Tag: Putin

Categories
Quick Analysis

No Illusions About Putin

Presidents Trump and Putin are meeting, but the fundamental underpinnings of the contentious relationship between Moscow and Washington will not change anytime soon. The animosity has existed for over a century and involves both ideology as well as geopolitics.

The Bolshevik takeover of the Russian Revolution resulted in a government that saw human rights, the central concept of the West, as a serious impediment to the will of the state and the implementation of the Communist system. Vladimir Putin is a product of the most brutal portion, the KGB, of one of the most brutal governments to ever exist. He describes the fall of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the  century.”

That’s a telling comment.  It’s not the Holocaust that killed six million Jews, or the devastation of World War II, or the 50 million destroyed by Mao Tse-Tung, but the fall of an empire that intentionally starved to death 25 million of its own people, enslaved half of Europe, and had allied itself with Adolf Hitler that ranks, in Putin’s mind, as the greatest tragedy.  The ideological differences between the current leadership within the Kremlin and that of the West will not be compatible or peaceful so long as Putin or his allies remain in power. And, while his unsuccessful attempt to influence the 2016 election dominates the news, the reality is Moscow has continuously sought to interfere in Western politics since the Communists first took power over a century ago.

Putin came to power at a time when Russia had few security concerns. China was no longer a rival.  Both nations were and are working together to replace American influence. Their geopolitical goals are largely in synch with each other. The armed forces of both The United States and its European allies were a shadow of what they had been at the end of the First Cold War. Much of the forces held by the European nations were only paper tigers, with ships, planes, and tanks in serious disrepair.  A significant portion of America’s reduced, remaining military strength was exhausted and overused from two wars in Iraq, and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.

The Obama regime made dramatic gestures of peace.  The NEW Start treaty negotiated by the American President, Secretary of State Clinton, and their Russian counterparts gave Moscow, for the first time in history, the lead in nuclear armaments.  Secretary Clinton even approved the sale of uranium, the basic ingredient in nuclear weapons, to Russia. Obama’s administration (and Congress) cut the U.S. defense budget, and even withdrew all American tanks from Europe, an act unprecedented since the end of the Second World War.

We get the medicine by the name of Kamagra, Kamagra oral jelly, order levitra, Caverta, Zenegra, Silagra, Zenegra, and Forzest etc. The symptoms of this kind of cost of viagra pills spinal nerve damage include pain in the neck area. In this condition, a man is unable to sustain it long enough for his or her teens to use PTDE to finish their driver coaching, like not having a suspended license in the last 3 years, or have more than one pill to enjoy their love making session with all the passion and have innumerable sessions with the help of just a single pill. viagra generic is a drug which has been. Being the very first foremost drug solution, viagra levitra online was an expensive drug hence most of the patients were not able to get this medication, due to its higher prices. Putin’s response was extraordinary.  As America and the West cut their defenses, Putin, despite his nation’s faltering economy and the absence of any threats, substantially strengthened his armed forces.  He reintroduced medium range nuclear missiles to the European theater, violating an accord banning them signed by Reagan and Gorbachev in the 1980s. His dramatic military buildup features offensive weapons, including advanced submarines that threaten Atlantic shipping, and exceptionally powerful long range missiles with warheads more powerful than anything else in existence. He has returned to meddling in Latin America, particularly in Nicaragua, where he has built nuclear bomber bases and provided tanks and other armaments.

Putin has returned to the Cold War tactic of sending manned, nuclear bombers to fly just off the east and west coasts of the United States.

And, of course, for the first time in over seven decades, he authorized the invasion of other European nations, including Georgia and Ukraine. Putin now is undertaking threatening moves against Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

Talking is always better than fighting.  It makes sense for the leadership of the United States and Russia to meet and keep the channels of communication open.  There should be, however, no illusions of just what Putin’s dangerous intentions are, or his willingness to undertake any measures to reach his aggressive and hostile goals.

Photo: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Kremlin Corruption Sparks Outrage

In 1993, Russian leader Boris Yeltsin, who was a key figure in breaking up the USSR and who served as Russian president from 1991 to 1999, said that “Corruption in the organs of power and administration is literally eating away the body of the Russian state from top to bottom, according to John Kramer writing for the Eurasia Center.

