the travel ban in particular. Continuing to raise awareness with all stakeholders of the central role of the sanctions measures and their implementation as part of the wider political strategy of the international community remains one of the key tasks of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1988 (2011) and the Team. *** Al-Qaida associates
There was a distinct increase in the activities and the visibility of Al-Qaida- affiliated entities in Afghanistan in 2014 (see annex II for an overview of the various Al-Qaida entities active in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region and of how they relate to one another). Although geographically removed from Afghanistan, the recent events in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, specifically the success of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), currently listed as Al-Qaida in Iraq (QE.J.115.04), present a challenge to the Taliban as a movement. In January 2014, the Afghan security forces seized propaganda material originating from an Iraq-based Al-Qaida affiliate in north-eastern Afghanistan. According to official information provided by Afghan officials to the Team, in mid-2014 the Taliban leadership was concerned that the success of ISIL in parts of northern Iraq would draw young people who were potential Taliban recruits to join ISIL in Iraq.
Although this did not happen, apparently because of how difficult it is to travel to Iraq, the Monitoring Team has received a steady stream of as yet unconfirmed reports and press articles pointing to the existence of direct contacts between individuals associated with the Taliban and individuals associated with ISIL. For example, it has been reported in several Afghan media articles that the current ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, listed as Ibrahim Awwad Ibrahim Ali al-Badri al-Samarrai (QI.A.299.11), lived in Kabul during the Taliban regime and cooperated closely with Al-Qaida groups in Afghanistan at the time.28 In addition, Taliban splinter groups such as the Da Fidayano Mahaz and the Tora Bora Mahaz continue to regularly report on and glorify ISIL activities on their websites.29 The Team will continue to monitor this situation and report to the Committee once it is able to present an official confirmation.
Currently, two prominent supporters of ISIL from the Afghan Taliban — Mawlavi Abdul Rahim Muslimdost (not listed), who is a leader of the “Jama’at al Da’wa ila al-Qur’an wa Ahl al-Hadith” (not listed) in Kunar Province, and Mawlavi Abdul Qahir (not listed) — have endorsed the leader of ISIL, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.30 Most other leaders of the Jama’at al Da’wa ila al-Qur’an wa Ahl al-Hadith had sworn allegiance to Mullah Omar’s “Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan” in 2010.31
The Tora Bora Mahaz is a militant group operating in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan, that is reportedly under the operational control of the Taliban and its leader Anwar al-Haqq Mujahid (not listed), son of Yunus Khalis (not listed), who served as a Taliban shadow provincial governor. The group has primarily been attacking government forces in Nangarhar Province (see S/2014/402, para. 21). It publishes a magazine, Tora Bora, and maintains a website, on which it regularly cross-posts videos produced by ISIL.
At the individual level, some Arab nationals affiliated with Al-Qaida in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border area remain in touch with those who left for Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic. When in July a drone strike killed six Al-Qaida-affiliated individuals in North Waziristan, Abdul Mohsen Abdallah Ibrahim al Charekh (QI.A.324.14) — currently serving with the Al-Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant (QE.A.137.14) — expressed grief over the loss of his friends.
A militant group calling itself “Al-Tawhid Battalion in Khorasan” (not listed) pledged allegiance to ISIL. The Abtalul Islam Media Foundation posted a statement from the group using its Twitter account on 21 September 2014. In the message, the leader of the Al-Tawhid Battalion, Abu Bakr al-Kabuli (not listed), pledged loyalty to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and asked him if the group should fight in Khorasan or wait to join the ranks of ISIL, whether in Iraq, the Syrian Arab Republic, Afghanistan or Pakistan.33  The position of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (QI.H.88.03), the leader of the Hizb-I- Islami Gulbuddin, concerning the political situation in Afghanistan remains contradictory. On the one hand, he is seeking an enhanced political role for Hizb-I- Islami Gulbuddin in post-NATO Afghanistan. Some leading members of his party are involved in intense negotiations with the President, Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, and with Abdullah Abdullah to explore options for future cooperation that include the possibility of joining the new Government.34 Hekmatyar has also supported the holding of an intra-Afghan dialogue without foreign interference.35 On the other hand, Hekmatyar has criticized the signing by Afghanistan of a bilateral security agreement with the United States and claimed that a continued foreign presence means nothing but war. He has also lashed out at Iran (Islamic Republic of) and Pakistan for supporting the deal.