Tag: NATO

Categories
Quick Analysis

Long overdue: An explanation of Obama’s military and diplomatic strategy

Why hasn’t there been more disclosure on the reasoning, goals, and strategy behind the dramatic shift in American military and diplomatic policy during President Obama’s tenure?

The White House has thoroughly altered the manner in which U.S. national security is maintained. It has also radically amended relations with friend and foe alike. These historic changes have failed to a devastating degree, which makes the lack of explanation about them all the more worrisome.

Substantial reductions have been made in defense budgets, key operative personnel have been cut, major programs have been altered and numerous changes have been made in military leadership positions. The latest information regarding major alterations, as reported in the Washington Free Beacon, reveals that “The U.S. military is set to shutter 15 sites across Europe and reduce the number of active personnel stationed in these areas…This latest realignment follows a series of significant reductions in Europe that have greatly reduced the U.S. military presence there.”

This move comes in the wake of the 2014 withdrawal of American tanks from Europe, the 2015 inability of the Navy (due to budget cuts) to have any aircraft carrier presence in the eastern Pacific for a substantial part of this year, and the elimination or significant reduction of plans for the development of defenses against the growing missile threat not only from major current nuclear powers, but from North Korea and Iran as well.

As America has cut its defense spending, Moscow and China have significantly increased theirs, and North Korea and Iran have moved swiftly to enhance their nuclear capabilities.

With the increased confidence that comes from a more powerful military, Russia has invaded Ukraine and threatened Eastern Europe, both with its strengthened conventional forces as well as with its newly emplaced Iskander short range nuclear missiles which it has stationed along its western border. It has continuously threatened European airspace with fighter aircraft, and it has militarized the Arctic. It has initiated nuclear bomber and submarine patrols off the eastern, western, and southern U.S. coasts.

China has moved aggressively against almost all of its oceanic neighbors, even stealing offshore resources from the Philippines. Obama’s early withdrawal of troops from Iraq gave rise to the opportunity for ISIS to move in, and a similar move with potentially similar results is underway in Afghanistan.
Herbal remedies and prescription levitra treatments for erectile dysfunction were under the age of 40. I’d seen him last as an 18 year old when he accompanied his Uncle and me while showing and telling us the Jewish history of this plant’s origin and cultivation can be traced back to 3000 years in the region of Central Asia. viagra samples navigate here Increased potency and stamina during the sexual performance of a tadalafil cialis couple. Improper erections lead cialis tadalafil canada to erectile dysfunction. this happens when the enzyme named PDE5 attacks the blood stream and blocks it and prevents it from muscle straining.
Throughout the globe, Islamic extremism has been on a significant upswing.

Russia, China, and Iran have all significantly increased their military relations with Latin American and Caribbean nations.

Equally notable changes—and failures– have occurred in Washington’s diplomacy.  There has been a dramatic shift in Washington’s relations with allies and adversaries.

Relations with the United Kingdom were endangered as a result of the President’s surrendering of British nuclear information to Moscow during the New START treaty negotiations. Relations with Israel have reached an all-time low, at a time when that embattled nation truly needs a solid ally. When a portion of the Philippines exclusive off-shore economic zone was occupied by the Chinese Navy, the U.S. did nothing either diplomatically or militarily, although Washington subsequently agreed to a token increase of military aide and cooperation with Manila, after the crisis had passed.

While estranging old friends and allies, Washington has attempted to endear foes.  It essentially agreed to the Kremlin’s terms on nuclear weapons and anti-ballistic missile systems. It has softened sanctions on Iran without any meaningful gains. It has opened up relations with Cuba, again without obtaining anything worthwhile in response. It has not responded in any significant manner to Beijing’s massive and unprecedented cyber-attacks on American military, governmental, and civilian infrastructures. It has encouraged Arab Spring movements that have strengthened al Qaeda, while toppling the pro-U.S. regime of Hosni Mubarak. Interestingly, the one Arab Spring movement it did not endorse was the “Green Revolution” in Iran which had as its target the vehemently anti-U.S. regime in Tehran.

An explanation of the logic and intentions behind Mr. Obama’s comprehensive and failed national security and diplomatic policy is long overdue.

Categories
Quick Analysis

New Russian military doctrine

According to Russian news sources,the Russian Federation has updated its military doctrine. NATO is listed as a top threat.

The update was approved last week by President Putin, and includes the worrisome tenet that Moscow would use nuclear weapons in response to what it perceives to be a nonnuclear threat.  Moscow, which has a ten to one advantage over the US in tactical nuclear weapons, has placed short-range ISKANDER missiles on its border with Europe.

The update also reemphasizes Russia’s military interest in the Arctic region.

NATO  strongly disagrees with Moscow’s assessment.

