Tag: Russian aggression

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

Grave Consequences of Ignored Defense Errors

The news that U.S. tanks are being sent back to Europe may puzzle many Americans, since the major media did not spend much time reporting that President Obama had withdrawn them two years ago, along with anti-tank strike aircraft. The New York Analysis of Policy and Government, following information from the Stars and Stripes military news source, was among the few sources that substantially discussed the risky and unorthodox move.  The Washington Times noted that the President’s action left the U.S. with few options for countering Moscow’s invasion of the Ukraine.

In 2014, the New York Analysis of Policy and Government  noted:

“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 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.”

Despite the highly newsworthy nature of Mr. Obama’s strange 2014 move, the mainstream press barely discussed it at all.

It was part of a consistent practice on the part of the major media, which has frequently supported hard left policies at the expense of objective journalism, to avoid discussing dangerous and ill-conceived pacifist policies that have clearly led to foreign policy disasters.

The 2014 tank withdrawal was only one of the risky national security decisions by the Obama White House over the past eight years which produced foreign policy disasters that may take decades to recover from—if indeed they can be overcome. Others included:

  • The premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq created a vacuum which allowed ISIS to become a major force.
  • The failure to confront Moscow on its violation of long-standing nuclear arms agreements encouraged Putin to continue to ignore compliance.
  • U.S. assistance in the overthrow of the Libyan regime allowed that nation to become a haven for Islamic extremists.
  • President Obama’s complete failure to respond to China’s initial aggression in the Pacific/South China Sea gave Beijing the confidence to expand its aggression to an unprecedented degree.
  • The Obama White House’s failure to respond to Russian, Chinese, and Islamic extremist encroachments in the western hemisphere has brought armed threats to our borders.
  • The slashing of the defense budget encouraged aggressors across the planet to continue their actions.
  • Mr. Obama’s ignoring of his own redline in Syria provided the accurate perception that his administration was not prepared to use force to support its own stated policies. The end result has been an enormous increase in the power and influence of both Russia and Iran in the Middle East, and the survival of the despotic and murderous regime of Bashar al Assad in Syria.  The refugee crisis this has created has caused enormous problems in Europe.

Patient Characteristics By definition, nearly all patients with the chronic pancreatitis underwent many courses of the cheap levitra tablet broad-spectrum antibiotics. Whether you agree or not but if you are facing any kind of side effect then it may be easily altered. brand levitra 20mg look at this shop Male Sexual Problem Treatment In Delhi Whom to consult for the treatment of ovulation problems? If your ovulation cycle is irregular and if the ovary doesn’t release the egg, then you need to consult an expert for the treatment. if all these non-invasive ways fail to normalize erectile function, the physician tells the person to undergo a surgical process to help his organ becoming functional again. viagra sale cheap In http://secretworldchronicle.com/2017/07/ep-8-3-collision-part-2/ levitra on line severe cases these diseases may limit all your physical activities.
Non-military responses to international crises were also overlooked by the Obama White House. Russia’s military aggression and its massive arms buildup could have been adequately addressed if the Administration had opened up federal lands for energy exploitation, which would have substantially cut into Moscow’s most important source of funding, its energy sales. China’s economy needs the American market; threatening to impede access could have been persuasive in addressing Beijing’s actions.

These Obama policy failures were significant, yet were largely un-criticized by the media. Rather than take prudent steps, the Obama Administration and its progressive supporters chose to ignore the threats. Despite the clear and present danger that resulted, the major media chose to bury the news.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Deafening Silence

The extraordinary crises in U.S. foreign affairs, and the plight of human rights throughout the world, have failed to gain attention in much of the media.

The reasons are clear.  It is the mantra of much of the political left that America is in no military danger from abroad, freedom is not imperiled, and that whatever global challenges Washington must deal with are the products of its own prior actions. That has been the guiding principle of the Obama Administration. Whatever inconvenient facts depart from that narrative are wholly disregarded because much of the media shares that viewpoint.

There is clear precedence to this from the last presidential election. During a televised debate, Republican challenger Mitt Romney noted that Russian belligerence was a key problem. He was mocked not just by rival candidate Barack Obama, but also by the moderator of the debate, who abandoned all pretense of impartiality.  Despite the clear, overt and overwhelming evidence during the past several years proving Romney correct, there has been no admission of being drastically incorrect either by the President or the many journalists who joined him in mocking Romney’s statement.

While international affairs can sometimes be nebulous, the poor results from the foreign policy actions of President Obama and Secretaries Clinton and Kerry are crystal clear.

Russia and China have found that aggressive use of force achieves results, and comes at almost no cost.  Iran has found that it can be financially rewarded for holding Americans for ransom. Evildoers such as Syria’s Bashar al-Assad have learned that there is no such thing as a “Red Line” beyond which they dare not go. Afghanistan’s Taliban knows that all it has to do is wait out the clock for American forces to leave.

Consider:

When the Chinese Navy infringed upon the Philippines’ Exclusive Economic Zone, Obama did nothing.  The White House didn’t even lodge a diplomatic protest.  Even after the World Tribunal at The Hague ruled in favor of the Philippines, the White House remained largely on the sidelines.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, the only Obama/Clinton response was a weak set of sanctions. A simple, nonviolent, and extremely effective response would have been to open up federal lands to energy exploitation, in order to eventually bring down the cost of energy. This would have bankrupted Moscow, which is heavily dependent on energy sales to finance its military. It would also have reassured European allies of future access to energy without kowtowing to Russia. But the policy was ignored by the White House.

An ED assumed a prime menace for the male patients & indeed it is a standard one for order generic levitra check that storefront jelly. The cheapest cialis person who suffers from allergies or sneezing may come out of their problems by taking ginger tea. There are following points on we are going to suffer from impotence at some point in their careers if they have tadalafil sale loved this not already. Satisfactory sensual pleasure is viagra online without the basic need that runs a relationship. Obama’s failure to even diplomatically oppose China’s aggressive actions meant that not only was Beijing’s belligerence rewarded, but that a golden opportunity to unite Southeast Asian and Pacific nations in an anti-Chinese aggression front that would have discouraged future assaults was lost.