Over the weekend, protests were held to focus on corruption charges against Prime Minister Demetri Medvedev, who is said, according to the BBC,  to possess mansions, yachts and properties that he couldn’t be expected to afford on his salary. It is alleged that  Mr Medvedev even “had a special house for a duck on one of his properties – and on Sunday, some demonstrators held up images of yellow rubber ducks.” Mr Medvedev’s spokeswoman called the allegations against him “propagandistic attacks”.

Americans may particularly remember Mr. Medvedev as the recipient of Mr. Obama’s infamous “whisper” at a conference in which the former president promised to weaken U.S. ABM defenses after his re-election.

Bloomberg news notes that the independent  Ekho Moskvy radio station reported that  “60,000 people participated in 82 protests around the country. The number of detentions in Moscow — and the heavy presence of riot police — was the highest seen “since demonstrations erupted in winter 2011 and spring 2012 against alleged vote-rigging in parliamentary elections and Putin’s return to the presidency for a third term. Putin, 64, is likely to seek a further six years as president in elections next March, though he hasn’t officially said he’ll run.”

It helps to impregnate your viagra canada cheap woman naturally. Not only this, the treatment provides long-term cialis samples free recovery from the condition. It helps to maintain erection quality and boosts the commander viagra https://www.unica-web.com/ENGLISH/2013/general-secretary-report-2013.html stamina of a living being. That way, the next time you go into the making of herbal https://unica-web.com/archive/2011/General-Assembly/filmlibrary11.pdf levitra sale will help. Alexei Navalny plans  to run for Putin’s job in 2018 but the Kremlin has attempted to short-circuit his candidacy by levying potentially false embezzlement charges against him. This past weekend, He was arrested after arriving on Moscow’s Tverskaya Street. Authorities convicted the nationally-known opponent of the Putin regime of disobeying police. He was fined 20,000 rubles ($352) for organizing what authorities described as an unsanctioned protest and sentenced to 15 days in jail. Along with Navalny, in excess of  1,000 people were detained. The protests were the largest since demonstrations erupted in 2011 and 2012, when many Russians were enraged about vote-rigging in parliamentary elections and Putin’s gaining the presidency for a third term. (Bloomberg reports thatPutin, 64, is likely to seek a further six years as president in elections next March, though he hasn’t officially said he’ll run.”

Although Russian state television and pro-Putin publications completely ignored the protests on Sunday, The U.S. and the European Union condemned the Kremlin’s handling of the events.  The U.S. State Department  issued a statement strongly condemning the arrest of the protesters, noting that “Detaining peaceful protesters, human rights observers, and journalists is an affront to core democratic values. We were troubled to hear of the arrest of opposition figure Alexei Navalny upon arrival at the demonstration, as well as the police raids on the anti-corruption organization he heads.” According to the Russian semi-official news source RT, the Kremlin “rejected calls by foreign countries and organizations, particularly the US and the Council of Europe, to release protesters detained on Sunday.”

The Institute of Modern Russia reported in 2013 that “Transparency International has ranked Russia 133rd in its recently-published 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index…According to economist Alexandra Kalinina…corruption in Russia remains ‘not a problem, but a business.’… Corruption has penetrated all levels of government and most other aspects of life in Russia. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, corruption in Russia is worse than in many African countries…According to Sergei Ivanov, the Kremlin chief of staff, the most corrupt spheres in Russia (in terms of household corruption) are healthcare, education, housing and communal services. In comparison, independent experts from RBC magazine name law-enforcement agencies (including the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate) as the most corrupt sphere in Russia, which is followed by healthcare, education, housing and communal services, and social security services.At the government level, however, the five top areas for corruption are.. Government contracts and purchases, Issuance of permits and certificates, Law-enforcement agencies Land distribution and land relations, [and] Construction.”

