World War Three Thread....

[Avvakum]

Is Russia testing NATO in Estonia?

Tallinn (AFP) – Russia’s arrest of an Estonian policeman has sparked fears that Moscow is using the incident to test NATO’s resolve to defend its small Baltic allies as the crisis in eastern Ukraine rumbles on.

Related Stories

1. Estonia Says Officer Abducted Near Russian Border The Wall Street Journal
2. Estonia says officer abducted on border; Russia says it detained spy Reuters
3. Estonia says security officer abducted to Russia Associated Press
4. Obama calls Ukraine ‘a moment of testing’ for West Associated Press
5. Baltics poised for Obama visit amid high anxiety over Russia AFP

Moscow detained officer Eston Kohver on Saturday in what Russia claims is a spying probe. Prosecutors say he was arrested in possession of a pistol, ammunition, 5,000 euros ($6,500) and “special equipment to carry out covert recordings”.
But Tallinn alleges Russia kidnapped Kohver from Estonia at gunpoint as he was investigating cross-border crime.
A source close to the probe in Moscow quoted on Monday by Russia’s Interfax news agency said Kohver had denied being a spy or smuggling a firearm into the country.
Many in Estonia believe the timing of Kohver’s arrest is deliberate, coming just two days after US President Barack Obama visited Tallinn to trumpet Baltic security following Russia’s role in the Ukraine crisis.
“The operation was obviously carefully planned and prepared,” Kaarel Kaas, an analyst with Estonia’s International Centre for Defence Studie, told AFP.
“The kidnapping on Estonian soil was a conscious choice to demonstrate that the FSB (Russian intelligence service) can operate in spite of all obstacles,” he said.
“It’s hard to tell if it was done to show NATO, Estonia or the KAPO (Estonian intelligence police) their place, but certainly it was a demonstration of power and deterrence.”
Eerik-Niiles Kross, a former Estonian intelligence chief and diplomat, told AFP Kohver’s arrest was unprecedented “during the entire post-Cold War era”.
“In my opinion, it is not only an extraordinary event in Estonia but also much wider in the relationship between Russia and NATO,” he added.
Obama reassured NATO’s Baltic allies last week that the alliance and the US would guarantee their independence and protection in any fight with Russia.
NATO itself also announced a new rapid reaction force aimed at countering any threat to its members at a key summit last week in Wales.
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania emerged from nearly five decades of Soviet occupation in the early 1990s and joined NATO and the European Union in 2004 in a bid to shore up their security amid tense relations with Moscow.
- ‘Outrageous’ -
According to President Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the “abduction occurred in the course of a cross-border corruption investigation on Estonian soil. Russia admitted this was the work of their special services.”
Russia’s FSB claims it detained Kohver in northwestern Russia close to the Estonian border as he attempted to carry out an “undercover operation”.
Moscow has so far failed to officially update Estonian authorities on the incident and diplomats has been unable to see Kohver, according to foreign minister Urmas Paet.
The incident has Estonian press and social media brimming with speculation.
“The kidnapping was aimed at undermining Estonia’s sense of security,” Postimees, the country’s leading broadsheet daily, said in a Monday editorial.
It also claimed Kohver may have discovered Russian security officials’ involvement in smuggling before he was detained.
“The question remains how did FSB operatives know about his presence at a given point and a given moment,” Postimees said.
Arnold Sinisalu, head of the KAPO anti-corruption investigation unit, confirmed Kohver was “collecting information about cross border customs corruption in the widest sense”.
For Estonians who still remember Soviet times, the incident conjured up bad memories of an era they hoped was consigned to history.
“The most disgusting thing with this kidnapping is the similarity to the actions of the inhumane dictatorship during the Soviet Union,” Tallinn-based travel agent Juta Aavik, 40, told AFP.
“If they (Russia) want to, they arrest a person, fabricate whatever accusation, break all the rules and no one even coughs. Now it’s a citizen of an independent country outside Russian territory. It’s outrageous.”

The Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have never until recently had independence in well over a thousand years. Before the Soviet Union and Czarist Russia (and Nazi Germany...), these postage stamp sized countries were ruled by the Swedes, the Teutonic Knights/Brotherhood of the Sword, and the Hanseatic League. For most of that time, the civilized folks there were German and Swedish Nobility-even in the Russian period-and Jews in the towns.... Btw, Balts are historically very antisemitic.

These countries are too small and too fragile of entities politically, culturally, and economically to avoid not being part of some larger state, and America has no business defending them when it is impossible for them to defend themselves from their neighbors at all.

[American Patriot]

Right: http://christianpatriots.org/2014/09...ms-race-putin/

Russia will not get involved in arms race – Putin

September 10, 2014 / Daniel Crane

AFP Photo/Byambasuren Byamba-Ochir


Russia is not going to get involved in a new arms race, President Vladimir Putin said as he ordered his government to work out “balanced and realistic” defense strategy for 2016 through 2025.


“Someone really wants to unleash a new arms race,” Russia’s president said at a meeting with senior defense industry officials. “We, of course, are not going to be involved in this race.”


Putin tasked the defense industry to work out a new military doctrine by December. His comments came a week after Russia said Sept. 2 it would review the doctrine, in response to NATO announcing its intentions to expand in Eastern Europe amid Ukrainian crisis.


‘Ukrainian crisis provoked by the West to resuscitate NATO’



Read more at RT News

[American Patriot]

No, not gonna get in to an arms race... nope, not at all.

Russia successfully tests nuclear missile, more planned – navy chief says

.



Russian intercontinental ballistic missile Topol-M rolls across Red Square during the Victory Day Parade, which commemorates the 1945 defeat of Nazi Germany in Moscow, Russia, Friday, May 9, 2014. Russia carried out a successful test of its new Bulava intercontinental nuclear missile on Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014, and will perform two more test launches in October and November, the head of its naval forces said. (AP Photo/Pavel Golovkin)


MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia carried out a successful test of its new Bulava intercontinental nuclear missile on Wednesday and will perform two more test launches in October and November, the head of its naval forces said.


The armed forces have boosted their military training and test drills since the start of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, which Russia considers in its traditional sphere of influence.


The 12-meter long Bulava, or mace, has undergone numerous tests, some successful, and can deliver an impact of up to 100 times the atomic blast that devastated Hiroshima in 1945.


Naval Commander-in-Chief Admiral Viktor Chirkov said the test launch had been carried out from the White Sea and that the test missile had hit its target in Russia’s far east.


“In October and November of this year, the naval fleet will carry out two more launches with two rocket cruisers equipped with ballistic missiles,” Interfax quoted Chirkov as saying.


A Bulava missile weighs 36.8 tonnes and can travel 8,000 km (5,000 miles) and hold 6-10 nuclear warheads.

[American Patriot]

RUSSIA SUCCESSFULLY TESTS NUCLEAR MISSILE

Posted on September 10, 2014 by Tom Fernandez

Missile can travel 5,000 miles



(Reuters) – Russia carried out a successful test of its new Bulava intercontinental nuclear missile on Wednesday and will perform two more test launches in October and November, the head of its naval forces said.


The armed forces have boosted their military training and test drills since the start of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, which Russia considers in its traditional sphere of influence.


The 12-meter long Bulava, or mace, has undergone numerous tests, some successful, and can deliver an impact of up to 100 times the atomic blast that devastated Hiroshima in 1945.


Naval Commander-in-Chief Admiral Viktor Chirkov said the test launch had been carried out from the White Sea and that the test missile had hit its target in Russia’s far east.


“In October and November of this year, the naval fleet will carry out two more launches with two rocket cruisers equipped with ballistic missiles,” Interfax quoted Chirkov as saying.


A Bulava missile weighs 36.8 tonnes and can travel 8,000 km (5,000 miles) and hold 6-10 nuclear warheads.

---------


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSM-56_Bulava

[Ryan Ruck]

It's an arms race alright. We're just racing in opposite directions.

[American Patriot]

Precisely!

[American Patriot]

Russian FM Lavrov: West may use ISIS as pretext to bomb Syrian govt forces

By mrdsk on September 10, 2014
RT reports:
‘If the West bombs Islamic State militants in Syria without consulting Damascus, the anti-ISIS alliance may use the occasion to launch airstrikes against President Bashar Assad’s forces, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.
“There are reasons to suspect that air strikes on Syrian territory may target not only areas controlled by Islamic State militants, but the government troops may also be attacked on the quiet to weaken the positions of Bashar Assad’s army,” Lavrov said Tuesday.’
READ MORE…

• Could IS Bring Russia and the US Together?
• Russia sees West changing tack on Syria, urges engagement with Assad

[American Patriot]

Here's an OOPS for you guys.....


US Chopper Squadron Invades Poland, Accidentally


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/10/2014 13:47 -0400


No, this is not from The Onion. Bloomberg reports that six U.S. army helicopters landed in a rapeseed field in northern Poland to ask for directions after veering off course on their way back from military exercises. Locals were alarmed and explained, "we know that security is the most important thing right now... But thank God it was the Americans." We wonder how long before Sikorski proclaims this an invasion and demands NATO react...



As Bloomberg reports,

Five Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and one tandem-rotor Boeing Co. Chinook chopper touched down near the village of Gruta, 220 kilometers (140 miles) north of Warsaw at about noon yesterday, according to local eyewitnesses. Some residents were at first spooked at the sight of the aircraft, Halina Kowalkowska, the village’s head, said by phone.