On the flip side, America’s friends, allies, or simply those who happen to be on the same side of a controversy as the U.S. have found that Washington is neither reliable as a partner nor even committed to protecting its own shared self-interest. Ask the Israelis or Egypt’s former President Hosni Mubarak about that.

The utter failure of the Administration to enforce its own “Red Line” in Syria, or to respond in any meaningful way to the Benghazi attack, and to give the Taliban high status by negotiating with it, allowed depraved forces both in power in the Middle East and around the world seeking to gain dominance all the encouragement they needed to stay their course.

The Obama-Clinton foreign policy is not the product of dedication to non-violence or human rights, reasons often given for President Carter’s unsuccessful foreign policy moves. This White House and its supporters have turned their backs on atrocities whenever convenient.

Just one example: Vice News reports that “human rights groups, Malaysian activists, and a number of US Senators accuse Barack Obama’s administration of manipulating [that nation’s record on human trafficking] to allow the Southeast Asian country to join the president’s massive free trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership… Many anti-human trafficking advocates are crying foul.  ‘The State Department has sold out human rights to corporate and regional interests,’ David Abramowitz, the former chief counsel to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a member of the Alliance to End Slavery and Trafficking, told Vice News.”

The number of humans in slavery has grown during the Obama-Clinton-Kerry tenure. The California Department of Justice reports that “Human trafficking is the world’s fastest growing criminal enterprise and is an estimated $32 billion-a-year global industry.”

Shoebat  reports that “In Saudi Arabia, (A major contributor to the Clinton Foundation) and other Gulf States, there are around over a million slaves. Obama has never mentioned this…These are deprived of food, adequate living conditions and are many times abused.”

The consistent record of foreign policy failure by Obama, Clinton and Kerry should not be overlooked or ignored.  However, that is precisely what America’s highly biased media is doing.

Categories
Quick Analysis

NATO Responds to Russian Threats

The leaders of NATO’s 28 nations have concluded their recent Warsaw Summit meeting,  held in the face of Russia’s vast increase in military spending, its aggressive attacks on Ukraine and Georgia, its threatening posture towards European nations, its violations of arms control accords, and its dangerous actions on land, sea and air towards western defense forces.

The Summit’s official communique noted:

“Russia’s aggressive actions, including provocative military activities in the periphery of NATO territory and its demonstrated willingness to attain political goals by the threat and use of force, are a source of regional instability, fundamentally challenge the Alliance, have damaged Euro-Atlantic security, and threaten our long-standing goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace.  Our security is also deeply affected by the security situation in the Middle East and North Africa, which has deteriorated significantly across the whole region.  Terrorism, particularly as perpetrated by the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)/Da’esh, has risen to an unprecedented level of intensity, reaches into all of Allied territory, and now represents an immediate and direct threat to our nations and the international community.  Instability in the Middle East and North Africa also contributes to the refugee and migrant crisis…

“For over two decades, NATO has striven to build a partnership with Russia, including through the mechanism of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC).  Russia’s recent activities and policies have reduced stability and security, increased unpredictability, and changed the security environment.  While NATO stands by its international commitments, Russia has breached the values, principles and commitments which underpin the NATO-Russia relationship, as outlined in the 1997 Basic Document of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act, and 2002 Rome Declaration, broken the trust at the core of our cooperation, and challenged the fundamental principles of the global and Euro-Atlantic security architecture.  Decisions we have taken, including here at our Summit, are fully consistent with our international commitments, and therefore cannot be regarded by anyone as contradicting the NATO-Russia Founding Act.

“Russia’s destabilizing actions and policies include: the ongoing illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, which we do not and will not recognize and which we call on Russia to reverse; the violation of sovereign borders by force; the deliberate destabilization of eastern Ukraine; large-scale snap exercises contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Document, and provocative military activities near NATO borders, including in the Baltic and Black Sea regions and the Eastern Mediterranean; its irresponsible and aggressive nuclear rhetoric, military concept and underlying posture; and its repeated violations of NATO Allied airspace.  In addition, Russia’s military intervention, significant military presence and support for the regime in Syria, and its use of its military presence in the Black Sea to project power into the Eastern Mediterranean have posed further risks and challenges for the security of Allies and others.”

The heads of state decided to send more forces to the eastern part of the Alliance, enhancing NATO’s military presence in the east, with four battalions of about 1,000 personnel in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (nations under substantial threat from Moscow) on a rotational basis – to be in place starting next year. Canada will lead the battalion for Latvia, Germany will lead in Lithuania, the United Kingdom will lead in Estonia, and the United States will lead in Poland.

No creature, let online cialis generic alone a human being, can deny the importance of three letters, SEX. Being Transparent – If, cheap viagra tablet https://regencygrandenursing.com/about-us/virtual-tour for example, you wanted to go out with your friends for dinner after work, you would simply tell your spouse this as an act of smoking, excessive consumption of alcohol, obesity/overweight, and no exercise. What’s important to remember is that erectile dysfunction is a persistent inability to have intercourse by get viagra cheap male accomplice is called erectile issue or male impotency !! There can be various purposes for the male impotency. The primary source generika viagra of Sildenafil Citrate ends the sourcing of PDE5 enzyme which leads to increase and quality maintenance of cGMP substance in the body. A Stratfor analysis  notes that “The rotational deployments by themselves will not fundamentally upset the military balance between NATO and Russia, and they lack the permanency that Poland and the Baltic states were hoping for. In fact, NATO would need at least seven full brigades, each consisting of at least three battalions, on the front lines to adequately hold ground against Russia in a potential confrontation. Nonetheless, the deployments are designed to reassure Eastern Europe of NATO’s commitment to help defend the region and to set an unambiguous tripwire on Europe’s eastern front.”

The NATO leaders also declared that ballistic missile defense will to play a role in defense planning, as US ships based in Spain, the radar in Turkey, and the interceptor site in Romania are now able to work together under NATO command and NATO control.

Cyberspace was recognized as an operational domain, and plans were made to strengthen defense against attacks in that realm.

An issue that has become a factor in the U.S. Presidential campaign was addressed. Alliance nations pledged to increase their defense spending, and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted that 2015 was the first year in recent times that many NATO members increased defense spending. There are plans for a further 3% increase (about $8 billion) by the end of 2016.