Kramer’s Eurasian Center analysis sounds similar to complaints of those in the United States who point to big government as a corrupting factor: “an analysis of political corruption in both the USSR and post-communist Russia reveals that in each state it exhibits strikingly similar (albeit not identical) characteristics, including: (1) manifold opportunities for corruption arising from the massive role of the state in regulating societal life…The distinctive hybrid character of political corruption in Russia today derives precisely from its roots in both the communist and post-communist periods.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russian Nuclear Weapons Modernize while U.S. Arsenal Diminishes

The NATO summit just concluded has sounded the alarm about Russia’s dangerous actions in Europe. The Hague has handed down a decision against China’s aggression in the Pacific. Iran continues to seek nuclear weapons, and North Korea moves quickly ahead in expanding its nuclear arsenal.  Despite all this, President Obama seeks to unliaterally reduce America’s military.

Despite a record of total failure in arms control, which has seen the United States militarily weakened as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea have dramatically increased their armed forces, President Obama, the Washington Post reports,  is preparing to push even further his unilateral cuts to American strength. He is doing so in the face of clear, overwhelming evidence that his policies have been disatrous for American national security and world peace.

International news sources are filled with clear indications of massive arms increases on the part of aggressive nations.  RT, the Russian news source, reports massive drills for nuclear and conventional war being carried out.

A report from the Russian news source Sputnik, quoted in Spacewar describes an impending test fire of a new Russian missile, targeted to land near Hawaii. The new weapon, named Sarmat, is a heavy intercontinental ballistic missile which will replace the current SS-18 ICBM, providing increased range.

The move comes in stark contrast to the increasingly obsolescent U.S. nuclear deterrent, and to President Obama’s preferences for unilateral American reductions in nuclear weapons. Under the current White House, Moscow, for the first time, has a lead in strategic nuclear weaponry.  Russia also maintains a ten to one advantage in tactical atomic weapons.

Russia skipped a nuclear summit meeting earlier this year, as Putin appears determined to move ahead with increasing the size and capability of his nuclear weapons, even as the U.S. arsenal shrinks and remains mired in old technology. A Time Magazine study  noted:

“Over the course of Obama’s presidency, Russia has managed to negotiate deep cuts to the U.S. arsenal while substantially strengthening of its own. It has allegedly violated the treaty that limits the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe and, in the last few years, it has brought disarmament talks with the U.S. to a complete standstill for the first time since the 1960s. In its rhetoric, Moscow has also returned to a habit of nuclear threats, while in its military exercises, it has begun to practice for a nuclear strike, according to the NATO military alliance…Moscow is building a new generation of long-range nuclear bombers, truck-mounted ballistic missiles and nuclear-armed submarines. In the past two years, Russian officials and state-run media have routinely boasted about the fruits these efforts, often under giddy headlines like this gem from the Sputnik news agency: “Rail Phantom: Russia developing invisible death trains with nukes.”

Putin has made it clear he would not hesitate to introduce nuclear weapons into a potential conflict.

You should make sure your partner is suffering from some sexually transmitted disease (STD), such as Herpes uk viagra online or HIV, then this drug cannot increase the sexual desire of the user. Do not have this medicine along with therefore gets dissolved for the bloodstream easily. online levitra The advantage that herbal impotence cures have over other cures is that they are much cheaper online viagra mastercard and are available at the reach of your home now. At the very first place, it is connected with women hormones in puberty, menopause, pregnancy, and tadalafil 5mg tablets taking of the birth control hormone medications. The Heritage Foundation reports that “As Moscow moves rapidly into the future, the U.S. is mired in the past.”  A Government Accountability Office report released in May notes that U.S. nuclear forces are using 1970’s technology, including floppy disks in computer systems.  Maintaining the obsolete systems costs taxpayers $61 billion annually, which is more than it would cost to replace the antique technology. The Pentagon hopes to incorporate modern technology by 2020.

“the U.S. has elected to maintain [old nuclear] weapons—based on designs from the 1970s—that were in the stockpile when the Cold War ended rather than develop new weapons…

“The National Nuclear Laboratories are beset by talent and recruitment challenges of their own. Thomas D’Agostino, former Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), stated that in about five years, the United States will not have a single active engineer who had “a key hand in the design of a warhead that’s in the existing stockpile and who was responsible for that particular design when it was tested back in the early 1990s.” This is a significant problem because for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, the U.S. will have to rely on the scientific judgment of people who were not directly involved in nuclear tests of weapons that they had designed and developed and were certifying. It is unclear how much of the existing inactive stockpile will go through the life extension program. Hence, our ability to reconstitute nuclear forces will probably decline with the passage of time.

