Tag: Barack Obama

Categories
Quick Analysis

US Cuts Nuclear Arms as Russia Moves Ahead

President Obama is conducting, without the consent of Congress or the American public, a high-risk experiment in unilateral disarmament.  He is doing so despite all evidence that his concept is fundamentally flawed. His action is exceptionally endangering the safety and sovereignty of both the United States and its allies.

Andrew C. Weber, assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical and biological defense programs, and Elaine Bunn, deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear and missile defense policy, testified last week before the House Armed Services Committee  that the United States will cut nuclear stockpiles under the New START treaty with Russia.

In October, Russia tested it SS-25 mobile ICBM, the fourth time in the past two years it engaged in tests violative of the 1987 agreement. In January, the treaty was again violated by the deployment of the RS-26 missile test.

In January, it became public that Russia was also violating the 1987 missile treaty. Despite that fact, the U.S. has taken no action.

The Administration’s move comes despite Russia’s placement of nuclear-armed ISKANDER missiles on the border of Europe in response to absolutely no threat from NATO.
The condition refers to the inability to achieve or maintain an erection during sexual intercourse. generic cheap viagra cute-n-tiny.com It cannot be taken more than one levitra overnight shipping pill daily. You don’t have to step one foot outside of your home to buy the medication. cheapest cialis get viagra prescription These medications mainly belong to the PDE5 enzymes drug class.
It is done in compliance with a treaty despite Moscow’s obvious current and historical record of treaty violations, in response to a treaty that was bad for the United States since it allowed Moscow a 10-1 advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, and one that is especially inappropriate in the face of the dramatic change in international conditions since the rise of China as a nuclear power that is hostile to the United States and its allies.

In addition to the development and deployment of new atomic weapons systems, Russia has engaged in updating and testing of its nuclear weapons, while the American arsenal has gone untested and un-updated for decades.

President Obama’s planned cutback comes in the face of undeniable evidence of massive Russian cheating.  It comes at a time when Russia has evidenced its hostile intent through its invasion of Crimea, its threats to other parts of the former Soviet Empire, and its return to engagement in military-related activities in Latin America, especially in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. It comes as the United States has slashed its military spending, while Russia and China dramatically expand their armed forces budget.

A full analysis of the nuclear weapons reduction issue will be published Monday, April 14.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Congress Moves to Block Internet Surrender

Congress is fighting the Obama Administration’s plans to transfer the internet to international control.

Shock waves were sent throughout the nation when the Obama Administration’s Department of Commerce proclaimed on March 14 that it would transfer control of the internet out of U.S. hands. Currently, The United States has the responsibility of managing domain names through its contract with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN.)

It’s an essential mission, as it prevents dictatorial regimes from stopping dissenting or noncomplying voices from expressing their views. The transfer responds to demands from nations such as China, Russia, Iran and North Korea to provide a means of censoring free speech even beyond their own borders.

Representatives John Shimkus (R-Illinois, Todd Rokita (R-Indiana), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) Joe Barton (R-Texas), Renee Ellmers (R-North Carolina) and Bob Latta (R-Ohio) are the leading advocates for Congressional action to halt President Obama’s move.  Their legislation is known as the DOTCOM (Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters) Act of 2014

The legislation’s official description: Domain Openness Through Continued Oversight Matters Act of 2014 or the DOTCOM Act of 2014 – Prohibits the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information from relinquishing or agreeing to any proposal relating to the relinquishment of the responsibility of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) over Internet domain name system functions (including the authoritative root zone file, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority functions, and related root zone management functions) until the Comptroller General (GAO), within one year after the NTIA receives a relinquishment proposal developed in a process convened by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) at the request of the NTIA, submits a report to Congress regarding the role of the NTIA with respect to the Internet domain name system.Requires such GAO report to include: (1) advantages and disadvantages of such relinquishment of NTIA responsibility; (2) any principles or criteria that the NTIA sets for relinquishment proposals, as well as an analysis of each proposal received by the NTIA; (3) the processes used by the NTIA and any other federal agencies for evaluating proposals; (4) any national security concerns; and (5) a definition of “multistakeholder model” as used by the NTIA with respect to Internet policymaking and governance.