“We know that security is the most important thing right now,” Kowalkowska said. “But thank God it was the Americans.”

...


“The Americans came over and asked where they landed,” Waldemar Krukowski, a local resident, told TVN24 television. “They wanted to know the name of the village.”



Residents brought in leaflets in English about their village and handed them to soldiers, according to Kowalkowska.



...



“It was a heavy, thick fog and you could barely see anything, so the boys had to land,” she said. “I’m still shaking after a sleepless night.”



...



Twelve aircraft in total made an unscheduled landing on their way from Lithuania yesterday and the day before in what’s a “standard procedure” in poor visibility, according to army officials.

* * *

US Black Hawk`s & Chinook land in Polish fields in village of Gruta do bad weather & took photos with the locals pic.twitter.com/qbPrPK03IE
— Michael (@IVIich4eL) September 10, 2014

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

* * *
One can only imagine the global uproar and sanction-fest if a Russian aircraft landed in Poland, accidentally?

[American Patriot]

Back to Iraq.

Posted on Wednesday, 09.10.14

Kerry says U.S. troops might deploy to Iraq if ‘something very, very dramatic changes’


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry arrives at Baghdad Airport in Baghdad, Iraq, Wednesday, Sept. 10, 2014. (AP Photo/Brendan Smialowski, Pool) Brendan Smialowski / AP








By Roy Gutman

McClatchy Foreign Staff

BAGHDAD -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry raised the possibility Wednesday that U.S. troops could be committed to ground operations in Iraq in extreme circumstances, the first hedging by an Obama administration official on the president’s pledge that there will be no U.S. boots on the ground to battle the Islamic State.


Kerry made the comment during a news conference after a day of meeting with Iraqi officials, who he said had not requested or shown any desire to have U.S. troops or troops from any nation in Iraq to confront the Islamic State, the extremist organization now in control of more than a third of the country’s territory.


Kerry reiterated that President Barack Obama has said that no U.S. combat troops would be deployed to fight the Islamic State in Iraq, before adding “unless, obviously, something very, very dramatic changes.”


That formulation hasn’t been used previously by administration officials discussing the growing U.S. confrontation with the Islamic State, and is sure to feed concerns that the United States may be making a greater commitment to a new conflict in the Middle East than it first intended.


In announcing the authorization for U.S. air strikes in Iraq in August, Obama said they would be limited to preventing Islamic State attacks on the Yazidi religious minority and to stopping any Islamic State advance on the Kurdish capital of Irbil. Since then, the U.S. has also provided close air support for Kurdish troops fighting to recapture the Mosul Dam, Iranian-trained Shiite militia breaking the Islamic State siege of Amerli, and Sunni tribesmen battling to push Islamic State forces from towns near Haditha.


Kerry did not elaborate on what dramatic change might prompt the U.S. to commit ground forces and it was not clear if his statement reflected Obama administration policy.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House.


Kerry said Iraqi leaders had promised him that they would move swiftly to resolve the grievances of the Sunni and Kurdish communities, both of which are unhappy with the way the new Iraqi government was assembled.


Kerry praised the newly elected government headed by veteran Shiite politician Haider al Abadi, and said he had received assurances that addressing the grievances of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and Kurds was a top priority of the government.


He said Obama had sent him on the unannounced visit “to underscore to the people of Iraq that we will stand by them in this effort . . . and overcome the threat they face today.”


In the meetings with Abadi, President Fouad Massoum, Foreign Minister Ibrahim Jaafari and Parliamentary Speaker Salim al Jibouri, Kerry said he also discussed ways to reconstitute the Iraqi army, which collapsed in June under attack from Islamic extremists.


All, but Abadi in particular, were focused on creating a national guard in Iraq’s major regions – an institution favored especially by Kurds, who have the peshmerga militias, and Sunnis, who chafe at operations carried out by the Shiite-dominated national army.


He said the National Guards, which will be integrated into the Iraqi national security forces, will “protect the population of Iraqi cities and towns and deny space” to the Islamic State, which introduced a brutal reign of terror where it’s conquered.


He said all of Iraq’s new leaders had agreed on the importance of enhanced regional autonomy, resolving the issues of territories disputed between Kurds an Arabs, and resuming budgetary payment to the Kurdistan Regional Government which former prime minister Nouri al Maliki had cut.


He said he was “very encouraged” by his meetings. “I’ve been here many times and in many meetings, and never in any of those meetings seen the unanimity, without complaint, of a sense of direction and commitment to the concept of inclusivity, and of addressing the unaddressed issues of the past eight years or more,” a reference to the divisive rule of Maliki.


Kerry arrived here as part of a hurriedly arranged Middle Eastern tour that coincided with Obama’s address to the nation on how he intends to combat the Islamic State insurgents.


Kerry flew back to Jordan, and then was traveling Thursday to Saudi Arabia, where he will urge leaders of Arab states coalition to fight the Islamic State, which also controls more than one third of the territory in neighboring Syria. Kerry said nearly 40 states have already committed themsesves to contribute military or humanitarian aid to Iraq.
Kerry also noted that the Saudis had invited Iraqi Foreign Minister Jaafari in one of the first such visits following years of bitter enmity between the Sunni royal family and Maliki’s Shiite government.


Kerry said he thought Iraq’s new government, sworn in Monday night, was a historic step forward for the country and that its leaders seem determined to keep the country together.


“Every single leader I talked with today in the strongest terms possible affairmed that they had learned the lessons of the past years” and was determined “to move in a different direction from the direction of years past,” he said.



Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/09/1...#storylink=cpy

[vector7]

Syria's closest allies, Russia and Iran, will oppose American military action in its territory against Islamic State, the axis said on Thursday


President Barack Obama holds a National Security Council meeting in the Situation Room of the White House, April 5, 2013.. (photo credit:OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO / PETE SOUZA)

WASHINGTON – The embattled Syrian regime and its closest allies, Russia and Iran, will oppose American military action in its territory against Islamic State, unless the White House coordinates US actions with President Bashar Assad, the axis said on Thursday.

The group expressed its opposition to American force, which it called an “aggressive” and “illegal” intervention in a sovereign state, hours after President Barack Obama announced his intent to target Islamic State terrorists “wherever they exist.”

But the White House made clear that the president’s decision had already been made. Strikes will begin against targets in Syria “at a time and place” of his choosing, senior aides said.

“This is something the president has decided to do,” one official said. “We will take action.”

And in Iraq, the official continued, “we are going to expand the efforts of our air campaign... if there is an [Islamic State] target that we need to hit in Iraq, we will hit it.”

With its veto power on the United Nations Security Council, Russia has long opposed foreign intervention in the Syrian civil war, which it considers a domestic political conflict.

Russia suggested on Thursday that without UN authorization, American action would be illegal.

“The US president has spoken directly about the possibility of strikes by the US armed forces against ISIL [Islamic State] positions in Syria without the consent of the legitimate government,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said. “This step, in absence of a UN Security Council decision, would be an act of aggression, a gross violation of international law.”

Relations between Moscow and Washington are at a post- Cold War nadir, soured ever since Russia intervened in the civil strife embroiling Ukraine.

That conflict has been stoked by Russia, the Obama administration contends, and should be considered a domestic political conflict within sovereign borders.

“Any action of any type without the approval of the Syrian government is an aggression against Syria,” Ali Haidar, minister of national reconciliation affairs, told reporters in Damascus on Thursday. “There must be cooperation with Syria and coordination with Syria, and there must be a Syrian approval of any action, whether it is military or not.”

At the same time, Syria’s deputy foreign minister said that his government was “ready to talk” to the US, and that the two were “natural allies” fighting “the same enemy.”

The Obama administration says the Assad regime has “lost all legitimacy,” however, and refuses to cooperate with Damascus.

State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said on Thursday that strikes in Syria would not target the Assad regime.

“Obviously we believe Assad has lost legitimacy, but that is separate from our fight against ISIL,” Harf said.

Iran, too, questioned the breadth of the coalition that Washington says represents the international community.

“The so-called international coalition to fight ISIL is shrouded in serious ambiguities,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said, according to state-run television, noting that some coalition members were “financial and military supporters of terrorists in Iraq and Syria.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has raised the possibility that Islamic State might have been created by the United States.

The Islamic State organization, which considers itself Sunni, calls for the conversion or killing of all Shi’ites and violently opposes the government in Tehran.

While Obama officials say Tehran can play a constructive role in supporting inclusive governance in Baghdad, they have ruled out military cooperation with the Iranian government.

Sunni powers, historically antagonistic to the Islamic Republic, signed a document in Saudi Arabia on Thursday committing to “appropriate” military cooperation with the United States.

The Jeddah communiqué was signed by ministers representing the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council and Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.

In a 15-minute televised address, Obama said Islamic State did not yet pose a direct threat to the US – but that it might in short order, if left unchecked.

“We will conduct a systematic campaign of air strikes against these terrorists,” he said from the White House. “This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

Islamic State is neither Islamic, nor a state, the president said, despite ruling territories throughout eastern Syria and northern Iraq. The group has corralled together an army with strength estimated at between 10,000 and 30,000 men.