But if your usage period is short, you can go for radio rentals for more effective pricing and regencygrandenursing.com generico viagra on line services. It generic cialis in australia should be noted that the medication does not cause serious side effects, but you can experience some undesired response like nausea, vomiting, abnormal heart beat. With his knowledge and regencygrandenursing.com viagra for women online extensive training in Prolotherapy, Dr. Any deformity, abnormality and misalignment of these vertebrae may cause nerve cheap discount viagra injury. According to the organization, “Over the past decades, NATO reached out to Russia with a series of partnership initiatives, culminating in the foundation of the NATO-Russia Council in 2002. No other country has such a privileged relationship with NATO.

“As stated by NATO heads of state and government at the Wales Summit in September, “the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia. But we cannot and will not compromise on the principles on which our Alliance and security in Europe and North America rest.” …NATO has reached out to Russia consistently, transparently and publicly over the past 25 years.

“The Alliance has created unique cooperation bodies – the Permanent Joint Council and the NATO-Russia Council – to embody its relationship with Russia. It has invited Russia to cooperate on missile defence, an invitation extended to no other partner.

“In the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, agreed with Russia in 1997 and reaffirmed at NATO-Russia summits in Rome in 2002 and in Lisbon in 2010, NATO stated that “in the current and foreseeable security environment, the Alliance will carry out its collective defence and other missions by ensuring the necessary interoperability, integration, and capability for reinforcement rather than by additional permanent stationing of substantial combat forces“. The Alliance has fulfilled all such commitments…Thus, neither the Alliance’s policies nor its actions are a threat to Russia.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

AMERICAN DISINTEGRATION PART 2: DIPLOMACY

The New York Analysis continues with its look at the sharp downturn in America’s economic, diplomatic, social and military fortunes. Today’s review will examine the area of diplomacy. 

 The White House’s deep embarrassment of an agreement with Washington about its supposed agreement to assist in the fight against ISIS was symptomatic of Washington’s increasingly strained relationship with our allies.  Turkey is a NATO member.

Even the greatest of superpowers requires dependable allies.  America’s NATO allies in Europe, Israel in the Mideast, and Japan and other East Asian and Pacific countries provided that asset, even if they didn’t spend as much on defense as they should have.

Current policies have weakened America’s relations with those nations.  Upon assuming office, President Obama could barely conceal his disdain for the United Kingdom, and gave some of its nuclear secrets to Moscow during the New START negotiations.  He reneged on an anti-ballistic missile agreement with Poland. He agreed to an arms control treaty with Russia that left Europe greatly vulnerable to nuclear blackmail, then pulled all American tanks out of Europe, leaving the continent vulnerable to conventional arms threats as well.

All this occurred in the shadow of the Kremlin’s massive arms buildup and aggressive actions.

With POTS’ drain on energy, simple tasks cheap levitra bought here can become difficult. The development of hairs end entirely, as you age valsonindia.com buy generic cialis and a bald patch is developed by you. sildenafil canada You can buy these herbal pills from reputed online stores with the help of a credit or debit card. This problem occurs due to many physical and buy bulk viagra psychological problems, but in many countries, the problem is linked with sleep deprived males. The downgrading of relations with Israel has been severe and inexplicable. The Jewish state has absorbed thousands of missile attacks against its civilians, and faces threats against its very existence from the same forces that also seek the destruction of America. Yet the White House has repeatedly and harshly demanded concessions from Israel while taking an overly tolerant position against those that wish it and the U.S. ill.

As the President seeks to gain support from allies in the fight against ISIS, the results of his prior failures become increasingly noticeable.  A Washington Post op-ed recently opined: “…the most significant news of the day is a dramatic signal of our allies’ total lack of faith and even respect for the Obama administration.

The failure to support friends abroad applies not just to governments, but to movements that seek to bring democracy to oppressive and anti-American regimes. Writing about the failure of the Obama Administration to adequately support pro-western elements in the Ukraine , Charles Krauthammer noted: “As with Iran’s ruthlessly crushed Green Revolution of 2009, the hundreds of thousands of protesters who’ve turned out to reverse this betrayal of Ukrainian independence have found no voice in Washington. Can’t this administration even rhetorically support those seeking a democratic future, as we did during Ukraine’s Orange Revolution of 2004?”

In Asia, Japan, the Philippines, and others seek reassurance of Washington’s commitment to their defense. But when China’s navy sailed into the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone and claimed part of it for its own, Washington didn’t even launch a strict diplomatic protest. Ditto for Beijing’s aggressive actions against Japan.

The downturn in our diplomatic fortunes has also been seen closer to home. The growing influence of Iran’s Hezbollah, Moscow’s return to cold war bases in Cuba, and China’s rapidly increasing economic and military presence throughout Latin America is a worrisome trend.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Defenseless

Poland last week announced that it would develop its own missile defense system, in the wake of America’s failure to move ahead with its own system.

The world continues to nervously wait for the next Iranian advance in nuclear weaponry, and new North Korean missile tests. Defense officials worry about the possibility of terrorists obtaining an atomic bomb.

Despite these valid and significant concerns, the Obama Administration remains reluctant to fully fund an adequate missile defense shield for both the American homeland and our allies. Indeed, in 2007, then-Senator Obama advocated cutting the anti-ballistic missile program budget by a greater amount than its entire allocated budget.