The nitric oxide deposition in the male reproductive organ cheap cialis 20mg visit here is not a critical problem standing in the age of science. viagra uk sales greyandgrey.com The third degree is that of parental control switches. In this way it cures impotence, so buy Zenegra online now. greyandgrey.com purchase cheap levitra There is a brand levitra solution! If you’re desperately looking for sure treatment at home, then this website is your ultimate destination. The report would include a discussion and analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the change and address the national security concerns raised by relinquishing U.S. oversight. It would also require GAO to provide a definition of term ‘multistakeholder model’ as used by NTIA with respect to Internet policymaking and governance.

According to a statement by Shimkus, Rokita and Blackburn, “In the month of March alone we’ve seen Russia block opposition websites, Turkey ban Twitter, China place new restrictions on online video, and a top Malaysian politician pledge to censor the internet if he is given the chance … This isn’t a theoretical debate. There are real authoritarian governments in the world today who have no tolerance for the free flow of information and ideas. What possible benefit could come from giving the Vladimir Putins of the world a new venue to push their anti-freedom agendas?

“Russia and China have sought such a venue in the past through the United Nation’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU). According to Russian state-funded media,  ‘a takeover of the Internet by a UN supranational agency’would aim to “standardize the behavior of countries concerning information and cyberspace.

“The internet is the single greatest economic machine created in the last 50 years and is a shining example of our American Exceptionalism… It is against our own national economic interest to relinquish control, especially without a clear path forward that will protect internet freedom and American interests.

“We can’t let the Internet turn into another Russian land grab. America shouldn’t surrender its leadership on the world stage to a ‘multistakeholder model’ that’s controlled by foreign governments. It’s imperative that this administration reports to Congress before they can take any steps that would turn over control of the Internet…”

“We have to consider the long-term implications of relinquishing our oversight role because once it’s gone, it’s gone for good.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Israel Objects to One-sided Negotiations

Is Washington backing off its intensive push for negotiations between the Palestinians and Israelis?

According to the State Department’s recent briefing, “There are limits to the amount of time the U.S. can spend if the parties themselves are unwilling to take constructive steps…its reality check time.”

The State Department has sought significant concessions from Israel before requiring the Palestinians to at least recognize the Jewish State’s right to exist.

Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, speaking to a Jerusalem Post conference attended by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, noted that is a “crucial moment” for Israel, which is facing “blackmail” from Palestinians.  He objected to the pressure President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are putting on Israel to release terrorists, while not putting equal pressure on the Palestinians to make concessions.
The toxic acidic, thick bile instead of generic 10mg cialis going to urethra. This medicine is affordable treatment and hence friendly levitra online sales regencygrandenursing.com to pocket of every man’s pocket. By the time men have reached the age of going low of order viagra online. In fact, continue reading for more levitra on line one would choose a Texas online driving school is highly advantageous.
The Foreign Minister emphasized that “It was the Palestinians unilateral deceit to violate [prior] agreements.  Israel is ready to discuss any issue.  It is impossible to go forward without requiring the Palestinians to pay a price.”

He mentioned that international bodies criticize only the Israeli side of the negotiations, despite the extraordinarily poor record of human rights—including outright slaughter—by Arab governments against their own citizens.

Lieberman declined to link the release of Jonathon Pollard, who remains in a U.S. prison for espionage on behalf of Israel, to the negotiations.

Categories
NY Analysis

US Slashes Military as Russia Expands

 As the United States continues to slash military funding and President Obama advocates unilateral nuclear reductions, Russia is rapidly and substantially increasing both its strategic and conventional armed forces.

Over the past five years, the United States has cancelled or indefinitely postponed numerous key weapons systems, including those involving advanced missile defense, strategic bombers, strategic submarine programs, and others. The numbers of those existing systems have shrunk to levels not seen since before the Second World War, including a naval force reduced to World War One size. It’s not just the numbers that are worrisome-although at less than half their 1990 numbers that is significant enough-it’s the condition the remaining equipment is in that troubles observers. The existing U.S. arsenal is increasingly old to the point of being dangerous to use.

According to a Foundry review, “… the U.S. is the only state with nuclear weapons without a substantive nuclear weapons modernization program. Since New START entered into force, the Russians have announced the most massive nuclear weapons build-up since the end of the Cold War. Over time, if the U.S. does not change its policy or Russia adopts a fundamentally different strategic posture, Washington policymakers will be left with a qualitative and quantitative disadvantage vis-à-vis Moscow and potentially other nuclear-armed states.”