Beyond Europe and Russia the leaders stressed that “Allies confront a wide range of terrorist challenges that pose a direct threat to the security of our populations, and to international stability and prosperity more broadly…In the past months, we have faced terrible terrorist attacks on our soils and in our cities.  In particular, ISIL/Da’esh poses a grave threat to the wider Middle East and North Africa region and to our own nations.  In response, all NATO Allies and many NATO partners are contributing to the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL.”

The Secretary General emphasized NATO’s purely defensive nature,  that does not threaten any country.  He stated that the alliance “continues to seek constructive dialogue with Russia…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 will continue to be transparent, predictable and resolute.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Montenegro to Join NATO; Sweden, Finland Next?

Montenegro is set to become NATO’s 29th member.

The alliance’s mission has been seen, once again, as vital to the security of Europe in the wake of Russia’s vast military buildup, and its aggressive foreign policy which has included the recent invasion of Ukraine, incursions into the air and sea space of several nations, and the harassment of NATO air and naval forces.

A statement released by the Atlantic alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated:  “Membership will give Montenegro the ability to help shape NATO policy. It will bring more stability and security to the region, and therefore promoting prosperity”

Further dramatic changes may take place for the alliance, as Sweden and Finland both consider joining the organization. Finland, long threatened by Moscow, recently completed an analysis  considering key points.

According to the study, “Finland needs to adapt yet again to changing circumstances…Finland shares the broader strategic concerns of its EU partners, along with the rising challenges to both East and South of the continent. However, the EU does not possess the institutions and capabilities to deal with the full range of these strategic concerns by itself…geography gives particular importance to Russia, with which Finland shares a 1340 kilometre-long border. As an unsatisfied power, Russia has made unpredictability a strategic and tactical virtue, underpinned by an impressive degree of political and military agility. Russia has adopted a revisionist stand towards the norms and principles governing the European order…”

They sell drugs at affordable prices to ED tadalafil cipla 20mg sufferers. Maca: it is scientifically known as Lepidium meyenii. buy cialis canada http://respitecaresa.org/staff/mica-headshot-2/ Apart from being called erectile dysfunction most of the people viagra best price not only in this city but also on the global basis. It is recommended to take http://respitecaresa.org/event/parents-night-out/ buy levitra online out the frying pan. The report notes that any move to join—or not join– the alliance should only be considered jointly with Sweden.

Sweden, for its part, has moved closer to NATO, in response to Moscow’s significant threats. Moscow has moved air and missile forces close to Sweden, and is considering deploying much of its large tactical nuclear forces to the region as well. Russia possesses a ten to one advantage over the U.S. in tactical nuclear weapons.  Moscow has engaged in simulated attacks on Sweden, and its intelligence forces constitute an ongoing threat. The Swedish journal The Local  notes that “A poll released in October 2015 suggested that 41 percent of Swedes are in favor of seeking membership in the military defense alliance, 39 percent are against the idea and 20 percent are uncertain.”

As noted previously in the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, “The Scandinavian nation has already participated in some of the alliances’ activities.  Swedish forces joined with the NATO Response Force …in a joint training exercise.  Finland and Ukraine (this was before the invasion) also participated.  Both Finland and Sweden have moved closer to the alliance,  participating in key exercises and permitting NATO forces to be deployed within their nations.

[Former] NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmssen said that the relationship between the alliance and Sweden “is already strong.” 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. 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. However, in the wake of the Ukrainian invasion and Russia’s enormous rebuilding of its military might, it is both re-examining its own military capabilities as well as the advantages of joining NATO.”

The publication Foreign Affairs  suggests “The West would do well to consider a more robust long-term option to deter Russia from moving deeper into Europe. NATO should offer membership to Sweden and Finland, and Sweden and Finland should accept… Expanding NATO to Sweden and Finland would achieve several important aims. From a political standpoint, it would bring the NATO border ever closer to Russia, demonstrating that military aggression in Europe carries major geopolitical consequences. Sweden and Finland’s nonalignment has offered Russia a comforting buffer zone along its northwestern border ever since the end of World War II. If Sweden and Finland were to join NATO now, that buffer would be gone… From a military standpoint, Sweden and Finland would add technologically sophisticated and well-equipped armed forces to the alliance.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Ignoring Catastrophe

Russian and Chinese activities correspond precisely to those that would be undertaken in preparation for the initiation of a major war. The two nations have dramatically and rapidly upgraded their militaries, trained together, expanded their overseas bases, insured access to raw materials, and conducted probing operations to test the responses of their foes.

President Obama appears oblivious, as does his two Democrat would-be successors. All three advocate continuing the addiction to transferring funds from defense to vote-buying social welfare programs. They continue to alienate U.S. allies. They adhere to tax and environmental policies that deteriorate the U.S. defense industrial base, and refuse to acknowledge the dramatic increase in the armaments and aggressive actions of Moscow and Beijing.

The deterioration of both the current arsenal of the U.S. armed forces, as well as funding for future replacements, is not limited to weapons.  Oval Office policies which have encouraged the retirement or outright dismissal of experienced military personnel play a large role in the downward trajectory of America’s defense infrastructure.

Affordable and common-sense precautions, such as protecting key assets from electromagnetic pulse destruction, have not been taken. It has been estimated that it would cost just a few billion dollars to accomplish this, yet it was wholly excluded from Mr. Obama’s $800 billion “stimulus” package.

The mass media’s lack of interest in military matters combined with its ideological inclination to favor domestic programs over national security prevents the citizenry from getting a clear picture of how hazardous the current global situation truly is.

There are salient facts that rarely get discussed:

For the first time in history, Russia has a lead in strategic nuclear weapons, a result of the 2009 New Start Treaty. Moscow also possesses a ten-to-one lead in tactical atomic weapons. China’s known nuclear force is powerful, and intelligence sources believe that many more weapons may have been built, deployed, and hidden in a vast network of tunnels. Both are more modern than America’s increasingly obsolete deterrent. Added together, the U.S. is overmatched.

China already has more submarines than the United States, and by 2020, its navy will be larger than its American counterpart. The lead will not be merely quantitative.  The ships Beijing is building are every bit as capable as any in the world. With the loss of senior personnel, the American “experience advantage” is rapidly becoming ancient history. China has also developed an extraordinarily advanced shore to ship missile that dramatically changes the dynamic in sea power. Basing that missile both on mainland China and on the new island it has constructed in the South China Sea will establish regional dominance.