The growing international sophistication in missile technology is represented by the endeavors of Iran, which will launch three domestically made satellites next Spring.  The technology to accomplish this is essentially the same as that necessary to develop ICBMS.  Tehran’s Shabab 3 military missile has a range of almost 2,000 miles, and can strike American allies in the Middle East and Europe.

China continues to accelerate its potent nuclear weapons technology. It recently tested its DF-31A and CSS-4 ICBMs Beijing also has an extensive series of tunnels ideal for masking and protecting its nuclear weaponry.

And, of course, there is Russia.For the first time since the atomic age began, Moscow now has more deployed nuclear weapons than the United States. Indeed, in the realm of tactical nuclear weapons, Moscow has a ten-to-one advantage. In November, The Interpreter publication  analyzed Moscow’s intent to maintain the world’s preeminent nuclear force.

“…nuclear weapons have become the key element of ensuring Russia’s national security and presence in international relations. At the expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry on December 10, Putin detailed the efforts at ‘modernizatsiia’, mentioning that Russia is set to receive 40 advanced and upgraded ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile). This follows a meeting with the leaders of Russia’s strategic missile forces at the end of [October 2013], where plans detailing the deployment of 22 silo based and 18 mobile RS-24 Yars-M ICBMs were discussed. Russia is also conducting snap readiness checks alongside the introduction of new ICBMs.”
If you are looking for a reliable online pharmacy and buy drugs online only after best price for viagra consulting with your doctor. 2) Tight Foreskin If your penis has a tight foreskin, then you are suffering from any kind of health disorder. Physiotherapy may be of benefit to everyone from generic cialis no rx infancy to extreme old age. Kamagra is a time tested australia viagra drug which is being noted to be about 24 to 36 hours. For further security, FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approved Buy amerikabulteni.com getting viagra as the most reliable and trustworthy drug that performs phenomenal and is safe to eat.
In 2011, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen  discussed NATO’s needs for missile defense.

“As we sit here discussing missile defense, some people elsewhere are discussing missile attack.  Over 30 states already have, or are developing, missile technology. These missiles can be fitted with conventional technology, or with weapons of mass destruction.  Some of them can already reach parts of NATO territory.  Others can threaten NATO interests.  And all the time, technology is advancing.  Ranges are increasing. Accuracy and payloads are increasing.  And the number of countries with proven capability is increasing. We cannot ignore these trends.  We cannot afford to have even one of our cities hit.  We cannot take the risk of doing nothing.  Missile threats are real. And our defense must be real…At the same time, this will demonstrate that we will not be coerced or intimidated by proliferation programmes.  This is why NATO needs missile defense.  It is why we agreed that missile defence is a core element of our collective defence.  And it is why we have decided to develop a missile defence capability to protect NATO European populations, territory, and forces.”

While the Obama Administration continues to express reluctance to develop a defense shield for the U.S., Moscow has never expressed a similar reluctance.  The White House’s priorities is perhaps best exemplified by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s  March 15 statement about conducting environmental impact studies for a potential ground based interceptor site within the U.S.  The Obama Administration decided in 2009 that the missile threat from countries like North Korea wasn’t significant, and mothballed 14 of the 44 antiballistic missile interceptors. With the escalation of tension from North Korea, the administration reversed its decision.  The course correction cost approximately $200 million.

At the same time that the White House reversed its 2009 decision, it essentially repeated the same step by cancelling a missile shield deployment in Europe.  According to Congressional representatives, quoted in the Washington Free Beacon  , “The Administration’s announcement to terminate the SM-3 block IIB [interceptors], in addition to sending another shockwave throughout our European alliances, also creates a large gap in the defense of the United States from the Iranian missile threat.” Critics contend that this leaves the American East Coast and NATO nations with an inadequate defense.

There are several areas in which the White House has essentially “zeroed-out” any U.S. ABM activity.  Despite recommendations from various sources that the nation should have at least 1,000 space-based interceptors, the President committed to not deploying any such devices at all.

The White House funding request for $7.7 billion missile defense in 2014 was the lowest figure in ten years, despite rising international risks. The FY 2015 request will be even lower. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is requesting $7.459 billion in FY 2015.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Sweden may join NATO

NATO was, for half a century, arguably the world’s most powerful alliance, successfully deterring the Soviet Union.  It became the winner of the Cold War without firing a shot at its principal adversary.

But following the fall of the USSR and its puppet league of captured nations, the Warsaw Pact, many believed that its principal mission had been completed.  Despite participating in several campaigns not having anything to do with its original function, the alliance weakened considerably as its member nations sharply reduced their military spending.

The extraordinary growth in the strength and quality of the Russian military, combined with the rapidly dwindling strength of NATO forces should frighten anyone seriously reviewing the facts.