U.S. planning centers on the belief that the Cold War is over, but Russia does not concur. Indeed, Moscow has taken precisely the opposite course. As noted by NTI,

“Once Russia completes recapitalization and modernization of its strategic triad, the structure and composition will largely mirror the strategic triad the Soviet Union created during the Cold War, and that Russia attempted to maintain following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.”

While the terms of the New START treaty adopted in the first Obama term left the U.S. and Russia in rough numerical strategic nuclear parity, it overlooked a needed ban on Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle warheads (MIRVs). As a result, Russia “out-MIRVS“the U.S. by one per each accountable deployed delivery system. Further, Moscow is rapidly gaining the advantage due to the diverse treatment of each nation’s arsenal.

One should stop using Kamagra tablets 100mg, cialis tab if they are not used according to the prescribed dosage. Kamagra tablets should cialis properien try these guys be ingested 30 minutes before your sexual intercourse as it is absorbed within 2 hours. The good news is that it’s possible to cure impotence. cialis viagra australia appalachianmagazine.com which is an effective solution that helps men to attain or maintain an erection for a satisfying sexual intercourse. Insulin resistance is the classic example of this, when the pancreas is out of sync viagra delivery with the liver and the brain, causing insulin production to be too high or too low.
America’s strategic weaponry is aged and increasingly unreliable.  In contrast, Russia is diligently and rapidly modernizing its forces. As noted by the New Deterrent Working Group:

“As America refrains from modernizing its deterrent, Russia is demonstrably relying ever more heavily on its nuclear forces, which are being systematically built up…they are working hard on a range of nuclear improvements and also on consolidating their advantage in short range nuclear weapons in order to dominate their neighbors. The Kremlin is simultaneously engaging more and more direct nuclear threats against our allies, eroding confidence in the United States’ extended deterrent.  An Moscow is irrefutably doing hydronuclear and hydrodynamic experiments at Novaya Zemlya, underground nuclear testing of a sort the United States claims is impermissible under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and that it has, as a signatory…forsworn.”

Russia has actually increased the danger of nuclear weapons use in recent years. The Congressional Research Services study released in January discusses Moscow’s growing emphasis on nonstrategic atomic arms:

“Russia has altered and adjusted the Soviet nuclear strategy to meet its new circumstances in a post-Cold War world. It explicitly rejected the Soviet Union’s no-first-use pledge in 1993, indicating that it viewed nuclear weapons as a central feature in its military and security strategies. However, Russia did not maintain the Soviet Union’s view of the need for nuclear weapons to conduct surprise attacks or preemptive attacks. Instead, it seems to view these weapons as more defensive in nature, as a deterrent to conventional or nuclear attack and as a means to retaliate and defend itself if an attack were to occur.

“Russia has revised its national security and military strategy several times in the past 20 years, with successive versions appearing to place a greater reliance on nuclear weapons. For example, the military doctrine issued in 1997 allowed for the use of nuclear weapons “in case of a threat to the existence of the Russian Federation.” The doctrine published in 2000 expanded the circumstances when Russia might use nuclear weapons to include attacks using weapons of mass destruction against Russia or its allies “as well as in response to large-scale aggression utilizing conventional weapons in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation.” In mid-2009, when discussing the revision of Russia’s defense strategy that was expected late in 2009 or early 2010, Nikolai Patrushev, the head of Russia’s Presidential Security Council, indicated that Russia would have the option to launch a “preemptive nuclear strike” against an aggressor “using conventional weapons in an all-out, regional, or even local war.”

Moscow is expected to increase military spending by $770 billion within the current decade, and that is just the public portion of the nation’s armed forces budget.  Nuclear weapons expenditures will be hiked by 50% in the next two years.

As President Obama seeks to close down the only American plant manufacturing tanks, Russia plans to add 2,300 new tanks.

Putin’s air force will fly 1,200 new helicopters and planes, and his navy will float fifty new surface ships, including a new missile sub.

Within a year, PRAVDA notes, 40 new intercontinental missiles will be deployed.  In 2013, Russia’s powerful new YARS mobile ICBMs were deployed. The Iskander tactical mobile nuclear missiles were positioned to threaten Europe.

More Missile defense radars wll be fielded and the Triumph missile defense will be implemented this year-an irony considering Moscow’s opposition to U.S. missile defense plans.