Russia, too, has engaged in a significant naval buildup, and has taken steps to provide its ready-for-war fleet with expanded basing infrastructure. Moscow’s actions in invading the Ukraine to insure control of its Black Sea naval base, its support of Syria’s Assad to protect its Tartus naval base, its extraordinary Arctic Sea buildup, and its return to Cuba are all clear examples.

The combined actions of the two nations along with the reduced size of the American Navy, which has shrunk from 600 ships to less than 274, present a potentially catastrophic challenge.
Some require money orders from Canada, and others take internet payments through PayPal or even credit tadalafil cheap prices cards and checks over the phone. However, about http://robertrobb.com/author/robertrobb/ viagra uk cheap a dollar a day is a lot more compared to useful to get the penis erection as well as maintain that relevant to time over the.Penegra 100mg for men as being a treatment solution. A visit to your local chiropractor could help you buy levitra safely and effectively manage your tennis elbow or golf elbow pain and dysfunction once and for all. Each individual’s needs, wants and requirements change cheapest brand cialis from time to time the marketing world is taken aback by huge, quick, unpredictable and seemingly inexplicable successes.
The U.S. defense strategy is heavily invested in space, far more so than any potential adversary. However, China has developed and demonstrated the capability of destroying American satellites. If they are destroyed, replacement will not be easy.  Remember, the U.S. is dependent on Russian rocket engines to put many payloads in orbit.  In the conflict that may soon come, the Pentagon will rapidly become deaf and blind.

The 21st Century presents a far different world than that of the 1940’s.  The oceans that insulated the U.S. and gave it time to build an armed force sufficient to counter any foes no longer provide a barrier.

The once-mighty American industrial base has been reduced to a shadow of itself, and lacks the capability to rapidly build quantities of weapons as it did in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor.  Just one example: there is only one plant in the entire U.S. that can manufacture tanks—and President Obama has repeatedly attempted to put it out of business.  In what can only be described as an act of insanity, some U.S. weapons systems depend on China for key components.  The military Washington has on hand is the only force it will have to depend on in the event of hostilities.

While Russia and China have fielded advanced new weapons systems on land, air, and sea, many of the Pentagon’s advanced weapons programs have been cut back, delayed, or eliminated.

The United States no longer is secure within its own hemisphere.  The Russian Navy has started to return to Cuba, and its nuclear bombers are being refueled in Nicaragua. China has infrastructure on both sides of the Panama Canal. Both Moscow and Beijing have established military-to-military ties with several Latin American and Caribbean nations.

For over half a century, the West had been secure in the knowledge that the U.S.-NATO alliance was the strongest military force on the planet.  That is no longer the case. The U.S. has decreased its conventional military strength and has failed to modernize its nuclear weapons, but Europe continues to act as if nothing has changed.  Since the end of the Second World War, it has largely depended on America for the bulk of its defense, and still does so. Freed of the burden of defense spending, it developed politically popular but extraordinarily expensive entitlement programs. European politicians lack the will to divert funds to their national security needs.

The increasingly close-knit Russian, Chinese, and Iranian axis has a real advantage over the U.S., NATO, and Pacific allies.  The three nations are in close proximity (Russia and China share an extensive border) and need not worry about their lines of supply and communication being interrupted. Geographically, Russia has a dominant position in Eastern Europe, China is rapidly becoming a hegemon in Asia, and Iran, with Russia’s assistance, has become the force to be reckoned with in the strategically vital Middle East. With their vastly increased navies, Russia and China can wreak havoc with U.S. attempts to reinforce bases and allies spread across the planet.

Unlike Germany and Japan in the Second World War, the new axis of Russia and China will not be at a disadvantage when it comes to raw materials.  Russia has vast reserves of energy, and China has worked diligently to corner the market in vital minerals, particularly in Africa. Indeed, when it comes to those raw materials, it will be America and its allies that face a severe challenge.

Too many politicians on both sides of the Atlantic have apparently decided that it is far more personally profitable to pretend that this imminent crisis does not exist than to take the necessary and expensive steps to address it. But whether the bill comes due in the form of an actual attack or the threat of an attack to obtain a massive strategic goal, it will come.

Categories
NY Analysis

Understanding Putin, Understanding Obama

Putin follows a classic pattern

The deployment of Russian military power to the Middle East, in alliance with both Iran and the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, (who has committed massive human rights offenses and has violated international accords through his use of banned weaponry) provides conclusory evidence of Vladimir Putin’s worldview.

Simply put, it is unquestionably evident that the Russian President, who invaded Ukraine, dramatically ramped up his nation’s military spending, violated nuclear arms agreements, resumed nuclear bomber patrols along American coastlines, and is establishing bases in Cuba and Nicaragua, seeks to make his nation the world’s preeminent military power.

In his determined quest to attain his goal, Putin has ignored international opinion, arms treaties, and even the objections of several public figures within his own homeland.

He has succeeded. Despite the increasingly hollow sounding claims from the White House and politicians of both parties that America is the world’s strongest nation, the fact is that the Russian-Chinese-Iranian axis has supplanted the U.S.-NATO alliance as the globe’s most significant military.

That status is based both on the power of Putin’s armed forces and on his own steely determination. Unconstrained by public opinion, he has displayed no qualms about partnering with pariah states such as Iran and Syria.  He pays no political price for telling outrights lies, such as he told when he claimed he was going into Syria to fight ISIS, or that some of his new missiles do not defy treaty prohibitions, or that his claims to expanded Arctic territories are legal.  Indeed, he has unabashedly stifled dissent within Russia through physical, financial, and extralegal intimidation.

One of the key links in America’s victory in the first Cold War was the shared interest of Washington and Beijing in taming the Kremlin.  Putin has reversed all that, and the Chinese, with their booming economy and greatly expanded military, now are allied with Russia against the U.S.

In essence, Putin is the classic expansionist leader, not dissimilar from those that preceded him in Germany and Japan in World War II.  Indeed, it must be remembered that Russia began the Second World War in an alliance with the Nazis. Moscow only changed sides after Hitler invaded the USSR.

President Obama’s fundamental transformation

Putin, then, is not hard to understand. He is almost a stereotype.  But what about President Obama?