“It will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL,” he continued, adding, “Any time we take military action, there are risks involved.”

But “our own safety – our own security – depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation, and uphold the values that we stand for, timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth,” he continued.

Obama said he already has the authority to act without a new vote for authorization from the US Congress, based on a 2001 authorization vote that allows the president to target al-Qaida and its affiliates.

But the White House has requested a swift vote in Congress on providing $500 million in aid for the training and equipping of moderate Syrian fighters.

The US seeks a force in Syria that can hold ground cleared by American air power.

Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday that he supported the measure, and that the president had made a “compelling case for action.”

“These are serious discussions. This is a very serious issue. And it ought to be handled that way,” Boehner said.

But the speaker continued with a critique of the overall strategy, arguing that air power alone would not be sufficient in halting Islamic State. “Somebody’s boots have to be on the ground,” he said.

Germany and Turkey announced on Thursday that, while they were a part of the US-led coalition, they do not intend to participate in the air campaign. The British foreign secretary suggested the United Kingdom, too, would abstain from the strikes, but Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said that no decision had yet been made on the use of British force.

Those governments, along with other NATO alliance members and Australia, Egypt, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, among others, have agreed to cooperate with the US in its mission.

“Conversations are now under way” on what nations will play what roles in the coalition, US officials said. Instead of military power, some may instead provide funding and training for rebels, while others still will contribute political support.

In the Jeddah communiqué, signatories agreed to join “in many aspects... [of] a coordinated military campaign against ISIL.”

It requires them to halt the arming and financing of Islamic State from their countries, and to publicly repudiate its “hateful ideology.”

“The role played by regional states is central to this effort,” the Gulf states said.

The Pentagon is prepared to begin air strikes as ordered, one senior defense official said after Obama’s speech.

“The US military is ready to conduct direct action against ISIL targets in Syria,” the official said. “Decisions about when to conduct these actions will be made at a prudent time.”

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the army was prepared to launch the broad offensive upon the president’s order.

“The men and women of the US armed forces are ready to carry out the orders of our commander- in-chief, to work with our partners across government, and to work with our friends and allies around the world to accomplish this mission,” Hagel said.

From Jordan, Secretary of State John Kerry said the US effort to build an international coalition against Islamic State was already well under way. Kerry was in Baghdad on Wednesday, praising the creation of a new, inclusive government that could take on the security challenge of the terrorist group.

“We are uniting the world against a unified threat, and the president’s strategy will succeed because doing it with allies and partners isn’t just smart, it’s strong,” Kerry said.

The secretary attended the GCC deliberations in Jeddah on Thursday, endorsing the language of the final document. US officials say the Saudis are prepared to “fully cooperate” on training moderate Syrian rebels to help combat the group, and have agreed to host a train-andequip program for moderate Syrian groups.

Rounding out the coalition- building trip, Kerry will travel to Ankara and Cairo for strategic consultations over the weekend.

[Avvakum]

Syria's closest allies, Russia and Iran, will oppose American military action in its territory against Islamic State, the axis said on Thursday


President Barack Obama holds a National Security Council meeting in the Situation Room of the White House, April 5, 2013.. (photo credit:OFFICIAL WHITE HOUSE PHOTO / PETE SOUZA)

WASHINGTON – The embattled Syrian regime and its closest allies, Russia and Iran, will oppose American military action in its territory against Islamic State, unless the White House coordinates US actions with President Bashar Assad, the axis said on Thursday.

The group expressed its opposition to American force, which it called an “aggressive” and “illegal” intervention in a sovereign state, hours after President Barack Obama announced his intent to target Islamic State terrorists “wherever they exist.”

But the White House made clear that the president’s decision had already been made. Strikes will begin against targets in Syria “at a time and place” of his choosing, senior aides said.

“This is something the president has decided to do,” one official said. “We will take action.”

And in Iraq, the official continued, “we are going to expand the efforts of our air campaign... if there is an [Islamic State] target that we need to hit in Iraq, we will hit it.”

With its veto power on the United Nations Security Council, Russia has long opposed foreign intervention in the Syrian civil war, which it considers a domestic political conflict.

Russia suggested on Thursday that without UN authorization, American action would be illegal.

“The US president has spoken directly about the possibility of strikes by the US armed forces against ISIL [Islamic State] positions in Syria without the consent of the legitimate government,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said. “This step, in absence of a UN Security Council decision, would be an act of aggression, a gross violation of international law.”

Relations between Moscow and Washington are at a post- Cold War nadir, soured ever since Russia intervened in the civil strife embroiling Ukraine.

That conflict has been stoked by Russia, the Obama administration contends, and should be considered a domestic political conflict within sovereign borders.

“Any action of any type without the approval of the Syrian government is an aggression against Syria,” Ali Haidar, minister of national reconciliation affairs, told reporters in Damascus on Thursday. “There must be cooperation with Syria and coordination with Syria, and there must be a Syrian approval of any action, whether it is military or not.”

At the same time, Syria’s deputy foreign minister said that his government was “ready to talk” to the US, and that the two were “natural allies” fighting “the same enemy.”

The Obama administration says the Assad regime has “lost all legitimacy,” however, and refuses to cooperate with Damascus.

State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said on Thursday that strikes in Syria would not target the Assad regime.

“Obviously we believe Assad has lost legitimacy, but that is separate from our fight against ISIL,” Harf said.

Iran, too, questioned the breadth of the coalition that Washington says represents the international community.

“The so-called international coalition to fight ISIL is shrouded in serious ambiguities,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh Afkham said, according to state-run television, noting that some coalition members were “financial and military supporters of terrorists in Iraq and Syria.”

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has raised the possibility that Islamic State might have been created by the United States.

The Islamic State organization, which considers itself Sunni, calls for the conversion or killing of all Shi’ites and violently opposes the government in Tehran.

While Obama officials say Tehran can play a constructive role in supporting inclusive governance in Baghdad, they have ruled out military cooperation with the Iranian government.

Sunni powers, historically antagonistic to the Islamic Republic, signed a document in Saudi Arabia on Thursday committing to “appropriate” military cooperation with the United States.

The Jeddah communiqué was signed by ministers representing the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council and Egypt, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon.

In a 15-minute televised address, Obama said Islamic State did not yet pose a direct threat to the US – but that it might in short order, if left unchecked.

“We will conduct a systematic campaign of air strikes against these terrorists,” he said from the White House. “This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

Islamic State is neither Islamic, nor a state, the president said, despite ruling territories throughout eastern Syria and northern Iraq. The group has corralled together an army with strength estimated at between 10,000 and 30,000 men.

“It will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL,” he continued, adding, “Any time we take military action, there are risks involved.”

But “our own safety – our own security – depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation, and uphold the values that we stand for, timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth,” he continued.

Obama said he already has the authority to act without a new vote for authorization from the US Congress, based on a 2001 authorization vote that allows the president to target al-Qaida and its affiliates.

But the White House has requested a swift vote in Congress on providing $500 million in aid for the training and equipping of moderate Syrian fighters.

The US seeks a force in Syria that can hold ground cleared by American air power.

Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner (R-Ohio) said on Thursday that he supported the measure, and that the president had made a “compelling case for action.”

“These are serious discussions. This is a very serious issue. And it ought to be handled that way,” Boehner said.

But the speaker continued with a critique of the overall strategy, arguing that air power alone would not be sufficient in halting Islamic State. “Somebody’s boots have to be on the ground,” he said.

Germany and Turkey announced on Thursday that, while they were a part of the US-led coalition, they do not intend to participate in the air campaign. The British foreign secretary suggested the United Kingdom, too, would abstain from the strikes, but Prime Minister David Cameron’s office said that no decision had yet been made on the use of British force.

Those governments, along with other NATO alliance members and Australia, Egypt, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, among others, have agreed to cooperate with the US in its mission.

“Conversations are now under way” on what nations will play what roles in the coalition, US officials said. Instead of military power, some may instead provide funding and training for rebels, while others still will contribute political support.

In the Jeddah communiqué, signatories agreed to join “in many aspects... [of] a coordinated military campaign against ISIL.”

It requires them to halt the arming and financing of Islamic State from their countries, and to publicly repudiate its “hateful ideology.”

“The role played by regional states is central to this effort,” the Gulf states said.

The Pentagon is prepared to begin air strikes as ordered, one senior defense official said after Obama’s speech.

“The US military is ready to conduct direct action against ISIL targets in Syria,” the official said. “Decisions about when to conduct these actions will be made at a prudent time.”

US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the army was prepared to launch the broad offensive upon the president’s order.

“The men and women of the US armed forces are ready to carry out the orders of our commander- in-chief, to work with our partners across government, and to work with our friends and allies around the world to accomplish this mission,” Hagel said.

From Jordan, Secretary of State John Kerry said the US effort to build an international coalition against Islamic State was already well under way. Kerry was in Baghdad on Wednesday, praising the creation of a new, inclusive government that could take on the security challenge of the terrorist group.

“We are uniting the world against a unified threat, and the president’s strategy will succeed because doing it with allies and partners isn’t just smart, it’s strong,” Kerry said.