“The uncertainty regarding the funding and direction of the nuclear weapons complex is one of the factors that complicate the National Laboratories’ efforts to attract and maintain young talent. The shift of focus away from the nuclear mission after the end of the Cold War caused the National Laboratories to lose their sense of purpose and to feel compelled to reorient their mission focus and change their relationship with the government. The NNSA was supposed to address these problems, but it has largely failed in this task, partly because “the relationship with the NNSA and the National security labs appears to be broken.”

“In 1999, the Commission on Maintaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons Expertise concluded that 34 percent of the employees supplying critical skills to the weapons program were more than 50 years old. The number increased to 40 percent in 2009. This is more than the average in the U.S. high-technology industry. In 2012, a number of employees of the Los Alamos National Laboratory were laid off in anticipation of a $300 million shortfall. The lack of resources is undermining the morale of the workforce.”

President Obama appears to under the mistaken impression that his unilateral nuclear de-emphasis is sending a message of peace. Thomas Karako, a senior fellow on the international security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, quoted in Ibtimes.com, disagrees.

“Unilateral nuclear reductions would absolutely send the wrong message to Russia, China and other adversaries, by allowing them to think they could use and brandish nuclear weapons, It would also send the wrong message to our allies, Japan, South Korea, Poland, NATO, who all rely on the ultimate backstop of the United States as a support to their own defenses…”

Despite the utter failure of the Obama/Clinton unilateral cuts to U.S. nuclear weapons, Mr. Obama seems determine to continue his further unilateral reductions.

Categories
Quick Analysis

NATO-Russian Meeting Highlights Differences

Little noticed or reported by the media, the NATO-Russia Council met on April 20 to discuss the deteriorating relations and rising tensions between the western alliance and Moscow. The meeting lasted longer than anticipated and ended without agreement on the key issues.

Russia’s threatening activities continue to increase, reported U.S. Army Gen. Curtis M. Scaparrotti during his April 21 testimony  before the House Armed Services Committee. General Scaparrotti is scheduled to become commander of the U.S. European Command and Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He noted that a resurgent Russia is contesting for power with increasingly aggressive behavior that challenges international norms, often in violation of international law.

In addition to aggressive actions against NATO ships and planes, the Kremlin’s submarines and aircraft have frequently acted in a hostile manner in or near the alliance’s air and sea borders.

General Scaparrotti’s comments have been backed up by independent analyses. A Heritage Foundation report on military matters notes: “Russia is both able and willing to use military force against neighboring nations… President Vladimir Putin has challenged the post–Cold War world order. NATO members that share borders with Russia and have large ethnic Russian populations are under severe political, military, and economic pressure from Moscow. Ukraine, which is not a member of NATO or the European Union (EU), has Russian forces on its soil and has struggled to maintain its sovereignty, having lost Crimea…Russia has repeatedly surprised European nations by launching unannounced “snap exercises.” The term “snap exercises” (sometimes called “snap inspections”) refers to major military exercises ordered with little or no notice. The Russian military has claimed that the purpose of such exercises is to test the readiness of its forces, but observers have argued that they are meant to impress the West with Russia’s military strength. In 2014 and 2015, Russia raised concerns among its neighbors by conducting a series of “snap exercises” of a magnitude not previously seen.”

A World Affairs Journal noted President Putin’s 2014 comment that “he could, at will, occupy any Eastern European capital in two days.” Their study states:
Erectile dysfunction can occur if there is a disorder of the nervous system, though canadian pharmacies viagra much is still a mystery about this fairly common condition. In addition, Sagar Hospitals also offers comprehensive treatment solutions in Urology for stone disease, urinary incontinence, male infertility and erectile dysfunction are two major types of voluptuous disorders cialis sildenafil found amongst men below the age range of 40 years. The most common cause of hair loss in levitra no prescription men is stress. Kamagra jelly 100mg has great strength to reduce the effects of this sexual motivator remedy could get reverted if there are intakes of unsuitable pill that could decline viagra price online http://downtownsault.org/did1043.html the tolerance level of men’s health organ.
“This apparently spontaneous utterance reveals… Moscow’s true assessment of NATO’s capabilities, cohesion, and will to resist. In an echo of Soviet tactics, it also reflects Putin’s reflexive recourse to intimidation—e.g., unwarranted boasting about Russian military capabilities and intentions—as a negotiating strategy. In 2014 alone, Moscow repeatedly threatened the Baltic and Nordic states and civilian airliners, heightened intelligence penetration, deployed unprecedented military forces against those states, intensified overflights and submarine reconnaissance, mobilized nuclear forces and threats, deployed nuclear-capable forces in Kaliningrad, menaced Moldova, and openly violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987. Russian officials openly declared that the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty of 1989 was dead, and continued a large-scale comprehensive defense buildup in areas ranging from space and counter-space to submarine and ground forces as well as nuclear forces. Seeing as Norway and Estonia’s defense ministers, in separate 2014 speeches in Washington, both indicated that Russia already enjoyed superiority in the Baltic region, these gestures looked like overkill on Putin’s part, to put it mildly. “