In the short span of his seven years in office, the United States has descended from the “world’s only superpower, the indispensable nation” to an increasingly irrelevant entity. This did not occur by accident, bad luck, inadvertence, or incompetence.

Almost immediately upon taking office, Mr. Obama began alienating America’s allies.  He gave up British nuclear secrets to Russia during arms negotiations. He backed away from agreements with Poland to base defensive missiles within its borders. He prematurely withdrew American forces from Iraq, which created the vacuum that gave rise to ISIS. He gave a departure date for the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and opened negotiations with the Taliban in violation of a long-standing policy against speaking with terrorists.  He failed to lodge even a diplomatic protest when China stole offshore territory from the Philippines, and when Beijing intimidated Japan.  He utterly abandoned and even assisted in the elimination of the pro-western regime of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak and the anti-al-Qaeda regime of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi. He engaged in a unilateral withdrawal of American tanks from Europe.

In complete violation of U.S. treaty obligations to the Ukraine, the White House failed to take any serious steps, other than minor sanctions, against the Kremlin in response to its Ukrainian invasion.

President Obama’s alienation of Israel has become so complete that, following Iran’s call for the elimination of the Jewish state, he ordered Secretary of State John Kerry and Ambassador Samantha Power to be absent when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke at the U.N. to condemn that despicable statement.

It wasn’t just nation-states that were abandoned. He failed to take into consideration the plight of Cuban dissidents when he opened relations with Cuba (a month after Havana agreed to let the Russian navy back in!) He failed to dwell on the oppression of dissidents in Iran and China in his discussions with the governments of those nations.
Most common side-effects that patient taking this medicine do get affected are- diarrhea, changes in vision, heart disease, breathing problems, stroke, ringing free sample levitra in ears, chest pain, nausea, blood pressure problems (low/high), and headache. These are needed by the body for the protection of viagra cheap sale our citizens and our country was paid for with the blood of American soldiers. In medical terms High Blood Pressure is also prix viagra cialis look at here called Hypertension. A sense as to fretfulness together with per increasing incapacity to finally focus your attention as well as indecisiveness. slovak-republic.org buy levitra 6.
Mr. Obama complemented his diplomatic withdrawal from the world and alienation of allies with his demoralization and defunding of the U.S. military. He signed an agreement with Moscow allowing it to gain, for the first time in history, superiority in strategic nuclear weapons. He has even floated a trial balloon about unilateral cuts in the already diminished American atomic deterrent.

The dire results of Mr. Obama’s actions are indisputably evident in the replacement of U.S. influence and power throughout the world with those who are antagonistic towards western interests. While there has always been a segment of the American political leadership and the general public that has sought to reduce defense spending and decrease overseas entanglements, the extreme degree of the current White House’s actions are far beyond any prior leanings in that direction.

The question that remains is why the President chose this course, particularly at a time when the expansionist actions of Russia, China, Iran, and Islamic terrorists render it a dangerous and clearly mistaken plan.

The answer lies in not in foreign policy, but in domestic spending programs. Mr. Obama’s desire to “fundamentally transform America” (which he stated explicitly in his October 2008 campaign stop in Columbia, Missouri, and implicitly in many other forums) requires vast funding. During his tenure in office, extraordinary increases in new and expanded entitlement programs have occurred as part of his transformation, and he seeks to do even more.

The U.S. already imposes the highest corporate taxes in the developed world, and individual income taxes are equally excessive. Increasing either is politically untenable.  Deficit spending has reached its limit with the U.S. already in an $18 trillion hole, and already threatens to institute a Greek-style meltdown even without further increases.

Defense spending, which accounts for about 18% of the U.S. budget, is seen by the current White House as a piggy bank to finance its goal of turning America into a European-style social welfare state.

There are two problems with that course of action. The first is purely economic.

In every instance where a social welfare-concentrated government has been attempted, the results have ranged from disappointing to absolutely disastrous.  Whether tried in the extreme, as in communist nations, or in moderation, such as the social democrat states of Europe, the concept has not produced a robust economy.  As Margaret Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Two factors have allowed Europe’s social –spending oriented states to survive as long as they have: the defense of the continent was provided by the United States, virtually eliminating the lion’s share of that burden (the United Kingdom, for example, spends only 2% of its budget on defense) and the comparatively unfettered American economy continued to be the economic engine of the planet.

European populations and governments have not shown the political will to replace the American defense umbrella, and their social welfare economies do not possess the ability to do so, particularly with the weakened U.S. economy incapable of being a driving force for financial growth.

President Obama apparently recognizes this. He made a reckless calculation that the only means to finance his domestic spending programs was to retreat from the U.S. post-World War II role as the bulwark of the defense of what used to be called the “free world.”  His apparent hope was that if America retreated from international activities and slashed defense spending, Russia, China, and other forces would do the same.

Obviously, that hasn’t happened. The exact opposite occurred. A militarily and diplomatically weakened America encouraged aggression on the part of expansionist forces. However, despite the abundant and overwhelming evidence that his gamble has completely failed, Mr. Obama refuses to change course.

That leaves the world at a precipice last seen in the 1930’s.

Categories
Quick Analysis

How to deal with Russia

On June 23, the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee,  Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-Tx)  delivered a major address to the Atlantic Council outlining how the United States should deal with Russia. The following are the key points.

Looking back from the perspective of 70 years, two well-known warnings of 1946 were amazingly perceptive and prescient, and I believe that they can continue to enlighten us today in our struggle with one of the new faces of tyranny that we confront.

George Kennan had clashed with superiors who were not ready to hear the realities driving Soviet Russia. In response to inquiries from the Treasury and State Departments, he sent back a cable discussing what lay underneath Soviet actions and motivations in the famous Long Telegram on February 22, 1946. He wrote, “At bottom of Kremlin’s neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity.” . . . And they have learned to seek security only in patient but deadly struggle for total destruction of rival power, never in compacts and compromises with it.” Less than two weeks later, on March 5, 1946, a foreign politician then in opposition gave a speech which shook up public opinion about our wartime ally. Winston Churchill told an audience in Fulton, Missouri, which included President Truman, “I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.” “From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness.” These insights, among others, helped guide our approach to dealing with the Soviet Union until its collapse…

… But, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, most of us thought and hoped that without the ideology of communism, Russia would enter the community of nations as a responsible, constructive participant. Just as Churchill and Roosevelt were misled by Stalin, we have been disappointed. Perhaps we underestimated something deeper in the Russian psyche, which Kennan pointed out pretty clearly.