The secretary attended the GCC deliberations in Jeddah on Thursday, endorsing the language of the final document. US officials say the Saudis are prepared to “fully cooperate” on training moderate Syrian rebels to help combat the group, and have agreed to host a train-andequip program for moderate Syrian groups.

Rounding out the coalition- building trip, Kerry will travel to Ankara and Cairo for strategic consultations over the weekend.

Seems strange that 'Russia' and 'Iran' would try to deter us from defeating an enemy-the Islamic State-that wants to overthrow both 'Russia' and 'Iran', doesn't it?

[vector7]

Russia completes dry run of nuclear bombing attack on America

(NaturalNews) The Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, but under the stewardship of President Vladimir Putin, a former KGB agent, a new cold war between Russia and the United States appears to be forming. At least, it's cold for now.

Over the past 30 months, Russian strategic (read nuclear) forces have begun testing U.S. defenses on a much more regular basis. The most recent attempt occurred just days ago when a pair of Russian strategic bombers practiced cruise missile attacks on the U.S. during a training mission -- a mission that U.S. officials said was timed to coincide with a NATO summit in Wales aimed at developing a plan to blunt Russia's aggression toward Ukraine.

American and Canadian systems picked up and tracked the aged Tu-95 "Bear-H" bombers flying a line across the northern Atlantic Ocean "near Iceland, Greenland, and Canada's northeast," the Free Beacon news site reported, adding:

Analysis of the flight indicated the aircraft were conducting practice runs to a pre-determined "launch box"--an optimum point for firing nuclear-armed cruise missiles at U.S. targets, said defense officials familiar with intelligence reports.

Testing of U.S. defenses have been increasing

The disclosure of the latest Russian nuclear forces training came amid a call by a Russian general the prior week for Moscow to adjust its military doctrine to include a first-strike option against the U.S. and NATO.

"Gen. Yuri Yakubov, a senior Defense Ministry official, was quoted by the state-run Interfax news agency as saying that Russia's 2010 military doctrine should be revised to identify the United States and the NATO alliance as enemies, and clearly outline the conditions for a preemptive nuclear strike against them," the Free Beacon reported.

Among other necessary doctrinal changes, Yakubov said, "it is necessary to hash out the conditions under which Russia could carry out a preemptive strike with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces," which are the Russian army's nuclear forces.

The recent practice launch runs are just the latest in a string of such missions that involve aggressive Russian bomber flights near U.S. airspace. The Free Beacon said a number of analysts believe that the flights amount to nuclear saber-rattling by Moscow over escalating tensions surrounding Ukraine.

No U.S. or Canadian interceptors were launched against the Bear-H bombers because the Russian planes remained outside the North American Air Defense Identification Zone. However, not all missions in recent months have done so; U.S. and allied aircraft have scrambled often since 2011 in response to Russian aircraft.

At the NATO summit, officials issued a statement that criticized "Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine [which] have fundamentally challenged our vision of a Europe whole, free, and at peace."

Russia upgrading its nuclear forces

The Tu-95 is a dual-turboprop bomber that first entered service with the Soviet Air Force in 1956. Like its American jet-powered counterpart, the B-52, the Bear has undergone a number of upgrades and revisions since it was first introduced. Its most modern version is designed to carry six AS-15 nuclear-armed cruise missiles, which have a range of more than 1,800 miles.

"Google Earth analysis reveals that a Tu-95 launch box located in the Labrador Sea and firing AS-15 missiles would be in range of Ottawa, New York, Washington, and Chicago, and could reach as far south as the Norfolk Naval base," the Free Beacon reported.

Other Russian moves regarding its nuclear force in recent months include:

-- Moscow is developing new nuclear weapons to counter the U.S. and NATO. According to the New York Post, Russia recently tested a new sea-based weapon that was launched from a submarine. "We have warned many times that we would have to take corresponding countermeasures to ensure our security," Putin told a gathering of officials at the Kremlin, adding that he was now going to take personal charge of the government commission overseeing military industries.

-- In early August, the Free Beacon reported that Russian aircraft had tested U.S. air defenses at least 16 times in the previous 10 days.

-- In 2012, Interfax reported that Russia had tested a new fifth-generation intercontinental ballistic missile designed to counter U.S. anti-missile defenses.

Meanwhile, there have been no reports that U.S. aircraft have been testing Russian air defense forces.

Sources:

http://freebeacon.com

http://www.ushistory.org

http://nypost.com

http://thehill.com

http://www.telegraph.co.uk

Valiant Shield 2014: 18,000 service members gathering for Guam joint exercise

An estimated 18,000 servicemembers are arriving in Guam for the Valiant Shield, which remained on track despite the crash of two fighter jets scheduled to participate.

The biennial maneuvers, which begin Monday and continue through Sept. 23, will include personnel from the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, according to a statement from the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

As of Friday night, Navy 7th Fleet officials said plans for the exercise were still in place, pending further announcements. The two aircraft were believed to have collided. One pilot was quickly recovered, while rescue crews continue searching for a second in waters near Guam, Navy officials said.

The exercise will feature the Air-Sea Battle concept, which aims to overcome an enemy force’s attempt to deny access and maneuverability within sea lanes and air space.

The Air-Sea Battle concept isn’t officially directed toward any particular country, but China and Iran have emphasized anti-access strategies in their military doctrines in recent years.

China is investing heavily in advanced ballistic missiles and electronic warfare to bolster its “anti-access, area-denial” capabilities, according to the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress this year.

Although the United States is China’s largest trading partner, the two countries remain at odds over Taiwan, which the U.S. has pledged to defend.

In addition, Chinese claims over territories also claimed by neighboring countries in the East and South China seas have increased tensions in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Yokosuka-based aircraft carrier USS George Washington and the San Diego-based carrier USS Vinson will participate in Valiant Shield, along with their strike groups and air wings, the Pacific Fleet said. Six Military Sealift Command ships will also be on hand for the Navy.

Marine units will operate under control of the Iwakuni, Japan-based Marine Aircraft Group 12. The Air Force will be led by the Guam-based 36th Operations Group, including the 44th and 90th fighter squadrons.

The Army contribution will come primarily from the Fort Shafter, Hawaii-based 94th Army Air and Missile Defense Command.
http://www.stripes.com/news/pacific/...rcise-1.302657

[vector7]

US Navy Issues Warnings on Russia, China’s Submarine Fleets

Share on facebook6.4K Share on twitter Share on google_plusone_share Share on more 55 comments


Nerpa, an Akula II-class attack submarine. (Photo by RIA Novosti)

Sep 20, 2014 | by Kris Osborn

The Navy’s top Atlantic Submarine Force commander said Thursday that Russia and China’s ballistic missile submarine development will impact how the U.S deploys its fleet.

Navy Vice Adm. Michael Connor said global threats today are far more numerous and dispersed compared to the Cold War when the U.S. focused solely on Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. has treated Russia more like a partner.


However, those goodwill feelings have changed since Russia has shown aggression in its recent conflict with Ukraine and instituted some tactics the U.S. hasn’t seen since the Cold War. Considering Russia’s significant nuclear arsenal, it has drawn the attention of the Navy’s nuclear submarine leaders.

“The Soviet Union devolved into Russia but they kept their nuclear capabilities. They are now re-growing those capabilities and others. As they re-grow, we find that modern Russia appears to have some aspirations both territory-wise and influence-wise that are reminiscent of the way they behaved when we had the Soviet Union,” Connor said.

Last week, Russia broadcast its intent to upgrade its submarine fleet when Russian officials released photos of two Akula II-class nuclear submarines being ferried to a shipyard to receive modernization upgrades.

Along with Russia, the U.S. Navy has taken a closer look at China’s submarine fleet warning that its advancement means the Chinese have a global strike capability, Connor said.

“The world has become multi-polar and we have competition for global influence and power from a rising China -- which is also very much on our mind. The Chinese have had ballistic missile submarines in some form for a while. Their pace has accelerated and they have several nuclear ballistic missile submarines and are continuing to build more,” Connor said.

In February, the Office of Naval Intelligence issued an assessment on the Chinese navy as part of testimony to the US-China Economic and Security Review. ONI leaders found that China’s navy has evolved from a littoral force to one that is capable of meeting a wide range of missions to include being "increasingly capable of striking targets hundreds of miles from the Chinese mainland."

In particular, ONI raised concerns about China’s fast-growing submarine force, to include the Jin-class ballistic nuclear submarines, which will likely commence deterrent patrols in 2014, according to the report. The expected operational deployment of the Jin SSBN "would mark China’s first credible at-sea-second-strike nuclear capability," the report states.

The submarine would fire the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile, which has a range of 4,000 nautical miles and would "enable the Jin to strike Hawaii, Alaska and possibly western portions of CONUS [continental United States] from East Asian waters," ONI assessed.

The report says the Chinese currently have five nuclear attack submarines, four nuclear ballistic missile submarines and 53 diesel attack submarines.

Overall, China's fleet of submarines has quickly increased in offensive weapons technology over the last 10 years. A decade ago, only a few Chinese submarines could fire modern anti-ship cruise missiles. Now, more than half of the conventional attack submarines are configured to fire anti-ship cruise missiles, or ASCMs, the report states.

"The type-095 guided missile attack submarine, which China will likely construct over the next decade, may be equipped with a land-attack capability," the assessment explains. This could enable Chinese submarines with an enhanced ability to strike U.S. bases throughout the region, the report adds.