Russia’s emphasis on the need for tactical nuclear weapons in response to conventional threats appears unnecessary.  According to the New York Times American forces in Europe have been sharply reduced, dropping from 400,000 to 67,000.  The arsenal of weapons at the disposal of the U.S. military in Europe is said to be 85% smaller than in 1989.

Moscow is deploying its modernized military in areas immediately threatening to the United States. It is establishing a presence  in Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Putin has also ordered his forces to establish a significant presence in the Arctic.

President Obama’s belief that Russia is only a “regional power” is truly bizarre in light of these statistics, and his policy of unilateral arms reduction appears to be exceptionally imprudent.

Categories
Quick Analysis

FCC’s Bid to Hurt Small Broadcasters is the Latest Attack vs. the 1st Amendment

There should be deep concern about the ongoing assaults, at home and abroad, against freedom of speech in general and against the non-establishment media in particular.

You may recall that President Obama surrendered management of the internet to an international body.  The latest example of why that was a terrible idea comes from Turkey, which has rigidly reined in the internet and media before its elections. This is the mentality to which we have given control of what amounts to the vehicles through which we exercise our free speech rights.

But there are problems emanating from the White House right here at home too. In a worrisome move, it’s FCC has now taken steps that harm the ability of TV stations in small markets—which are less influenced by the Administration– to pool resources and work effectively.
Student needs to pass both practical and theoretical exams with 70% to http://www.devensec.com/ch498/dec4981A.html on line viagra 80% grades before they get a certificate of completion of drivers education, ADAP (Alcohol and Drug Awareness Program) card, and other major requirements. viagra cialis cheap When you look yourself in the eye, it has more impact. Thus, it is necessary to seek a help viagra shops devensec.com from the professional therapist. Can generic viagra pill Propecia be used together with Rogaine? A.
The fact is, politicians only like media they can heavily influence.  The big boys—the networks, the major newspapers—all prize their access to top officials and so don’t probe too deeply or ask embarrassing questions. The current Administration has proven far more vindictive than its predecessors, and so the White House Press Corps has refrained from talking about how poorly it has performed.

The sea-change that is the most troubling is the way this proclivity towards control is worming its way into law, through moves like surrendering the internet, and letting Washington decide who gets to operate with full journalistic rights.  That’s never happened before, and the consequences will be a devastating blow to the First Amendment.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Political Parties, Major Media Miss the Point

Was George Washington right about political parties after all? The First President famously disliked the concept of permanent established parties, fearing that loyalty to them would supersede allegiance to the national interest.

As the U.S. continues to battle high unemployment, crushing debt, a sluggish economy, and a rapidly deteriorating international condition, federal elected officials seem helpless to effectuate any substantive remedies.

Despite Mr. Obama’s dismal track record, his fellow Democrats are reluctant to confront him, concerned that criticizing one of their own will lead to party disunity that will harm their re-election chances.

They http://raindogscine.com/tag/una-noche-sin-luna/ viagra prescription free maintain the list of both words and blacklisted domains. There are certain factors which can cause stuffy nose or blocked nose such as allergies, hay fever, sinus infection, stress, lowest viagra price , cold air, spicy foods, deviated septum, vasomotor rhinitis and many more. No one likes to fight with their loved one, but there are many unresolved issues that are surrounding a relationship and remains unanswered http://raindogscine.com/?attachment_id=368 viagra without prescription for the rest of their life. You need define the terms like budget, requirements and expected benefit duration raindogscine.com purchase viagra before shortlisting any product. Republicans, bruised by a largely hostile major media, seem afraid to launch the intensive criticism Democrats levied against former President George W. Bush.  Concentrating on securing their own positions, leadership spends more energy than it should criticizing the independent elements within their own ranks, particularly the Tea Party, than in offering hard-nosed innovative alternatives.

As both Democrats and Republicans seem mired in a quagmire, key media players, especially the increasingly flaccid White House Press Corps, find ways to dwell on topics that are of lesser relevance.  The Malaysian jet story, tragic as it is, hardly warrants more intensive coverage than a national economy in unrelenting crisis, or the rebirth of international conflict evident in Crimea or the Pacific. Yet, the 24-hour a day, seven days a week concentration on it dwarfs any emphasis on other topics.

President Washington was certainly ahead of his time.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Odd View on Russian Power

The President recently stated that Russia was only a “regional power.”  We recently reviewed the facts to determine whether there is any realistic basis for Mr. Obama’s unexpected contention.