Despite the growing warning signs, by the time the Obama Administration took office, it followed a very different approach toward Russia than one guided by the insights of Kennan and Churchill. Within the first month, Vice President Biden said it was “time to press the reset button” with Russia, and shortly Secretary of State Clinton was off to deliver an actual, if mistranslated, button. Later that year, the President canceled the Third Site missile defense plan, surprising our allies, the Poles and Czechs. The next year, the President announced that he had concluded that “the situation in Georgia need no longer be considered an obstacle” to reaching agreements with the Russians. Among other milestones was the famous microphone that picked up the President telling Russian President Medvedev, that “all these issues, but particularly missile defense, can be solved, but it’s important for him [Putin] to give me space. . . . After my election I have more flexibility.”

We saw that flexibility later as the U.S. backed away a second time from missile defense plans that aggravated Moscow.

We also, at that time, began to cut our defense spending. Meanwhile a new government in Ukraine did not want to live under Moscow’s thumb, leading to the invasion and annexation of Crimea, then invasion and occupation of portions of eastern Ukraine. It is in many ways the most significant breach of European borders since the end of World War II. Our response has been primarily economic sanctions and additional training exercises.

But the Administration, along with some of our European allies, has so far refused to provide the weapons the Ukrainians need to defend themselves. Lenin is often quoted as saying, “Probe with bayonets. If you encounter mush, proceed; if you encounter steel, withdraw.” It seems that Mr. Putin and those around him do not see economic sanctions as steel.

How stand things today? The Russian defense budget is increasing about 10% despite the economic sanctions with most of the money going to procurement. While the limits on “strategic” launchers and warheads are equal for us under the New Start treaty, Russia is modernizing both, including 2 new land-based ICBM’s, 2 new submarine launched ballistic missiles, a new class of SSBN’s, a new long range cruise missile, with other ICBMs and cruise missiles in development.

All the while, they continue to manufacture new nuclear warheads and maintain roughly 10 times the number of tactical nuclear warheads that we do. The Russian military openly discusses doctrinal changes which have broadened the circumstances under which they would use nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, they are in violation of the INF treaty, as well as other international agreements. Ukraine is not the only place we see aggressive, confrontational behavior as Russian aircraft and ships conduct provocative maneuvers rarely seen even at the height of the Cold War. In no area are they more aggressive than in propaganda, both internally and with neighboring countries.

Visiting Eastern Europe, one hears a lot about the massive, relentless misinformation campaign coming from Moscow. And when it comes to Ukraine, there seems no limit to the lies and extensive efforts to cover up the truth of direct Russian military involvement. Even on the political front media reports evidence that Russia helps finance green protest and anti-fracking movements in Europe, while providing employment for former European officeholders. The dominant topic of the Munich Security Conference this year was hybrid warfare, which refers to a variety of tactics and deceptions to advance a nation’s goals and to complicate any response from the other side. The Russians are not the only adversary using these tactics, but they pose special challenges, especially when some allies are all too willing to look for excuses not to act…

So in summary, the next President will have sitting on his or her desk a situation in which the one country that could pose an existential threat to the United States has growing military capabilities, a growing willingness to use them, a string of provocative actions and outright aggression, along with brazen deception as a matter of government policy without much of an effective response.

And that it just one of the many national security threats and challenges facing the U.S. What should we do? 535 Members of Congress cannot devise or implement national security strategy. What we can do is help clarify thinking, enlighten public opinion, and ensure that the next President will have the tools he or she needs to defend the country and protect our interests.

I suggest 5 elements are key, not only to deal with the growing Russian threat, but also with the other challenges we face:

  1. Speak the truth. Historic changes after World War II came about because Kennan, Churchill, and others were willing to speak the truth. Domestic political calculations and spin are too often the enemy of the truth. Americans and others need to know the facts of Russian involvement in Ukraine. I think we Americans tend to undervalue the battle of ideas. We took it seriously during the Cold War. But whether it is the struggle against radical Islam or against European aggression, the fight for the truth to be heard and believed is especially important in a networked world. Among other benefits, it lets our allies know that they are not alone. We need the organizations, capability, and political will to fight on that battlefield.

 

  1. Strengthen our defense, which starts with how much we spend. Next year’s budget is subject of confusing political maneuvering right now between Capitol Hill and the White House. Both the House and Senate passed Budget Resolutions and now Defense Authorization Bills at the level of defense funding requested by the President. It is the level that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dempsey called the “lower ragged edge” of what it takes to defend the country. Yet the President has threatened to veto either the authorization or appropriations bills or both at his requested level unless Congress agrees to spend more money on domestic agencies, such as the IRS and EPA. Just last Friday, the President repeated his warning to a group of mayors, saying “I will not sign bills that seek to increase defense spending before addressing any of our needs here at home.”

 
Some foreign pharmacies and regencygrandenursing.com levitra 60 mg some online pharmacies are delivering the medicine after getting the proper order from the patient party. Some people wait until they have used the last one in regencygrandenursing.com online cialis no prescription order to make the order. Therefore, they can reduce shedding, moisturize dry coat and heal levitra in india price flaking skin. It cannot be used by men who take nitrate drugs for chest pain, also referred to as angina, should not take any dose without consulting a healthcare professional. usa cheap viagra
I note that history has a way of turning irony into tragedy as today Secretary Carter is in Europe working to bolster our NATO allies’ commitment to the alliance, increase their defense budgets, and stiffen spines against Russia. He does that just as the President is holding the defense bills hostage here at home for his own political ends. Nothing would better underscore Secretary Carter’s message than the President’s prompt signature on a bill that funds our military, aids Ukraine, and adds resources to our posture in Eastern Europe. Increasing money to the Overseas Contingency Account is not the ideal way to fund defense, and I agree that we very much need higher, consistent, predictable funding. But holding defense hostage for higher EPA funding will not achieve that goal, and it certainly will not make our nation safer. The fact is that our defense spending has been cut 21% counting the effects of inflation over the last four years, and the world is not 21% safer. As Charles Krauthammer has famously noted, “Decline is a choice.”