Overall, Russia and China are firmly committed to have an undersea nuclear deterrent capability with a strong naval component, Connor added.
“We want to resolve minor conflict before they become major conflicts,” he explained.

Connor made his remarks about Russian and China while commemorating the 4,000th strategic deterrence ballistic missile submarine patrol, explaining that undersea nuclear deterrence had its origins in the 1960s. Back then, the U.S needed 41 submarines.

The U.S. Navy’s fleet has since shrunk to 14 nuclear armed submarines based in Bangor, Washington, or Kings Bay, Georgia. The U.S. Navy plans to begin construction of a new-generation of Ohio-class, nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines by 2021 called the Ohio Replacement program, Connor added.

[American Patriot]

Heads up, boys and girls. We are bombing Syria. US plus 5 arab countries. No uk, no france, no other western countries.
Russia isnt going to sit still after the nuke bomb runs.

We r hitting specific sites, full scale bombing runs, 20 sites, abt 1000 missiles likely to be involved.
Obama gave orders to go.

U S led coalition.

Conference call tonight says 100 or so us citizens who trained in terror camps are back in the US....
Not very good news tonight.

[American Patriot]

WILL RUSSIA AND CHINA HOLD THEIR FIRE UNTIL WAR IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE?

September 26, 2014

Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have heard in my entire life

Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative?

Source: PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS |



Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have heard in my entire life. It is absolutely amazing that the president of the United States would stand before the entire world and tell what everyone knows are blatant lies while simultaneously demonstrating Washington’s double standards and belief that Washington alone, because the US is exceptional and indispensable, has the right to violate all law.

It is even more amazing that every person present did not get up and walk out of the assembly.

The diplomats of the world actually sat there and listened to blatant lies from the world’s worst terrorist. They even clapped their approval.

The rest of the speech was just utter bullshit: “We stand at a crossroads,” “signposts of progress,” “reduced chance of war between major powers,” “hundreds of millions lifted from poverty,” and while ebola ravages Africa “we’ve learned how to cure disease and harness the power of the wind and the sun.” We are now God. “We” is comprised of the “exceptional people”–Americans. No one else counts. “We” are it.

It is impossible to pick the most absurd statement in Obama’s speech or the most outrageous lie. Is it this one? “Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition.”

Or is it this one? “After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled. Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed. Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands. When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days. When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.”

The entire world knows that Washington overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, that Washington refuses to release its satellite photos of the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, that Ukraine refuses to release its air traffic control instructions to the airliner, that Washington has prevented a real investigation of the airliner’s destruction, that European experts on the scene have testified that both sides of the airliner’s cockpit demonstrate machine gun fire, an indication that the airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian jets that were following it. Indeed, there has been no explanation why Ukrainian jets were close on the heels of an airliner directed by Ukrainian air traffic control.

The entire world knows that if Russia had territorial ambitions, when the Russian military defeated the American trained and supplied Georgian army that attacked South Ossetia, Russia would have kept Georgia and reincorporated it within Russia where it resided for centuries.

Notice that it is not aggression when Washington bombs and invades seven countries in 13 years without a declaration of war. Aggression occurs when Russia accepts the petition of Crimeans who voted 97 percent in favor of reuniting with Russia where Crimea resided for centuries before Khrushchev attached it to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine in 1954 when Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country.

And the entire world knows that, as the separatist leader of the Donetsk Republic said, “If Russian military units were fighting with us, the news would not be the fall of Mariupol but the fall of Kiev and Lviv.”

Which is “the cancer of violent extremism”–ISIS which cut off the heads of four journalists, or Washington which has bombed seven countries in the 21st century murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians and displacing millions?

Who is the worst terrorist–ISIS, a group that is redrawing the artificial boundaries created by British and French colonialists, or Washington with its Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign policy, which declares Washington’s dominant objective to be US hegemony over the world?

ISIS is the creation of Washington. ISIS consists of the jihadists Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a “network of death,” a “brand of evil” with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network of death created by the Obama regime itself. If ISIS poses the threat that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be credible in leading the fight against it?

Obama never mentioned in his speech the central problem that the world faces. That problem is Washington’s inability to accept the existence of strong independent countries such as Russia and China. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States to maintaining its status as the sole Unipower. This task requires Washington “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” A “hostile power” is any country that has sufficient power or influence to be able to limit Washington’s exercise of power.

The Wolfowitz Doctrine explicitly targets Russia: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere.” A “rival” is defined as any country capable of defending its interests or those of allies against Washington’s hegemony.

In his speech, Obama told Russia and China that they can be part of Washington’s world order on the condition that they accept Washington’s hegemony and do not interfere in any way with Washington’s control. When Obama tells Russia that the US will cooperate with Russia “if Russia changes course,” Obama means that Moscow must accept the primacy of Washington’s interest over Russia’s own interest.

Clearly, this is an inflexible and unrealistic position. If Washington keeps to it, war with Russia and China will ensue.

Obama told China that Washington intended to continue to be a Pacific power in China’s sphere of influence, “promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of commerce among nations” by building new US air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam so that Washington can control the flow of resources in the South China Sea and cut off China at will.

As far as I can tell, neither the Russian nor Chinese governments understand the seriousness of the threat that Washington represents. Washington’s claim to world hegemony seems too farfetched to Russia and China to be real. But it is very real.

By refusing to take the threat seriously, Russia and China have not responded in ways that would bring an end to the threat without the necessity of war.

For example, the Russian government could most likely destroy NATO by responding to sanctions imposed by Washington and the EU by informing European governments that Russia does not sell natural gas to members of NATO. Instead of using this power, Russia has foolishly allowed the EU to accumulate record amounts of stored natural gas to see homes and industry through the coming winter.

Has Russia sold out its national interests for money?

Much of Washington’s power and financial hegemony rests on the role of the US dollar as world reserve currency. Russia and China have been slow, even negligent from the standpoint of defending their sovereignty, to take advantage of opportunities to undermine this pillar of Washington’s power. For example, the BRICS’ talk of abandoning the dollar payments system has been more talk than action. Russia doesn’t even require Washington’s European puppet states to pay for Russian natural gas in rubles.

One might think that a country such as Russia experiencing such extreme hostility and demonization from the West would at least use the gas sales to support its own currency instead of Washington’s dollar. If the Russian government is going to continue to support the economies of European countries hostile to Russia and to prevent the European peoples from freezing during the coming winter, shouldn’t Russia in exchange for this extraordinary subsidy to its enemies at least arrange to support its own currency by demanding payment in rubles? Unfortunately for Russia, Russia is infected with Western trained neoliberal economists who represent Western, not Russian, interests.

When the West sees such extraordinary weakness on the part of the Russian government, Obama knows he can go to the UN and tell the most blatant lies about Russia with no cost whatsoever to the US or Europe. Russian inaction subsidizes Russia’s demonization.

China has been no more successful than Russia in using its opportunities to destabilize Washington. For example, it is a known fact, as Dave Kranzler and I have repeatedly demonstrated, that the Federal Reserve uses its bullion bank agents to knock down the gold price in order to protect the dollar’s value from the Federal Reserve’s policies. The method used is for the bullion banks to drive down the gold price with enormous amounts of naked shorts during periods of low or nonexistent volume.

China or Russia or both could take advantage of this tactic by purchasing every naked short sold plus all covered shorts, if any, and demanding delivery instead of settling the contracts in cash. Neither New York Comex nor the London market could make delivery, and the system would implode. The consequence of the failure to deliver possibly could be catastrophic for the Western financial system, but in the least it would demonstrate the corrupt nature of Western financial institutions.

Or China could deal a more lethal blow. Choosing a time of heightened concern or disruptions in US financial markets, China could dump its trillion dollar plus holdings of US treasuries, or indeed all its holdings of US financial instruments, on the market. The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury could try to stabilize the prices of US financial instruments by creating money with which to purchase the bonds and other instruments. This money creation would increase concern about the dollar’s value, and at that point China could dump the trillion dollars plus it receives from its bond sales on the exchange market. The Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which to buy up the dollars. The dollar’s exchange value would collapse and with it the dollar’s use as world reserve currency. The US would become just another broke country unable to pay for its imports.

Possibly, Washington could get Japan and the European Central Bank to print enough yen and euros to buy up the dumped dollars. However, the likelihood is that this would bring down the yen and euro along with the dollar.

Flight would occur into the Chinese and Russian currencies, and financial hegemony would depart the West.

By their restraint, Russia and China enable Washington’s attack upon them. Last week Washington put thousands of its NGO operatives into the Moscow streets protesting “Putin’s war against Ukraine.” Foolishly, Russia has permitted foreign interests to buy up its newspapers, and these interests continually denounce Putin and the Russian government to their Russian readers.

Did Russia sell its soul and communication system for dollars? Did a few oligarchs sell out Russia for Swiss and London bank deposits?

Both Russia and China have Muslim populations among whom the CIA operates encouraging disassociation, rebellion, and violence. Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation into smaller, weaker countries that could not stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony. Russian and Chinese fear of discord among their own Muslim populations have caused both governments to make the extremely serious strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with Washington’s policy of protecting Washington’s status quo in the Muslim world.