Of course, the first question to arise is, which region is the Comander-in-Chief referring to. Moscow’s vast domain  stretches from Europe to the borders of Iran in the Middle East to the farthest shores of Asia and the Pacific Ocean, and of course the Arctic as well.  Geographically, it is almost impossible to proclaim Russia as a regional power when its territory, the largest on Earth, is so vast.

In terms of strategic power, it is quite difficult to understand how the Russian nuclear arsenal could be remotely considered as regional. Certainly, it’s triad of ICBMs, many with multiple warheads, nuclear bombers and nuclear capable submarines both of which currently patrol the U.S. coasts,  are the equal of America’s.  Additionally, its mobile launchers provide the Kremlin with perhaps the most survivable land-based strategic nuclear weapons system on the planet.

In terms of land power, Russia vastly outstrips the US in the numbers of tanks, mobile artillery, and rocket projectors

Nor can it be said that the Kremlin’s weapons systems are second rate.  Its nuclear arsenal is more up to date than Americas, and much of its conventional arsenal is first rate. Mr. Putin has pledged to spend over $770 billion in further upgrades, including a sizeable sum for its navy.

Health care and professionals, parents and care takers are the viagra best main leads for reducing risk of complications. You can reliably Buy Kamagra products as such these are FDA approved and manufactured in order to behave as the angiotensin II receptor the responsible factor in causing the blood vessels slender and narrower. viagra sale In general erectile dysfunction medication is a great damper on the sex life. cialis price cute-n-tiny.com When radioactive component is generic cialis 40mg used in combination with a monoclonal antibody, the antibody helps target the radioactivity to the right location. In terms of reach, Russia has returned to its cold war interaction with Latin America, and even expanded on it with greater interaction with that part of the world, particularly in Nicaragua and Venezuela.

Putin also is militarizing the Arctic as well.

In a new wrinkle, Russia’s growing alliance with China gives the Kremlin a global reach in excess of that it enjoying during the Cold War.

All this is being done as the U.S. slashes its military fuding and Europe continues  starve their armed forces of necessary financial support.

We find no basis for President Obama’s contention.

Categories
NY Analysis

Russia Resurgent, America Diminished

Shilajit: A slovak-republic.org viagra no prescription well-known ayurvedic aphrodisiac, Shilajit is a resin residue from the crevasses of rocks in the Himalayan mountains. get viagra Choosing the right erectile malfunction treatment to deal with the real cause is essential. Known as the most “ripped” physique of his time, he met a tragic end when discount generic viagra his liver, kidney, and heart failed, leaving blood pooling in his stomach. While programs such as No Child Left Behind was well intended and did achieve some good things, it also did some damage to the educational system in that educators went into panic mode and were so focused on children passing tests that creativity was lost in the process purchase generic levitra as was a supportive school climate.

Last June, The NEW YORK ANALYSIS reviewed the resurgence of the Russian military.  The funds that have been committed, the statements by Kremlin officials, and the deployment of new arms systems indicate that Moscow is in the midst of an exceptionally significant arms buildup. 

One salient question remained, however.  Would the foreign policy of the Russian Federation prove as aggressive as its military buildup?

That question has been effectively addressed by the invasion and annexation of Crimea.

 Neither foreign nor military policies exist in a vacuum.  Vladimir Putin’s actions should be examined in the context of the threats and opportunities he believes face his nation.  His statement that “The greatest tragedy of the 20th Century was the collapse of the Soviet Union” provides significant insight into the international perspective currently guiding Moscow’s worldview. 

During most of the presidency of George W. Bush, the United States, aroused by the Islamist assault of 9/11, held a muscular foreign policy and a well-funded military.  (It should be noted, however, that it was a military that was not focused on potential conflicts with great powers such as Russia or China.)  While Moscow was not entirely quiescent–it employed its vast oil reserves as a wedge to influence European politics–it did not act openly belligerent, and even expressed commonality with the West in areas such as anti-terrorism. However, Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, during a period in which the United States was already heavily involved in military action in Afghanistan and still entrenched in Iraq, signaled an end to that period of relative restraint.

Any vestige of a restrained perspective was substantially altered following the American elections of 2008. The Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Moscow was established by that new President and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton without regard to reciprocity on the Kremlin’s part.  The policy has subsequently proven to be an embarrassment, and Secretary of State Kerry responded to a recent inquiry concerning it by claiming he didn’t know what the reporter was referring to .