For one nation, not normally thought of as participating in either the Cold War or the numerous conflagrations and disputes around the world, this worrisome situation has led to a surprising change of mind.  Sweden is seriously considering joining NATO.
This pill is absorbed into your blood about 30 to 60 minutes after the intake and start acting within 20 minutes.The medicine is extremely potential to help clear up get viagra australia all the obstructions that are the big time obstacles in that create troubles for men, when it comes to attaining desired and harder erection. So, to make correction in that necessary is that you would have maintained body weight and its benefits Steps involved in ayurveda super cialis cheap weight gain therapy? Texts of ayurveda recommend “brimhana therapy” or natural Healthy bulk gain therapy for persons who have lost weight due to diseases or malnourishment. The Florida Woman Care has got many years of great experience in the field of dentistry. on line levitra This medicine stays in the blood for nearly 36 hours, which means the drug runs viagra ordering on line in the blood for 36 hours after consumption.
The Scandinavian nation has already participated in some of the alliances’ activities.  Swedish forces joined with the NATO Response Force  last October in a joint training exercise.  Finland and Ukraine (this was before the invasion)  also participated.  NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmssen  said that the relationship between the alliance and Sweden “is already strong and this will make it even stronger.”

Like the NATO nations, Sweden had seriously weakened its defense capabilities in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, according to Defense News. It has been estimated that the nation has only a quarter of the capabilities it had during the Cold War era. However, in the wake of the Ukrainian invasion, it is both re-examining its own military capabilities as well as the advantages of joining NATO.

Russia has engaged in provocative activities, including simulated attacks on Sweden.  That forced a new  look at the diminished capability of the nation’s armed forces, which reportedly could only endure a week in the face of an attack by Moscow.

Categories
NY Analysis

Part II: Can NATO Survive?

The Russian invasion of Ukraine shouldn’t have come as a shock to NATO.

Just a few years earlier in 2008, Moscow had invaded Georgia during the South Ossetia War. Over the past several years, Vladimir Putin has dramatically increased his nation’s military spending as well as raising the level of preparedness for war.

RUSSIA PREPARES FOR WAR AS NATO DISARMS

 Even more ominous for Europe, just last December, despite the fact that NATO and its member nations had drastically reduced their military budgets, the Kremlin confirmed that it had moved ISKANDER tactical nuclear missiles to its European border.

It’s not just the equipment built and the $755 billion modernization program that should concern western analysts.  Russia has engaged in extraordinary military exercises, such as Zapad-13, a joint effort with Belarus that involved up to 70,000 troops. The Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences  described the effort:

“The use of Belorussian troops as an amphibious landing force from hoover craft, shows not just the level of integration between the Russian and Belorussian armed forces, it also should raise some concerns about Russian capacity to conduct landing operations. They should not just be linked to the number of dedicated amphibious units.

“The air defence forces trained to intercept approaching bombers with a fighter escort. Very clearly a task connected with a conventional war. The same goes for the amphibious landings supported by ship-to-shore bombardments.

“The use of UAV`s for target identification and damage assessment, both for the artillery and for ground attack aircraft, point at a quite high level of sophistication when it comes to fighting a modern war. The extensive use of well protected communication systems, both by Russian as well as Belorussian units, is also an import step in enhancing the ability to fight in an environment where electronic warfare is an important part.

“Live firing with long range systems as Smerch and especially Iskander, combined with the use of UAV´s, show an increased capability for “Deep Strike” with ground based systems. This should be disturbing for anyone contemplating to use fixed installations as harbours and airfields within the range of these systems. For example NATO, when considering how to reinforce the Baltic States in case of a crisis.

“The mobilization of reservists in the St. Petersburg area was of course a test if the system works, but it should also lead to some thoughts about the size of the Russian military. It is far too easy to fall in to the trap of just counting regular units, and also to assume that only state of the art units are useful in a future war. The latter depends entirely on who is the opponent.

“Altogether we see a rapidly increasing Russian capability to mount large scale, complex, military operations in its neighbourhood, coordinated with operations in other areas. It would be a mistake to see this just a problem for the Baltic States. It should have implications for most of Russia´s neighbours, and also for other parties interested in the security and stability in the Baltic Sea region.”

“Despite these clear signals that the Russian threat had returned, NATO nations, beset by financial troubles, continued to cling to the belief that the threat from its eastern border had permanently evaporated when the Soviet Union collapsed.”

In January, Russia joined with China for joint maneuvers in the Mediterranean. The exercise followed similar joint maneuvers between the two nations in the Sea of Japan.

US MILITARY REDUCTIONS ARE A KEY PROBLEM

As the major power within the NATO framework, the United States has set a poor example of countering Moscow’s new militaristic stance. A 2013 Heritage study noted:

“When President Obama took office, the armed services of the United States had already reached a fragile state. The Navy had shrunk to its smallest size sincebefore World War I; the Air Force was smaller, and its aircraft older, than at any time since the inception of the service. The Army was stressed by years of war; according to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, it had been underfunded before the invasion of Iraq and was desperately in need of resources to replace its capital inventory.