If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Russia and China would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead Russia and China are working to protect Washington’s control over the Middle East and the petro-dollar.

China is subject to a variety of attacks. The Rockefeller Foundation creates American agents in Chinese universities, or so I am informed by Chinese academics. American companies that locate in China create Chinese boards on which they place the relatives of local and regional party officials. This shifts loyalty from the central government to the American money. Moreover, China has many economists educated in the US who are imbued with the neoliberal economics that represents Washington’s interests.

Both Russia and China have significant percentages of their populations who wish to be western. The failure of communism in both countries and the success of American cold war propaganda have created loyalties to America in place of their own governments. In Russia they go by the designation “Atlanticist Integrationists.” They are Russians who wish to be integrated into the West. I know less about the Chinese counterpart, but among youth Western materialism and lack of sexual restraint is appealing.

The inability of the Russian and Chinese governments to come to terms with the threat posed to their existence as sovereign countries by the neoconservative insistence on American world hegemony makes nuclear war more likely. If Russia and China catch on too late in the game, their only alternative will be war or submission to Washington’s hegemony. As there is no possibility of the US and NATO invading and occupying Russia and China, the war would be nuclear.

To avoid this war, which, as so many experts have shown, would terminate life on earth, the Russian and Chinese governments must soon become far more realistic in their assessment of the evil that resides in what Washington has turned into the world’s worst terrorist state–the US.

It is possible that Russia, China, and the rest of the world will be saved by American economic collapse. The US economy is a house of cards. Real median family incomes are in long-term decline. Universities produce graduates with degrees and heavy debts but no jobs. The bond market is rigged by the Federal Reserve which necessitates rigging the bullion markets in order to protect the dollar. The stock market is rigged by the outpouring of money from the Federal Reserve, by the Plunge Protection Team, and by corporations repurchasing their own stock. The dollar is supported by tradition, habit, and currency swaps.

The American House of Cards continues to stand only as a result of the tolerance of the world for vast corruption and disinformation and because greed is satisfied by the money made from a rigged system.

Russia and/or China could pull down this House of Cards whenever either country or both had leadership capable of it.

[Ryan Ruck]

Vladimir Putin Has Been Planning World War 3 For The Last Decade, Former Adviser Warns

September 26, 2014

Vladimir Putin has been planning for the past decade a plan to spark a major war in the Baltic region, a former adviser to the Russian president said, with the invasion of Ukraine and capture of Crimea the first step.

Speaking at a conference in Lithuania, former presidential adviser Andrey Illarionov said Putin has been planning for a major war since at least 2003.

Illarionov referred to a 2008 article from Russian Journal that outlined a plan for Russia to attack Crimea, moving westward until the capital of Kiev was captured.

“As we see, not only were they preparing, they were publishing it,” Illarionov said.

The former adviser noted that in the past Vladimir Putin said Ukraine is not a real nation, but instead a state that has historically belonged to Russia as well as Hungary, Poland, and Romania. He notes that the latest conflict was sparked when Putin started talking about the “Russian world” during a ceremony honoring Slavic groups.

As the Lithuanian Tribune noted, Putin may have plans to invade nations beyond Ukraine.

According to the former presidential adviser, Russian laws essentially define four categories of ‘Russians': ethnic Russians, irrespective of whether they reside in or outside Russia; Russian-speakers, irrespective of their nationality; all former citizens of the Soviet Union and their offspring living in the territories formerly covered by the USSR; and former citizens of the Russian Empire (pre-1917) and their offspring living in the territories once covered by the Russian Empire.

“‘Such a legal base allows the Russian army to protect all the Russians listed in the law. Therefore, for the Russian side, such actions of the Russian army beyond Russian borders might seem completely legitimate,’ Illarionov says.”

There have been past reports that Vladimir Putin plans to spark a wide conflict. Earlier reports claimed that he threatened to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine if the fight continued, and sources say he boasted that Russia could reach Kiev in two weeks if they wanted to.

[American Patriot]

You know.... I see "Star Wars".

The "Empire" and "Republic".

Putin is a dark Sith and Obama... is a.... ummm... dark sith.

Shit.

We're all doomed.

[American Patriot]

Putin Wins, Obama Loses as US Puppet Government in Kiev Defeated by Pro-Russian Nationalists

Posted on September 29, 2014

POWs loyal to Kiev taken by rebel Pro-Putin forces are marched through the streets



Obama, himself a puppet of the Jewish bankers and the globalists, has suffered an enormous defeat, while the average American has gained a measure of security.
If the puppet government in Kiev had prevailed over the patriotic nationalists, NATO would have set up shop on Russia’s border and began to move the world toward World War III.


I’m filing this story under good news.
OPED News

The results are in. The official tally is complete and the winner announced.


According to an opinion piece in in Bloomberg News (9/26), Russian President Vladimir Putin is the victor in the conflict in Ukraine (Bloomberg News, Ukraine Can’t Hide Putin’s Victory, Leonid Barshefky, 9/26),.


Clearly, Putin comes out ahead in this conflict but the real winners are the people of the eastern Ukraine and their resistance militia. Resistance forces fought brilliantly against much larger, better-equipped troops dispatched by the Kiev junta to assault people in cities and towns it declared terrorists. The terrorist acts consisted of political opposition to Ukraine’s ruling neo Nazis and oligarchs along with an expressed desire for self-rule. The United States puppets in Kiev started the violence. The people of the east finished it, decisively.


The military tide turned at the end of August when the western politicians and media could no longer hide a string of stunning defeats suffered by Kiev forces. All of a sudden, Kiev’s holy crusade against the east was replaced with a Russian brokered ceasefire, the Minsk protocol (9/5). This slowed the intensity of hostilities. The agreement also legitimized the resistance governments of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Their representatives signed the protocol along with the Ukraine government, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).


In an attempt to mask the extent of his nation’s defeat, Ukraine oligarch and President Petro Poroshenko spoke to the United States Congress in mid September. The bought and sold politicians gave Poroshenko a dozen or so standing ovations for his warnings about the new Cold War. But, when he pleaded for weapons, he left empty handed. Congress sent Poroshenko off with a consolation prize of a few million dollars when he needs billions to avoid an economic meltdown.

Interesting comment on the story, referring to Obama:

He will not lose a bit of sleep over this one or any of the other nations devastated during the his administration. His patrons may be a little agitated but they know that they will have another shot. After all, they’re getting ready to shove Hillary down our throats. She’s the ultimate horror on the horizon.

[American Patriot]

The World Is On Fire: Where Is The U.S. Army?
September 29, 2014 · by Fortuna's Corner · in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Army, Asia/Pacific Pivot, CIA, DIA, espionage, spying, foreign policy, Intelligence Community, military history, national security, NATO, US Military · Leave a comment

The World is on Fire: Where is the U.S. Army?

by Douglas Macgregor and Young Kim

Journal Article | September 29, 2014 – 5:09am

http://smallwarsjournal.com/ jrnl/art/the-world-is-on-fire- where-is-the-us-army

The World is on Fire: Where is the U.S. Army?

Douglas Macgregor and Young Kim

Russia’s revitalized Army seizes Crimea and skillfully exerts control in Eastern Ukraine. The Islamic State, a collection of fanatical Sunni Muslim terrorists in pickup trucks crush the U.S. trained Iraqi Army and overrun territory from Aleppo to Baghdad. On the Anniversary of Japan’s defeat in WW II, China’s leaders pledge to expunge corruption from the PLA’s senior ranks and build a more powerful Chinese Army.

What is the Army’s response to these challenges?

The Army is blazing a path backward into the Cold War. The Army is rebuilding the ten division force with all the trimmings; divisional artillery brigades, and 80 ton ground combat vehicles (GCVs) using the organizations designed by Lieutenant General Leslie J. McNair in 1942.[i]

If pressed for “new thinking,” the Army may dust off the Future Combat System (FCS), give it a new name and make another run at congress. FCS produced nothing, but FCS did successfully redistribute 20 billion dollars to defense contractors, constituents, retired generals and indirectly to members of congress via campaign donors. Moreover, Senators and congressmen love “unobtainium;” imaginary high-tech solutions that promise miraculous performance, but ignore the laws of physics. The outcome: Today’s U.S. Army is hard pressed to send a battalion of 600 troops equipped with tanks and armored fighting vehicles to Eastern Europe or Iraq in less than six months. For many in the House and the Senate, the question is what should congress do?

Before the Senate and House appropriators fork over another $20 billion to the Army perhaps they should consider an alternative to the Army’s scandalously ineffective acquisition strategy and anachronistic force design. After all, $20 billion is 15% of the Army’s 129 billion dollar FY 2014 budget. The Light Reconnaissance Strike Group (LRSG), a 5,500 man mobile, armored combat force commanded by a brigadier general, is worthy of serious attention.

The LRSG is a break from the Army’s Cold War past and a bridge to the Army’s future in 21st Century Joint warfare. It’s designed to be the vanguard of a reorganized 420,000 man Army, an operationally agile formation that combines mobile armored firepower, mobility engineers, and airmobile infantry with manned and unmanned strike assets to find, fix; attack and destroy the enemy in open, compartmentalized or urban terrain.