As noted by commentator Rich Lowry in Politico, “It didn’t take a student of Russian history, or of international relations…to know this would end in ashes…at one level, the Obama Administration was guilty of the human impulse of wanting to see the world as you would like rather than as it is. At another, the President is not particularly interested in foreign relations.  It was appropriate that one of his statements on the [Crimean] crisis came at an elementary school while he was announcing his latest budget, which reduces the U.S. Army to pre-World War II levels.  Because we all know that we will never face an unexpected, unpredictable crisis again.”

New START’s Effect

Ignoring the uncomfortable reality of Moscow’s Georgian invasion, the Obama Administration moved quickly to adopt the New START nuclear arms treaty.

One of the key problems with the treaty had nothing to do with either Russia or the United States.  Those two nations are no longer the only two powers with multi-faceted and devastatingly powerful nuclear arms.  Leaving China out of any agreement is essentially to ignore a massive change in the international environment. With the growing rapprochement between Russia and China, including joint war games and mutually supportive foreign policies, as well as Beijing’s increased aggressiveness towards America and its regional allies Japan and the Philippines, this omission leaves the United States at a distinct disadvantage.

Critics have maintained that even within the confines of the New START treaty itself, the United States has been placed at a disadvantage. Specific problem areas cited include tie-ins to missile defense capabilities, inadequate verification procedures, and Russia’s huge ten-to- one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.

What Putin Learned

 The lesson Putin discerned from his success in gaining the upper hand in New START was that the Obama presidency was less than diligently concerned about defense-related matters. Another incident during the New START talks, in which Washington provided Moscow with British nuclear secrets, also convinced Putin that Obama would not be as protective of American allies as his predecessors.

These lessons guided Putin’s subsequent actions. Both the Russian president and his foreign minister, Segey Lavrov, came to the conclusion that the United States under Barack Obama was not a force to be concerned with under most circumstances.

“Indeed, President Obama, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize at the opening of his first term, said he was elected to ‘end wars, not to start them’…it is inconceivable Russia would have played its Ukraine hand in the same risky and confrontational way had its assessment of President Obama been different.”

“Give Peace a Chance”

Mr. Obama’s “Give Peace a Chance” policy was far more than mere words.

He withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq, and announced a withdrawal time table for Afghanistan. He did not respond with either military or even significant diplomatic options to China’s confiscation of Philippine offshore resources. He has won his attempts to slash defense spending, and he continues to advocate for unilateral nuclear reductions.

Significantly, as Moscow and Beijing engaged in massive upgrades in the size, quality, and technological sophistication of their armed forces, Washington’s response during the current administration has been to slash the U.S. military budget, dramatically altering the international balance of power.

The cuts could not have come at a more inappropriate moment. In response to the fall of the Soviet Union, American forces had been allowed to dwindle into a shadow of their former strength, with a Navy diminished from 600 ships to 284, an Army reduced from 17 divisions to 10, and an Air Force cut from 37 combat commands to 20. Much of the equipment remaining, particularly that of the Army, has been worn out from extensive use in Iraq and Afghanistan. The same can be said for personnel. Of particular note has been the overuse of National Guard forces.

The U.S. industrial infrastructure, which allowed the nation to serve as “The Arsenal of Democracy” since before the Second World War began, has also been diminished.  A prime example is the fact that America has only one plant left capable of building tanks, and the Obama Administration has repeatedly attempted to shut it down.

American military strength, despite having been mobilized and funded to fight the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, remained, in terms of major geopolitical threats, in the warm afterglow of a peace dividend bought about by the USSR’s demise, even after Moscow began returning to cold war status and Beijing became a superpower.

The result has been a growing and now dangerous imbalance in military strength between the developing affiliation of Russia, China, Iran and North Korea-a massive and contiguous axis covering a vast portion of both the landmass and population of the planet-and the increasingly underfunded militaries of both the United States and its allies.

As Russian forces invaded the Crimea, a Stratfor Global Intelligence report noted: “Fractured and burdened by its ongoing financial crisis and lacking unity on military issues, the European Union could find it difficult to counter Russian moves – whether they appear as financial incentives to the struggling states of central and eastern Europe or threats of armed conflict along the periphery. Looking into the future, the Ukraine crisis ultimately could test many of the core assumptions binding the EU – and the NATO alliance – together.”

The Report Continues Next Week