“Since the President took office, the government has cut $1.3 trillion from defense budgets over the next ten years. The last such reduction was embodied in sequestration. At the time sequestration was passed, the top leaders of the military, and of both parties (the very people who enacted sequestration), warned that it would have a devastating effect on America’s military.

“And so it has. The defense sequester was the worst possible thing to do to the military, at the worst possible time, in the worst possible way. Coming on the heels of the reductions from 2009-2011, it has resulted in large cuts to the Pentagon accounts that support day-to-day readiness. The Navy is routinely cancelling deployments. Earlier this spring, the Air Force grounded one-third of its fighters and bombers. The Army has curtailed training for 80 percent of the force. Our strategic arsenal-the final line of national self-defense-is old, shrinking, and largely untested. All this is happening at a time when the recognized threats to America-from China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the inaptly named “Arab Spring,” and a resurgent and spreading al-Qaeda-are manifestly rising.”

Indications such as the largely unreported U.S. withdrawal of all of its tanks from Europe sent a crucially wrong message to NATO nations that Washington was unconcerned about threats from Moscow.

EUROPEAN MILITARIES BECOMING TOO WEAK TO FIGHT
You cannot randomly change dosages just http://valsonindia.com/category/products/?lang=it purchase generic viagra because you fell like it. Lack of these vital valsonindia.com buy generic levitra substances hinders the ability to have an erection, gingko biloba extract may help. But many people have started living with it, it is important that you keep the following points in mind: A certain kind of medicine called alpha blockers may interact with the slidenafil in viagra price in india and cause physical complications are Multaq, Noxafil, Monoket, Viracept, etc. How to use? It is advised to take 1-2 capsules of Patanjali Ashwashila capsule along with milk or water for 3 to 4 months to get large semen volume but some are ending up in pain and side order generic viagra effects of allopathic remedies.
While Sweden (which is considering joining NATO) and Poland have increased their defense budgets, the rest of the alliance adopted drastic cuts since the fall of the USSR.

The 2012 Brookings analysis emphasized:

“The majority of middle-sized EU countries have introduced military spending cuts of 10 to 15 percent on average. And several of the smaller EU member states have reduced their defense spending by more than 20 percent, leading to the loss of entire military capabilities.

“According to Andrew Dorman, although the United Kingdom has officially cut its defense budget by 7.5 percent over four years, in reality the reduction is nearly 25 percent. As a result, amongst its significant equipment cuts, Britain is giving up the ability to fly planes off aircraft carriers for a decade…

“the German government is planning numerous cuts within its military arsenal. These include reselling 13 A400M transport aircraft, even though Germany is likely to have to pay significant indemnities to its partners in the A400M program.

“France is the only big European country which has so far largely shielded its defense budget from the financial crisis… France has so far avoided cancelling any large acquisitions programs…”

The growing inability of NATO to engage in effective military action was demonstrated in the action to depose Muammar Quadafi. In the Libyan action, European nations had great difficulty in mounting operations against a relatively weak and unsophisticated foe.

It is not just on the land mass of the European continent, with smaller armies and air forces, that NATO has become significantly less potent.  At sea, the diminishment of NATO countries navies, including the reduction of the worldwide American fleet from 600 ships to only 284, presents a key challenge, as does the rise of significant new maritime threats.  An American Enterprise Institute study noted:

“China’s naval renaissance impacts NATO nations’ force-structure decisions. As the United States turns more of its interest to the Pacific, baseline security requirements in the Mediterranean will become more important to Europe’s NATO navies, perhaps creating greater incentive to resource them. Additionally, both France and the United Kingdom see themselves as global nations with global interests that extend far into the Pacific. If these nations perceive China’s rise as threatening these interests, they will likely find their navies too small to provide any real impact, given the great distances involved and the paucity of ships to maintain constant presence. There is a real tension between global presence and a “balanced fleet,” one that currently only the United States is able to resolve, and barely that.”

NATO SOUGHT TO REASSURE RUSSIA

 NATO has been particularly sensitive to Moscow’s perspective during the period following the fall of the Soviet Union, even in the aftermath of the Georgian and Ukrainian invasions. It refrained from establishing a significant presence within the territory of its eastern members, so much so that those nations have requested far more protection. It’s patrols in that area have been minimal.

The European Voice publication noted Poland’s reaction to this: “As the United States winds down its military presence in Europe, NATO is getting weaker, not stronger. Poland is worried about this. It has started a big military modernisation, based on the (unstated) assumption that it may have to fight alone.”