Today, precision Strike forces informed by the timely dissemination of actionable intelligence through networked ISR suggests that new capabilities will only emerge in fighting formations that build powerful synergies with the technologies and concepts developed by U.S. Aerospace and Maritime Forces. The LRSG is conceived with this requirement in mind; it’s smaller than a division, but larger than a brigade combat team (BCT). It is designed to integrate functional capabilities-maneuver, strike, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR) and sustainment-across Service lines at the battle group level in a non-linear, nodal and dispersed, mobile warfare.

Unlike brigade combat team (BCTs), the LRSG is designed to punch above its weight, mobilizing fighting power disproportionate to its size in a 21st Century warfighting environment that rewards high lethality, low density units. The LRSG is equipped with the firepower, protection and mobility to close with the enemy, take hits, sustain losses, keep fighting and strike back decisively in future warfare that is likely to be more lethal than anything seen since WW II.

The best way to build the LRSG is to abandon the FCS model and avoid binding Army modernization efforts through expensive programs intended to stamp out ideal designs over 20-year production runs. As the late Ike Skelton, Democratic Congressman from Missouri said on 21 June 2005: “I don’t think the troops can wait 10 or 15 years for a new armored vehicle to be developed.” This approach means rapid prototyping.

1. Rapid prototyping mitigates risk, saves money and speeds up delivery especially when prototyping leverages a mature, existing platform. Bob Davis, the founder of LYCOS put it another way: “Quit looking for the next big thing. Put the technology that is sitting on the shelves to work, and do it with a clear purpose.”

2. Explore and develop new capabilities inside a new organization with smaller inventories of new equipment before larger investments are made. Rapid prototyping also makes it easier to identify unneeded equipment by allowing soldiers to modify systems and organizations while tracking the modifications.

3. Integration in the context of rapid prototyping is about innovation, not invention. Rapid prototyping can also support new organizational designs that emphasize self-containment and operational independence at levels below the WW II/Cold War division and corps headquarters.

The Light Reconnaissance Strike Group (LRSG) is a design that integrates existing technology inside a new organizational construct. In addition, the LRSG is a force design with intercontinental transportation in mind. It can deploy and fight in total or in smaller subunits (squadrons) as needed.

Although the LRSG seeks to capitalize on the paradigm shift in warfare; the application of precision “Strike” informed by networked ISR, it’s not a fragile force. The LRSG is organized and equipped to fight for information and to rapidly exploit the information its subunits collect. It’s designed for integration with, but not dependence on, air strikes for survival and effectiveness. The LRSG reflects the understanding that regardless of how well new technologies are networked, they will never provide perfect situational awareness or perfect information; that information is often of fleeting value.

Since the LRSG is configured from the bottom up to operate under Joint command in dispersed/distributed mobile warfare the LRSG’s 5,500 troops are commanded by a brigadier general. Together with a Chief of Staff who is a colonel and staff officers who are lieutenant colonels, the LRSG reports directly to the Joint Force Commander. The LRSG’s robust, organic C4ISR exists to integrate the LRSG’s ground combat capabilities within the framework of “all arms/all effects” warfare as its mission profile suggests:

1. Within the Joint ISR-Strike framework, discover; attack, dominate and destroy the enemy.

2. Perform missions as a credible, stand-alone land component with the mobility, firepower, protection and organic sustainment to operate autonomously under Joint C2 across the spectrum of conflict up to and including high intensity conventional war;

3. Bypass or punch through enemy resistance on the ground for operational maneuver to encircle and destroy nation-state forces or sub-national groups;

4. Signal escalation dominance to the enemy by magnifying the striking power of aerospace and maritime forces;

5. Provide a permanent test bad for new Joint warfighting concepts and equipment in land warfare.

As noted earlier, the LRSG is ideally suited to leverage an existing platform in the execution of rapid prototyping. One candidate for rapid prototyping is the PUMA, a 30 to 40 ton Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV), produced by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann in Munich, Germany. Of the GCV alternatives considered by the Army the Congressional Budget Office judged the PUMA to be the best available option:

First, by either of CBO’s metrics, the Puma would provide the greatest overall increase in capability of the vehicles CBO evaluated. Second, although the least expensive of the options, the Puma would provide a significant improvement in the Army’s IFV fleet. Third, when judged against the current Bradley IFV, the Puma would provide the greatest increase in capability per dollar invested, regardless of the metric used. And fourth, because the Puma is already being produced, its adoption would pose a relatively lower programmatic risk.[ii]

From its inception, the PUMA was built to cope with threats from IEDs and EFPs. PUMA’s anti-IED/EFP protection merits special attention along with its modular construction, superior engine, armaments, sensors and armor. Its primary armament is a Rheinmetall 30 mm MK 30-2/ABM (Air Burst Munitions) auto-cannon, but the hull can be refitted with many different types of weapon systems as shown in the LRSG example. Depending on the mission, the PUMA can add or shed armor to temporarily reduce weight during deployment.

The PUMA is also smaller and lighter than the proposed 80 ton GCV. Its selection for the LRSG reflects a preference for fewer soldiers inside more, smaller platforms in a blast-centric warfighting environment. There is no reason to provide future enemies with large, easily identified, lucrative targets containing 13 or 14 soldiers. Courting mass casualties makes no sense.

Why does the LRSG employ tracked armor instead of wheeled armor? Tracks distribute weight much more effectively for both protection and ground pressure. As the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) rediscovered in their 2006 wheels could not operate off-road in Southern Lebanon’s rocky, mountainous terrain. Tracked armor also provides a much more stable off-road platform for accurate fire on the move. And, tracked armor can rotate on a dime, literally 360 degrees. That’s a critical capability in urban terrain where tanks, heavy mortars and precision air strikes are decisive. Recent Israeli operations in Gaza reinforced the timeless lesson that firepower delivered in mass from tracked armor augmented with active protection systems is vital to survival and victory in close combat with modern anti-tank weapons.

Unlike today’s BCTs, the LRSG’s Armed Reconnaissance and Strike Squadrons contain some new weapon systems that promise to extend the LRSG’s operational reach and capacity for reconnaissance, as well as, strike. For example, the LRSG Strike Squadron contains the Tactical Advanced Recce Strike (TARES), a “Kamikaze” UCAV developed by Rheinmetall Defense Electronics GmbH (formerly STN ATLAS Elektronik) in Bremen, Germany.

TARES has a range of 120 miles and can remain airborne for up to four hours. TARES can carry out autonomous target search for classification, identification and engagement operations. TARES can provide critical information while also striking mobile or stationary targets such as tanks and artillery systems, and mobile or fixed radars and command posts. Each of the TARES UCAVs is armed with a proximity-fused 20 kilogram high-explosive shaped charge warhead. The system allows the mission commander to authorize or suspend target engagement. TARES’s 16 air vehicles are stored in launch containers that can be transported by truck or helicopter.

It’s easy to imagine the impact of TARES UCAVs’ diving at speeds of 500 miles per hour with pinpoint accuracy on Russian Army forces in Eastern Ukraine or on ISIS in the open deserts of the Middle East. Confused and surprised by the sudden attacks from above, the opposing ground force will be in no shape to cope with the rapid arrival of rockets and armored fighting vehicles.

AMOS or Advanced Mortar System is an automatic twin barreled, breech loaded mortar fitted to an armored turret capable of indirect or direct fire engagement. AMOS is manufactured and marketed by Finnish/Swedish Patria Hägglunds, a joint venture between Finnish Patria and Swedish BAE Systems Hägglunds. AMOS fires a 120mm projectile with a bursting radius roughly equivalent to a 155mm artillery shell.

The twin barreled mortar system can maintain a rate of fire of 12 rounds per minute. When fitted to a platform like the PUMA, both GPS and inertia positioning are used. The electronic fire-control system utilizes digital maps. AMOS’s twin barrels don’t have to sit out direct fire engagements. When necessary, the LRSG’s 52 Advanced Mortar Systems can augment the 120mm and 30mm or 35mm auto-cannons in the direct fire fight.

The Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) is too well known for its lethality, responsiveness and range to recount its attributes here. However, incorporating MLRS adds tremendous synergy to the LRSG’s “Strike complex,” a complex capable of striking Joint operational targets, as well as, tactical Army targets.

The estimated cost of fielding 4 LRSG “all arms/all effects” battle groups equipped with 2,760 PUMA variants in the span of 5 to 7 years is roughly $20 billion. When compared with the cost of building 1,748 ground combat vehicles (GCVs) as individual replacements for the Bradley Fighting Vehicles inside existing BCTs or $28.8 billion the LRSG approach is a bargain.

With support from congress, there is no reason why a U.S. defense firm cannot partner with Krauss-Maffei Wegmann to build the majority of the PUMA variants in U.S. manufacturing facilities. When the cost of the additional systems, most of which already exist in the U.S. Army’s inventory, are added to the bill the 20 billion dollars in today’s FY 2014 Army budget allocated for new weapon systems can easily support the fielding of four LRSGs over the next 5-7 years.

Conclusions

Friedrich Nietzsche said, “War makes the victor stupid.” America’s deceptively easy tactical victory in 1991 lulled the Army’s senior leaders, a class formerly known for its healthy appreciation for war into a state of irrational over confidence. The generation of senior leaders, men like Generals William E. Depuy and Paul F. Gorman, that retrieved the U.S. Army from the ashes of the Vietnam War recognized that building capability is not just about “new things.”