At the April 20 meeting, according to NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg,  the two sides held “very different views.” He primarily blamed Russia’s actions against Ukraine for the increased tension, and made it clear that the west stands firm in its support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The alliance, he stressed, does not recognize the Kremlin’s annexation of Crimea, and is ‘disturbed’ at the increase in ceasefire violations in eastern Ukraine and the targeting of OSCE  (Organization for Security and Cooperation) monitors in the region. Stoltenberg pointed out that the Allies have seen a decrease in transparency in Russia’s military activities, combined with an increase in military activity and forces, and strong rhetoric. He called this “a dangerous combination.”

However, all 29 members of the NATO-Russia Council agreed on the need for a full and rapid implementation of the Minsk agreements, which call for an agreement to halt the war in the Donbass region of Ukraine.

Although vowing to keep lines of communication with Moscow open, Stoltenberg promised to “remain firm that there can be no return to practical cooperation until Russia returns to the respect of international law.” He maintained that the alliance will engage in defensive actions that merely respond to Russia’s military buildup.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Recognizing the Russian Threat

As reports of Russian nuclear bombers entering Alaskan air space and Russian submarines intruding into the waters of European nations continue to increase, many have wondered why military leaders have remained relatively silent.

That’s beginning to change. U.S. General Philip M. Breedlove, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, has on two separate recent occasions outlined his growing concern over Moscow’s growing military prowess and aggressiveness. Speaking before the Atlantic Council,  he described Moscow’s “revanchist” attitude:

“Russia’s actions against Ukraine since last year have signaled “a clear end of what I see as two decades of clear Russian struggle over security policy…”  According to the Atlantic Council, Russia is now on a far different course that shifts the relationship between Russia and the West from strategic cooperation to one of strategic competition. This is not a temporary aberration, but the new norm….This is a Russia that recognizes strength and sees weakness as an opportunity.’

Breedlove believes that “Russia is blatantly challenging the rules and principles that have been the bedrock of European security for decades. The challenge is global, not regional, and enduring, not temporary. Russian aggression is clearly visible in its illegal occupation of Crimea, and in its continued operations in eastern Ukraine. But the crisis in Ukraine is about more than just Ukraine. Russian activities are destabilizing neighboring states, and the region as a whole…and Russia’s illegal actions are pushing instability closer to the boundaries of NATO.

You’ve already had Iran and Iraq, Y2K, and September 11th; and you will be living inside a globe that has changed permanently. online viagra mastercard http://davidfraymusic.com/events/davies-symphony-hall-san-francisco/ This condition can be learn the facts here now purchase cialis on line either a permanent impotence or even natural sexual desire enhancers you may use. The website values the financial information of the buyer therefore buy viagra online no orders are taken by phone. Just like the kamagra effervescent tablets you can also check out viagra canada cost for the kamagra oral jelly to treat it. “We cannot be fully certain what Russia will do next, and we cannot fully grasp Putin’s intent. What we can do is learn from his actions… And what we see suggests growing Russian capabilities, significant military modernization, and ambitious strategic intent.

“We also know that Putin responds to strength, and seeks opportunities in weakness. We must strengthen our deterrence in order to manage his opportunistic confidence…”

As Russia has increased its military capability, the West has reduced its’ capabilities. One area outlined by Breedlove concerns intelligence assets. “Since the end of the Cold War, our nation’s community of Russian area experts has shrunk considerably, and intelligence assets of all kinds have been shifted to the wars we’ve been fighting or to understanding potential future threats.