A Lexington Institute study  concluded in February noted:

“The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is struggling to transition from a deployed Alliance focused on conducting significant counterinsurgency

operations, to a responsive Alliance prepared to react to any number of demanding and unpredictable contingencies…Yet the ability of the Alliance to meet current obligations as well as future operational and technological requirements is open to serious doubts. For more than two decades, NATO spending on defense has declined to levels today that are perilously close to disarmament. Senior U.S. officials have repeatedly warned NATO that its failure to invest adequately and appropriately in defense places the future of the Alliance at risk…

“[Europe] is militarily weaker and more divided on issues of security and the use of force than it has been since the end of World War Two. both the spectrum of potential crises NATO must face and their geographic diversity continue to increase. The U.S military draw down and the pivot to Asia will stress Washington’s ability to commit forces to NATO. Not only is NATO defense spending continuing to decline and the Alliance’s force structures continuing to shrink but decisions regarding the character of residual forces and the allocation of remaining defense resources are skewed in ways that make it more difficult to deploy effective military power, particularly for expeditionary activities of significant scale. NATO has had to reduce the size of its core crisis response capability, the NATO Response Force (NRF). The lack of coordination among national ministries of defense on force structure changes and modernization programs makes it difficult to ensure adequate capabilities in some areas while there are clear surfeits in others. Non-U.S. NATO continues to lag in its investments in critical enablers for modern, knowledge-intensive power projection military operations.”

CONCLUSION

 While Russia invests heavily in military hardware, expands the power of its strategic and tactical forces on land, sea, and in the air, gains a vastly powerful new ally in China, and engages in aggressive actions, NATO remains underfunded with deteriorating capabilities and, under the Obama Administration, increasingly questionable support from the United States.

It is a blueprint tailor-made to invite aggression.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Pretending that threats don’t exist

The state of world crises can be summarized in a single sentence: While Russia and China rapidly and substantively build their military might to unprecedented levels of strength and skill, the United States and its allies continue to slash their funding on defense.

The net effect is obvious and worrisome. Both China and Russia, and their surrogates Iran and North Korea, have taken note of this new world order, and are acting without the balance of power restraint that has prevented a world war since 1945.

The Obama Administration has engaged in a suicidal game of “let’s pretend.”  Consistently, in the face of all reality and evidence, it continues to discount the clearly rising possibility of major conflict.  It virtually ignored China’s assault on the Philippines in 2012, in which Beijing’s naval vessels claimed portions of Manila’s exclusive economic zone.  It completely failed to respond to Moscow’s assault on the Ukraine   with the two most important effective tools at its disposal: a cessation of the budget cuts to the U.S. military, and the development of federal land energy assets that would have diminished Russia’s main source of income, gas and oil sales.

The President talks tough.  He announced a pivot to Asia, but doesn’t have the naval assets  to make that strategy anything more than just talk.  He announces his support for NATO, but withdrew all American tanks  from the European continent.
What did they do in the favor of cost of viagra pills promotion? Yes they inserted the entertainment on its behalf that worked more even in persuading the pill. viagra has to win the mind of the male consumers; in its entertainment it targeted the male consumers by placing male characters in the cool manner. Get at least 15 minutes of sunshine to levitra low price get vitamin D, if this level is low. Semal Musli boosts male health as well as energy levels to participate in lovemaking viagra sample pills with enhanced enthusiasm to enjoy enhanced pleasure in the climax. It can happen after taking antibiotics, some medications, eating many sugars, or cialis generika drinking soda, using alcohol, etc.
The White House has announced its plans to reduce the already antiquated American nuclear arsenal,  and continues to oppose the full implementation of an American anti-ballistic missile system.  However, it refuses to make an issue of Moscow’s own developed ABM system.  It accepts, without protest, the Kremlin’s ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear arms.

When the USSR began placing theater nuclear missiles in Europe during the latter half of the 20th century, President Reagan countered with the U.S. Pershing missile.  Moscow saw it would gain no advantage, and an agreement by both sides was reached stopping deployment of such weapons. The Obama Administration didn’t follow this example, and now Russia’s ISKANDER missiles, unopposed, threaten Europe.  While Putin has committed over $700 billion to new armaments over its already large budget and China spends vastly more each year, the White House continues to seek defense budget cuts.

It’s not a question of hawks or doves, or even of domestic budget priorities.  It’s reality vs. let’s pretend.

Categories
NY Analysis

Can NATO Survive?

After a successful conclusion to the Cold War, can the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) regroup to respond to the new threat from Moscow?

Vladimir Putin’s intentions were made clear in a telling comment by Andranik Migranyan, head of the Kremlin-controlled “Institute for Democracy and Cooperation” reported in the Fiscal Times in response to analogies between Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and Germany’s in the 1930’s:

“One must distinguish between Hitler before 1939 and Hitler after 1939…the thing is that Hitler collected [German] lands.  If he had become famous only for uniting  without a drop of blood Germany with Austria, Sudetenland and Memel, in fact completing  what Bismarck failed to do, and if he had stopped there, then he would have remained a politician of the highest class.”

Moscow’s worrisome military moves are not restricted to former Soviet satellites.  In December, the Kremlin confirmed  that it had deployed ISKANDER tactical nuclear missiles on NATO’s border. The move was not in response to any western action.

There have also been a number of incidents in which Moscow’s nuclear-capable bombers and submarines have come threateningly close to the airspace and coasts of NATO nations both in Europe and the United States.

Richard Perle, former chair of the Defense Policy Board for President George W. Bush and current fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, recently stated in a Newsmax interview that Putin is attempting to “put Humpty Dumpty back together again and re-create something that looks like the old Soviet Empire.”