25 years after Operation Desert Storm, the lessons of history are forgotten and the United States Army’s post-Cold War surplus of military power is gone. The outcome is today’s confused and decayed American ground combat force, a force burdened with an anachronistic and expensive single-service organization for combat that includes too many echelons of C2. New capabilities emerge through the integration of new technology with human capital inside new organizations.

Members of congress know that the Army’s current attempts to breathe new life into comatose concepts are not the starting points for creative thinking about current and future conflicts. The LRSG will change this condition in favor of new types of Army combat forces; forces-in-being, ready to deploy and fight from a rotational readiness posture for employment under Joint Command. The LRSG can lead the way to Army reform and reorganization, a process that is at least 20 years overdue.

End Notes

[1] David Burge, “Fort Bliss a pioneer for Army with new division artillery,” El Paso Times, 1 September 2014, page 1.

[2] Congressional Budget Office (CBO), “The Army’s Ground Combat Vehicle and Program Alternatives,” (Washington, DC; Government Printing Office, 2013), page 28.

Douglas Macgregor

Colonel (ret) Douglas Macgregor is a decorated combat veteran, an author of four books and a PhD. Macgregor was commissioned in the U.S. Army in 1976 after one year at the Virginia Military Institute and four years at West Point. Macgregor’s concepts from his groundbreaking books on transformation, Breaking the Phalanx (Praeger 1997) and Transformation under Fire(Praeger 2003) have profoundly influenced thinking about transformation inside America’s ground forces, NATO the Israeli Defense Force and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. His books are available in Chinese and Hebrew. Macgregor is widely recognized as an expert on organizational design and grand strategy. He is also a frequent radio and television commentator on national security affairs.

Young Kim

[American Patriot]

Germany’s Military Can’t Meet NATO Commitments
September 29, 2014 · by Fortuna's Corner · in CIA, DIA, Europe, Eurozone, Euro, foreign policy, Germany, Intelligence Community, military history, national security, NATO, Poland, Russia, Ukraine, US Military · Leave a comment

Germany’s Military Can’t Meet NATO Commitments

(Source: TheLocalDe; published Sep 29, 2014)

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...ligations.html

Germany’s military is in such a poor state it cannot currently live up to all its NATO commitments, the country’s defense minister admitted on Sunday, warning it could years to overcome equipment problems.

Ursula von der Leyen said in an interview that the Bundeswehr could not meet all of its pledges in responding to crises.

“With the airborne systems we are, at the moment, below the target figures announced a year ago on what we want to put at the disposal of NATO within 180 days in the case of an emergency,” she told Bild am Sonntag.

Supply shortfalls on replacement parts for aircraft and the breakdown of naval helicopters are behind the problem, she said.

Last week, a small group of German military personnel sent to train Kurdish fighters battling Islamic State jihadists (Isis) arrived in northern Iraq days behind schedule due to technical problems with several transport aircraft.

The first German arms delivery to the region also arrived behind schedule.

Numerous Bundeswehr helicopters and transport planes are not fit for service due to technical defects and fighter jets and armored vehicles are also beset with problems.

Von der Leyen, who last week visited northern Iraq, said the focus had been to concentrate on the “very good equipment” available for military operations, and less on the maintenance of stock at home.

“For example, the production of replacement parts has been reduced for years. Maintenance and inspections proceed slowly,” she told the Sunday paper, adding this could in part also hold up modern equipment.

Working on improving things would take years and more money down the line, she warned.

“Developing stocks, faster repairs and the acquisition of better equipment will cost more money in the medium term,” she said.

The German military is looking into leasing additional transport planes to help relieve its old Transall aircraft while it waits to receive A400M models and builds up a fully-operational fleet, she added.

On the need to raise military spending, the Defense Minister received backing from fellow conservative politician Henning Otte.

“From 2016, an increase of the budget will be necessary, for as much money as is necessary to fulfill all tasks,” the conservative bloc’s spokesman for defense matters was quoted as saying by Welt am Sonntag.

Kurds arrive in Bavaria

But Germany’s Bundeswehr is helping where it can, and on Sunday it started training 32 Kurdish fighters from northern Iraq at an army school in Bavaria.

The soldiers will be trained in handling weaponry provided by the German military to support their battle against Islamic State jihadists, officials said on Sunday.

The fighters, who arrived on Saturday, will receive instruction on using Bundeswehr anti-tank Milan missiles, a defense ministry spokesman told AFP.

The training will takes place at an infantry training center in the southern town of Hammelburg through Friday.

German military personnel this week are also due to start training Kurdish fighters in Iraq, Der Spiegel news weekly reported on Saturday.

That training is expected to run until the end of November, the magazine said.

Late last month Berlin announced that it was sending weapons to the Peshmerga Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq to help them fight off Isis militants who have seized large swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria. (ends)
————————————————–
SPD Defense Expert: Germany ‘Unable To Meet NATO Commitments’

(Source: Deutsche Welle German radio; published Sept 29, 2014)

Large portions of the German military’s inventory are out of date and unable to keep up with the competition. In a DW interview, SPD defense expert Rainer Arnold accuses the military of whitewashing the problems

Deutsche Welle: The German military is now so poorly equipped that Germany can no longer fulfill its NATO obligations. Are you surprised by the actual extent of the deficiencies in the army?

Rainer Arnold: No, it doesn’t surprise me when it comes to certain abilities. It’s not that the military cannot meet its obligations as a whole. But there are shortcomings in specific skills. One can say in principle: Everything that flies is extremely problematic, and we are currently unable to meet the commitments we have made to NATO.

Deutsche Welle: So if, for example, a country in the Baltic region was attacked and NATO invoked its mutual self-defense clause, Germany could not take part?

Not all of our skills would be available. If, however, Article 5 of the NATO treaty were invoked, different rules would apply. In that case, some things that are being seen as difficult for reasons of security, may be interpreted as not being as difficult. But this is an abstract debate. We don’t assume that NATO will have to fight a war. The question now is whether we are in a position to make commitments in international crisis management. And here we see that there are currently significant problems.

Deutsche Welle: When the military on Wednesday (24.09.2014) submitted its report to the parliamentary defense committee, you were apparently astonished.

Not only astonished, we were especially annoyed because it was again necessary for parliament to force the armed forces and the German government to put the facts on the table. The overall picture that was presented to us is, of course, overall problematic. But we were also annoyed again, because an attempt was made to whitewash and make excuses. Everything was categorized as “ready for action.”

On closer examination, however, a much different picture emerged: A device that can be used in exercises, but which is missing parts or weapons even if it can fly or drive, is far from operational. This is not something that was made clear to us, but we had to ask persistently.

Deutsche Welle: Did the military deceive parliament?

I wouldn’t go that far – we won’t let ourselves be deceived. We are already in a position to ask the right questions – so that’s not the problem.

Deutsche Welle: Who do you think is to blame for the situation?

In the armed forces, no decisions have been made for two years. Under former Defense Minister Thomas de Maizière, it was a lost year. The main cause was his failed reform with its aim of “width before depth,” which meant that we kept everything, but our management of everything was mediocre or just bad. This is not a clever structure, and certainly not with regard to our European allies.

We must strengthen abilities that are important to the alliance instead of lowering everything into mediocrity. Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen must now say, “This reform contains mistakes and I will correct them.”

Deutsche Welle: But Ursula von der Leyen announced in February 2014 that she planned to reorganize the defense sector. What has happened in the time since then?

An external team examined processes, and its findings will be available in early October. Based on this, the minister must take appropriate action when it comes to structures and processes in the armed forces as well as to maintenance and spare parts. Decisions must be made so that weapons projects, which have been in the pipeline for a long time, will finally be put back on the track.

Deutsche Welle: Is it possible that the defense committee wasn’t persistent enough in dealing with the military?

We are persistent all the time. My working group presented a paper in the spring in which we described where the errors are. There were defense politicians who forced Mr. de Maizière to explain the situation surrounding the cancelled Euro Hawk drone – all the way up to the investigative committee. There is no shortage of questions from the defense committee. We often hear from people who describe what isn’t working. Our expectation must now be to receive a proposed solution for every problem.

Deutsche Welle: What needs to happen now?

There is a long list that we must go through. The most important thing was, first, to accept this reality and not sugarcoat the problems. I tell colleagues in the coalition not to turn a blind eye. We can’t have mediocrity everywhere, but instead must set priorities. We need to strengthen not only the staff in maintenance. We must also take a look at the organization of the Federal Office of Defense Technology and Procurement in Koblenz. We must not retire paid, well-functioning equipment or flog it off cheaply as in the past.

De Maizière’s target level was to retain only 80 percent of existing equipment. That wasn’t a wise announcement. We need 100 percent! The old equipment is still available in part; it needs only to be reactivated. In the short term, it’s necessary to strengthen the budget for repairs, while the long-term defense budget must grow again. And, finally, the industry has a responsibility. It’s not keeping its promises. The ministry must meet our demands to set an example. That cannot all take effect tomorrow, but needs to be addressed now, otherwise we will experience the same drama every year.

Rainer Arnold has been defense policy spokesman of the Social Democratic Party’s parliamentary group since 2002.