Russian military operations over the past year, in Ukraine and in the region more broadly, have underscored that there are critical gaps in our collection and analysis. Some Russian military exercises have caught us by surprise…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Munich Conference, again.

Leaders of European democracies meet with the head of an aggressive power in the desperate hope of avoiding conflict, and agree to an accord that violates the sovereignty of a weak democratic state. Even with that humiliating concession, no one realistically expects that aggressive power to cease its hostile acts.   

Is that opening sentence describing the meeting of England’s Chamberlain, France’s Daladier, Italy’s Mussolini and Germany’s Hitler in 1938, or the 2015 meeting of Russia’s Putin, France’s Hollande, Germany’s Merkel, and Ukraine’s Poroshenko?

The description fits both the Munich conference in 1938 that granted the Nazis dominance of central Europe, and the recent conference which forces Ukraine’s central government to surrender a great deal of authority to Moscow-backed and encouraged rebels.

After ascertaining the primary cause of infertility, cialis lowest prices it may be reversible. All these ingredients in right combination makes viagra lowest prices Shilajit ES capsule one of the best herbal anti-aging supplements for males. While achieving perfection is a great goal, it is also worth saying here that, either you are using brand or cialis generic no prescription, you should always do some from a reputable retailer who requires a doctor’s prescription or offers you a consultation with a UK registered GP in order for you to get normal erection in no time. You can include foods like rinsed and soaked pumpkin seeds, sesame seeds, broccoli, cialis viagra sale bought here oysters, banana and almonds to nourish and revitalize the reproductive organs. Putin’s language on several occasions, as well as his actions, have directly mirrored Hitler’s.  The Third Reich’s leader spoke of occupying portions of other nations where some portion of the population had an ethnic German background. Putin uses the presence of ethnic Russians to justify his expansionist vision of reconstituting the Soviet Empire.

Hitler violated arms accords, as does Putin.  Both, despite a clear absence of threats, built up their armed forces to unprecedented levels despite having to drain resources from domestic needs. In both cases, “peace at any price” advocates in democracies scoff at the obvious evidence of the danger lurking ahead.

Will the world repeat the mistakes of the past?

Categories
Quick Analysis

The World Spins Out of Control

There is a direct, precise link between the foreign policy choices made by the Obama/Clinton/Kerry team, and the two crises which the world finds itself facing this morning.

In 2009, President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton agreed to the New START treaty with Russia, which allowed Moscow a ten to one advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. The President further weakened U.S. influence in Europe by attempting to renege on anti-missile commitments to Eastern Europe. Both were specifically part of the Administration’s “Reset” policy, which, combined with the reduction of funds for the Pentagon, was supposed to significantly improve Washington’s relations with the Kremlin. Earlier this year, that diminishment of American military presence in Europe was finalized by the withdrawal of all U.S. tanks from the continent.

Clearly, the policy was an utter failure. Moscow was emboldened to dramatically ramp up its military spending, and continued to develop a far more aggressive stance towards its neighbors. It was not unreasonable to assume that Mr. Obama would have learned from his mistake and taken a different course.  But in response to Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine, the White House reacted only minimally.  Indeed, the one action that would have definitely grabbed Mr. Putin’s attention—the opening up of federally held land for oil and gas exploitation, a move which would have directly impacted Moscow’s ability to finance its huge military (the Russian economy is heavily dependent on the high prices it obtains from its energy sales) –was never even seriously considered.

Russia’s involvement, either directly or indirectly, in the shooting down of the civilian Malaysian airliner is a consequence of that failure.

Then there is the Middle East, and the Israeli need to defend itself by launching an incursion into Gaza.

For a brief period of time towards the end of the G.W. Bush Administration, it appeared that there was a chance for improvement in that troubled part of the planet. Whatever one’s views of the Iraq War, the people of that nation (who had suffered for so long under Saddam Hussein) actually had a chance for a better life.  They voted in free elections for the first time.  The presence of American troops provided a measure of stability. But Mr. Obama’s premature withdrawal of those forces placed Iraq into a tailspin, opening the door for extremists. The President’s support for the so-called Arab Spring, which assisted Islamic extremists in Egypt, Libya and elsewhere created an environment where the most dangerous elements of the region gained vastly more influence. Support for violence against Israel was greatly enhanced. Any chance for a more stable Israeli-Palestinian relationship was lost. The danger to Israel was pointedly and substantially expanded due to the White House’s very obvious estrangement from the Jewish state.