NATO’s forces have shrunk considerably since the end of the Cold War, symbolized by the diminishing military budgets of both European nations and the United States.  The United States has also unilaterally withdrawn all of its most vital land weapons, tanks, from the European continent.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in early 2014, which the United States and the European Union say violated international law, will likely poison relations with NATO for the foreseeable future. “We clearly face the gravest threat to European security since the end of the Cold War,” said Secretary-General Rasmussen of Russia’s intervention.

Russia’s invasions of Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014, as well as its deployment of ISKANDER tactical nuclear weapons to its European border, have brought back the threat most had thought vanished with the fall of the Soviet Union.  But NATO’s individual governments, including most importantly the United States, have slashed military budgets.

NATO’s sharp reduction in forces, even in the face of increasing threats, has brought into question the viability of the alliance.  A 2012 Brookings Institute study

“There have long been debates about the sustainability of the transatlantic alliance and accusations amongst allies of unequal contributions to burden-sharing. But since countries on both sides of the Atlantic have begun introducing new – and often major – military spending cuts in response to the economic crisis, concerns about the future of transatlantic defense cooperation have become more pronounced.

Erectile dysfunction is termed as a sexual disorder which needs cheap 25mg viagra to be cured on time to avoid any kind of complication, it is advisable to avoid heavy meals before taking the tablet. It may take you away from your favorite sport, hobby levitra tab 20mg check out for more info or going out with family or friends. Vaginal or menopause boredom can accomplish acute sex acutely aching and this can accomplish women abstain accepting sex. cipla viagra online And, once again, this man took on the role of excess sugar and salt in triggering breast cancer causes. generic levitra online appalachianmagazine.com “A growing number of senior officials are now publicly questioning the future of NATO. In June 2011, in the midst of NATO’s operation in Libya, Robert Gates, then US Defense Secretary, stated that Europe faced the prospect of “collective military irrelevance” and that unless the continent stemmed the deterioration of its armed forces, NATO faced a “dim, if not dismal Future.” Ivo Daalder, the US Permanent  Representative to NATO, and James Stavridis, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, have argued that “if defense spending continues to decline, NATO may not be able to replicate its success in Libya in another decade.”

“The alliance’s Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has warned that “if European defense spending cuts continue, Europe’s ability to be a stabilizing force even in its neighborhood will rapidly disappear.” While Norwegian Defense Minister Espen Barth Eide has claimed that “exercises have shown that NATO’s ability to conduct conventional military operations has markedly declined. […] Not only is NATO’s ability to defend its member states questionable, it might actually deteriorate further as financial pressures in Europe and the US force cuts in military spending”

Russia’s aggression represents a disappointing end result for NATO’s numerous attempts to establish a relationship with Moscow based on a post-Cold War (or “Cold War 1” as it is becoming known) era of cooperation rather than confrontation.  According to a recent NATO document, 

“Over the past twenty years, NATO has consistently worked for closer cooperation and trust with Russia.  However, Russia has violated international law and acted in contradiction with the principles and commitments in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council Basic Document,   the NATO-Russia Founding Act,  and the Rome Declaration.   It has gravely breached the trust upon which NATO-Russia cooperation must be based.”

Russia’s NATO envoy, Aleksandr Grushko, responded in a statement reported in the Russian publication RT that “…NATO still has a double standard policy. And Cold War stereotypes are still applied towards Russia…”

NATO turned 65 in 2014, a year that also marks the 15th, 10th, and 5th anniversary of members who joined since the end of the Cold War, enlarging the alliance to a total of 28 member states. It is, arguably, the most successful military alliance in history, winning its original goal of preventing a Soviet invasion, without having to actually go to war.

NATO currently conducts 5 active missions: peacekeeping in Kosovo, anti-terrorism patrols in the Mediterranean, anti-piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Horn of Africa, assistance to the African Union in Somalia, and fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. But it is the Russian threat that looms largest.  NATO seems unprepared to deal with.

Particularly under Vladimir Putin, Russia, despite numerous NATO overtures for peace and cooperation, has viewed NATO’s growth with anger.  Moscow, which spends a greater percentage of its GDP   (4.1%) on defense than either the U.S. (2.4%) or NATO nations (averaging about 2%)  maintains that it opposes NATO growth because it views it as a threat to its nation, despite all evidence to the contrary. A more accurate analysis indicates that the alliance prevents the Kremlin from re-forming the Soviet Empire in a different format.

The Council of Foreign Relations  notes that NATO’s Bucharest summit in the spring of 2008 sharply deepened the distrust. The alliance delayed “Membership Action Plans” for Ukraine and Georgia but declared its support for eventual full membership for both, despite repeated warnings from Russia of political and military consequences. Russia’s invasion of Georgia in the summer, following Georgian shelling of South Ossetia after what it termed an occupation by Russian forces, was a clear signal of Moscow’s intentions to protect and enlarge what it sees as its sphere of influence.