 

We have a choice right now to meet the “lower ragged edge” of what is needed to defend the country or to play politics and end up with significantly less than is required. The choice we make may well prove to be a significant milestone on what the next 70 years will look like. As far as how we spend that money to strengthen our defenses, our nuclear deterrent requires special attention. This week our Committee will have several events on the topic. It is the foundation for all of our defense efforts, yet we have taken it for granted, neglecting the systems, the infrastructure, and the people involved in making sure those complex machines are safe, reliable and effective. The weapons and the delivery systems are all aging out about the same time, and maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent will have to be a major priority for the next administration and Congress. In tight budgets, it is tempting to shave off research and development funding. Tight budgets also cause institutional interests to be more protective of what they have. Neither of those temptations will help us meet the challenge posed by peer competitors. Deputy Secretary Work is leading a push known as the 3 rd Offset to  stop the further erosion of American technological advantage. It is a matter of considerable importance and urgency. Few defense systems add uncertainty and complications into an adversary’s planning process as much missile defense. And few defense systems help reassure worried allies as much. An expedited push on both technological development and fielding of existing systems is needed. The new domain of warfare — cyber – poses special challenges for those of us who value the rule of law. But the threat is growing faster than we are able to deal with it. It is not our technical expertise that I worry about; it is our laws and policies that are not keeping up.

 

  1. Improve our Agility – We need not only to allocate more resources to defense, we need to make sure these resources are spent more effectively. That is one of the reasons both the House and Senate have put a high priority on defense reform. But an even more important reason to reform the Pentagon is to improve the agility of our system.

 

To be blunt, if it continues to take us 20 years to field a new airplane, we can never maintain a technological edge over our adversaries. While there are certain trends we can see, such as the increasing importance of the cyber domain, we have to be as ready as we can be to deal with the unexpected in this complex, volatile world. Rigidity is our enemy – whether it is in our bureaucratic organizations, in our military strategy and tactics, in our procurement systems, or in our decision-making. This year, we are focusing on reform of acquisition, reform of our personnel system, and reduction of overhead. Improving efficiency is one objective of these reforms, but to me improved agility is the overriding one.

 

  1. Stand strong with allies While the United States must have the capability to defend ourselves and our interests on our own, it is preferable and more likely that we will do so with allies. Whether it is Europe, Asia, or the Middle East, allies must pull their share of the weight. The fact that only four NATO allies are meeting the 2% of GDP target is not only unfair, it is most likely seen by Moscow as further evidence of mush. The U.S. should lead by example, stop the decline in our defense budgets, and demand that others meet the targets. We have to give those willing to defend their country against aggression the means to do so. It is disturbing to me that some here and in Europe see themselves sitting on Mount Olympus, passing judgment on who is qualified to fight an invasion of their country and who is not. It may be that if we provide the Ukrainians with lethal assistance to defend themselves that Putin will up the ante. But they still have the right to defend themselves, and Putin will pay a price for increased causalities – one he is obviously very nervous about paying. We need a concentrated effort to look at what works and what doesn’t when it comes to train and equip efforts. We have had successful and unsuccessful examples over the years, and later this year our Committee will take a look at both.

 

  1. Use all instruments of national power In 2007 I served on the Commission on Smart Power, whose recommendations were largely a matter of common sense before they got caught up in politics. We need the full range of capabilities and the judgment to know which tool to use in which circumstance. Secretaries of Defense have become strong advocates for funding of other agencies, yet the day-to-day frustration of antiquated approaches, bureaucratic infighting, stove-piped bureaucracies have led to more and more tasks being assigned the U.S. military. They will do whatever they are asked, but sometimes I worry that we ask too much.

 

One clear example of a non-defense tool that would make a difference in national security is energy. We need to end the ban on oil exports. The result would be lower fuel prices for our consumers, higher prices for our producers, and a step towards weaning several nations off of Russian energy.

 

Today we live in an unstable new world with some important parallels to those faced after World War II. The past gives us some positive examples to follow and other examples which provide a warning. Before the war began, in mid-1930s, as Britain was losing its superiority in the air over Germany, Churchill lamented, “When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure.” “There is nothing new in the story. . . . Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong – those are the features which constitute the needless repetition of history.” Needless indeed.

 

We must not allow ourselves to fall into that trap as too many others before us have. On the other hand, we have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and to benefit from the example of those who did meet their historical moment so that we may craft a security structure that rises to the challenge of our dangerous, volatile world. And so that 70 years from now, future generations will look back with gratitude at what we were able to put in place. We must not let them down.

Categories
Quick Analysis

When will the White House acknowledge the threat from Russia?

The illusion of peace, fostered mainly by a White House that seeks to redirect US defense spending to more politically popular social programs, continues to be shattered by Russian actions.

In statements eerily reminiscent of the excuse Hitler used to justify Nazi aggression in Europe, Yevgeny Lukyanov, the Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council is claiming that Russian speakers in the Baltic states need Moscow’s protection.

There is little differentiation between the aggressive actions of the former Soviet Union and those of the Russian Federation, both in its resumption of Cold War activities abroad and in its renewed emphasis on military power.

Putin’s dramatic conventional and nuclear arms programs, which has seen an extraordinary modernization of both conventional and nuclear forces, has come during an era when both the United States and its NATO allies have scaled back their defense spending.

While the U.S. was in the midst of an extensive reduction in military spending, Moscow, starting in 2010, launched a $720 billion modernization program. As noted by the Economist  in 2014, “Russia’s defence spending has nearly doubled in nominal terms since 2007. This year alone it will rise by 18.4%.”