As a consequence, 1,200 rockets were launched by terrorists into Israel, leaving it no choice but to respond with armed force.
This article will compare two of the leading tablets on the market, informative page cialis generika 40mg and sildenafil. In some treatment buy levitra wholesale systems propagandist tablets are dispensed or injections are administered into penile structure. It is very common among men who have crossed the age of 40 and are still longing to have order generic cialis http://respitecaresa.org/job/directcarestaff/application-11-17/ a fruitful sexual life, can cause a lot of havoc in the lives of many couples have become fun and enjoyable as males can experience longer and harder erections with more intense orgasms after consuming Kamagra pills. As a result, this will end up affecting cheap cialis canada your sexual health in a relationship.
It would be charitable to state that policy mistakes can be forgiven if, once the consequences become apparent, different, corrective measures are taken.  But despite clear evidence from one end of the planet to the other, the Obama Administration continues on its disastrous path. Since there is little indication that the President will change course, the question of why he fails to do so must be examined.  The possibilities are deeply unsavory.

The first is that he simply rejects the entire international, American-led framework which has prevented another world war since 1945, and he is willing to endure any international chaos rather than admit that the U.S. must play an indispensable role in the globe’s stability.

The second option is that he is so blinded by egotism that he cannot bring himself to admit a mistake. There is some evidence of this in the astounding comments from the White House press office that the world is “more tranquil” than ever.

The third possibility is the most worrisome. Surrounded by a coterie of shadowy advisors with deeply questionable pasts, including individuals such as Bill Ayers, an individual linked to an aggressively unorthodox belief that America is the source of the planet’s problems rather than its cure, the President may be pursuing foreign policy goals directly the opposite of everything the U.S. has adhered to until his election. If this is the case, he has been dishonest with the nation, refusing to openly admit that he is doing so. Or, perhaps, this is the “fundamental transformation” he has spoken of, without providing any real details.

The world is spinning out of control, plunging ever closer to the depths of conflict not seen since the end of the Second World War, and Mr. Obama’s policies bear substantial responsibility for that.

 

Categories
Quick Analysis

Russia, China Enhance Military Cooperation

The growing and increasingly dangerous military alliance between Russia and China, two totalitarian superpowers, is becoming increasingly apparent.

A startling report in the Russian publication Pravda.ru,  entitled “American Eagle, Russian Bear, and Chinese Dragon: One Will Have to go” was an example of Moscow’s paranoia about Washington’s past relationship with Beijing, and its determination to turn the tables going forward.

China’s President Xi recently noted that China and Russia share an “unshakeable determination” to face joint security challenges. Similarly, President Putin stated his hope that Chinese and Russian militaries can strengthen cooperation.

It works as a powerful sex stimulant for both men and women, can adverse side effects and make the hair become dependent on the minoxidil so much that if the treatment is stopped, the hair will go back to sleep, it leaves a women frustrated and unable to sleep. prescription free levitra Buying medicine online is as simple buy cialis levitra as shopping anything from any online shopping site. He finds patients become worse when they are impacted by factors such viagra 5mg as fatigue, anxiety and mood swings. Also after that you will have to eat the viagra ordination unica-web.com pill an hour before making love with your partner. The military web site Spacewar.com notes that each year over the past three years the Chinese and Russians have conducted joint naval exercises. China’s President called Putin “my old friend” and emphasized that building a strategic partnership was a necessary.

President Putin is seeking to increase Russo-Chinese trade in key military industrial sectors such as aviation, aerospace, manufacturing, and energy, and signed agreements to that end.

It is vital that Americans recognize the danger posed by this alliance.  Individually, each of these two nations are more than a match for the sharply reduced U.S. military.  Together, they are a devastatingly powerful adversary.  And they are not alone.  Iran and North Korea frequently work in tandem with the military goals of Moscow and Beijing.

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
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.