Many had hope that Moscow’s opposition to NATO’s growth had been resolved in 1997, when the alliance and Russia adopted a security agreement in which Moscow consented to NATO’s growth in return for a promise that masses of troops, equipment or nuclear missiles would not be placed on Russia border. The hope was not realized.

The Report continues next week.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Last US tanks leave Europe

The news is quite startling: There are no longer any American tanks stationed in Europe. The story has been largely ignored by the major media. The information was provided in an article in the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes.

According to the Department of Defense, at its peak, Germany, the main center of NATO activity during the first Cold War, was home to 20 U.S. armored divisions, with about 6,000 tanks. Despite the glaring revival of threats from Moscow, the United States no longer has any tanks, the pivotal weapon in land combat, stationed on the entire continent. The entire combined tank forces of all NATO nations on the European continent (including the United Kingdom and Turkey) does not come close to equaling Russian numbers.

Mr. Obama’s extreme views on the lack of need for tanks became an issue in the 2012 campaign, when vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan  criticized the President’s attempt to shut down the only American plant that produces them.

For those who believe that airpower can be used to deter the massive advantage Russia has in tanks, there is further bad news: Washington is seriously considering retiring the Air Force’s tank-killing fighter, the A-10 “Warthog.” According to Defense Secretary Hagel’s February statement,  “The A-10’s age is also making it much more difficult and costly to maintain. Significant savings are only possible through eliminating the entire fleet, because of the fixed cost of maintaining the support apparatus associated with that aircraft. Keeping a smaller number of A-10s would only delay the inevitable while forcing worse trade-offs elsewhere.”
Though there are many products and techniques in the market that will provide you complete satisfaction during generic viagra your intimate moments. Causes of ED * High blood pressure* High cholesterol* Diabetes* generic sample viagra Obesity* ArteriosclerosisMany a time these symptoms are temporary, it vanishes within few hours of consumption. discount viagra cialis If you hit that critical time in your life where your health is as delicate as your body, Neo40 is your best bet to get you kicking it without straining your body. Fortunately, there are numbers of herbal supplements to eliminate sexual weakness can be now available at different online stores dealing with sildenafil pills davidfraymusic.com herbal supplements.
There are no new weapons systems or innovative methods coming on line that will take over the tank’s front-line tasks.  Indeed, even if there were, there are no funds available to fund them. Another armored development program, the Ground Combat vehicle, a multi-purpose platform, has been defunded.

According to current plans, by 2020, there will be only 30,000 American troops in Europe, approximately one-tenth of the maximum strength during the first Cold War. This spring, further cuts to U.S. military infrastructure in Europe will be presented.

These actions take place in the face of massive new funding for the Russian military, as well as exceptionally aggressive behavior on the part of the Kremlin.

Categories
Quick Analysis

What the Cook Incident Reveals

What is the practical meaning of yesterday’s revelation that a Russian FENCER jet fighter made twelve low level passes over the U.S.S. Donald Cook, a destroyer, in international waters on the Black Sea?

The incident takes place as Russian military forces are positioned to illegally seize more Ukrainian territory, and Moscow-supported agent provocateurs foment chaos in the eastern portion of that nation. These factors represent the immediate background leading to the increasingly tense relations between U.S. forces in Europe and Russia’s military. However, larger issues play a key and perhaps even larger role than Moscow’s Crimean anschluss.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, both western and Russian military forces were significantly reduced.  NATO, of course, grew in membership and geography as the Kremlin’s Warsaw Pact disintegrated, and the vast Red Army returned home to Russia.

But while the west gained significantly, it also slashed its own defense structure. American military cuts were dramatic.  The navy has reached its smallest size since before World War I, and the Air Force is smaller than at any time in its history, flying aircraft that are exceptionally old. The American nuclear arsenal is dangerously antiquated and inadequately tested.

Since the Obama Administration took office, this situation has become significantly worse. A further $1.3 trillion has been slashed from the ten-year defense budget. Geopolitically, the rise of China has made America’s national security posture far more challenged and vulnerable.
It reduces the pressure of blood by inhibiting buy levitra phosphodiesteras-5. After understanding what causes TMJ cialis no prescription uk thought about that disorders, it is essential to look after atherosclerosis and other causes. It canada viagra generic also ensures supply of oxygen and nutrients to the nerve. cheap viagra Calis can be ingested with or without a meal.
NATO has followed a similar course of disinvestment in armed strength.

The picture from Moscow is significantly different. Under Vladimir Putin, Russia’s conventional and strategic armed forces have undergone a renaissance.  A comprehensive modernization program fueled by extraordinary amounts of cash has produced an exceptionally well-equipped and capable military.

That rejuvenated armed force has flexed its muscles through invasions into Georgia and Crimea, and a return to military cooperation with Cuba and other Latin American nations.

The harassment of the U.S.S. Donald Cook was an indication of the changing positions of the military positions of the America and Russia, Moscow’s improved geopolitical fortunes, and the Kremlins’ growing confidence in its newly developed strength.