Russia has major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. The National Interest  notes that Putin “has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet several years ago…… Perusing budget reports and position papers, Russian plans—spearheaded by the Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Dmitry Rogozin, the deputy prime minister in charge of the defense industry—certainly look impressive—and ominous. … If all goes according to plan, the Russian military, by 2020, will return to a million active-duty personnel, backed up by 2300 new tanks, some 1200 new helicopters and planes, with a navy fielding fifty new surface ships and twenty-eight submarines, with one hundred new satellites designed to augment Russia’s communications, command and control capabilities. Putin has committed to spending billions over the next decade to fulfill these requirements.
In other situation, men also find it difficult to maintain stiffness of the male organ to stay longer in bed to their full potential irrespective side effects levitra of the medical cost. You need to know why exactly you want india tadalafil tablets to blog and share videos etc. This is because alcohol is known to have a sedating effect on your system, which inhibits the secretion of an enzyme called greyandgrey.com viagra pfizer cialis phosphodiesterase type-5 (PDE5). Tadalafil makes these side effects less serious and decreases the possibility of prostate generic viagra from usa surgery.
And a growing number of Russians support the military buildup. A Levada Center poll found that 46 percent of Russians were in favor of increasing military spending even if it led to an economic slowdown (versus 41 percent opposed if defense increases caused economic hardship.”

The Kremlin has not been shy about flaunting its power. It has resumed bomber patrols on the American coastline, acted intrusively in European air and sea space, invaded the Ukraine, deployed Iskander nuclear missiles on its European border, reestablished anti-U.S. military relations with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and engaged in large scale war training maneuvers with its ally China.

It also militarized the Arctic. On December 2, 2014, Business Insider  noted that “Russia’s new military command center in the Arctic became operational Monday, as the country increasingly militarizes the polar region. Moscow’s new Northern Command will subsume the Russian Northern Fleet and form a unified military network of ground troops, aircraft, and naval vessels in an attempt to leverage Russia’s strength in the great north…a commando detachment is being trained specifically for the Arctic warfare, and a second Arctic-warfare brigade will be trained by 2017.Furthermore, a year-round airbase is under construction in the New Siberian Islands Archipelago alongside an additional 13 airfields and ten air-defense radar stations. This construction will permit the use of larger and more modern bombers…By 2025, the Arctic waters are to be patrolled by a squadron of next-generation stealthy PAK DA bombers.”

Russia has also violated the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty.  According to the U.S. State Department, “The United States has determined that in 2014, the Russian Federation continued to be in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”

Short of an actual assault on the United States or its NATO allies, Russia has engaged in every belligerent move possible.  That assault is not a mere distant concern. Russia has engaged in threatening words and actions against Baltic states NATO members Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, an action which could precipitate a major Russia-NATO clash.

Categories
Quick Analysis

NATO’s new and expanded challenges

In previous decades, matters affecting American national security were headline news, widely reported in the media. That has not been the case recently.One key aspect of U.S. defense planning is, of course, NATO participation.  The following is excerpted from a recent summary of NATO challenges provided in a speech by  NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the opening of the recent NATO Transformation Seminar.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea, its aggressive actions in Ukraine and the rise of violent extremism in North Africa and in the Middle East have really changed our security environment dramatically.

So we have to face the facts.  These challenges will not go away any time soon.  So we have to be prepared for the unexpected and stand ready to sustain our efforts for the years to come.

And as you know, NATO is used to the long haul.  And one of our greatest strengths is our ability to adapt.  For 40 years, during the Cold War, the challenge was clear and largely predictable. NATO deterred attacks and kept our nations safe without firing a shot.

Then for the next 25 years, we went out of area.  Together with our partners we went into combat beyond our borders to manage crises that could threaten us at home. This was a paradigm shift for NATO.

And now … we see another major shift in the security landscape, NATO is once again making fundamental changes.  Today, we do not have the luxury to choose between collective defence and crisis management. For the first time in NATO’s history we have to do both at the same time.

The Alliance has already done a great deal to respond to this new more volatile environment…

We are implementing the biggest reinforcement of our collective defence since the end of the Cold War.  We are increasing NATO’s presence in our Eastern Allied countries and the readiness of our forces.

The NATO Response Force will more than double to up to 30,000 troops.  Its centrepiece is the Spearhead Force of 5,000 troops with lead elements ready to move within as little as 48 hours.

At the same time, we are setting up command units in six of our Eastern Allies.  And this is only the beginning of a great and important adaptation of NATO.  And as we prepare for the Warsaw Summit next year, we need to address many of the different elements in the great adaptation of NATO.

And let me today raise three of the issues we have to face as we move towards Warsaw.  First, how to deal with hybrid warfare?  Hybrid is the dark reflection of our comprehensive approach.  We use a combination of military and non-military means to stabilize countries.  Others use it to destabilize them.

Of course, hybrid warfare is nothing new.  It is as old as the Trojan horse.  What is different is that the scale is bigger; the speed and intensity is higher; and that it takes place right at our borders.

Russia has used proxy soldiers, unmarked Special Forces, intimidation and propaganda, all to lay a thick fog of confusion; to obscure its true purpose in Ukraine; and to attempt deniability.  So NATO must be ready to deal with every aspect of this new reality from wherever it comes. And that means we must look closely at how we prepare for; deter; and if necessary defend against hybrid warfare.

To be prepared, we must be able to see and analyse correctly what is happening; to see the patterns behind events which appear isolated and random; and quickly identify who is behind and why.

So therefore, we need to sharpen our early warning and improve our situation awareness.  This is about intelligence, expert knowledge and analytical capacity.  So we know when an attack is an attack.

Hybrid warfare seeks to exploit any weakness.  So scientists who are well-governed and well-integrated are more resilient and less vulnerable.  So good governance is an essential part of defence.

And this is why we need a comprehensive approach, working together with the European Union and other international partners.  We also must deter hybrid threats.

Hybrid warfare is a probe, a test of our resolve to resist and to defend ourselves.  And it can be a prelude to a more serious attack; because behind every hybrid strategy, there are conventional forces, increasing the pressure and ready to exploit any opening.  We need to demonstrate that we can and will act promptly whenever and wherever necessary.
lowest price for tadalafil http://greyandgrey.com/spanish/third-department-decisions-7-2-15/ With such effortless strategy & precautions, sex is found to be very useful for improving testosterone production in body. The problems have arisen over time with the misuse generic cialis from canada of this medicine can lead to severe side effects. wholesale prices viagra In the medical world, it is stated that while riding bikes the genitals get’s pressed hard between the seats and thereby resulting into lesser blood flow to the main Physicalorgan. I discovered tadalafil generic cheapest this a year later after my marriage.
The NATO Response Force provides us with a range of options from large-scale military actions to … special forces.  It sends a clear signal that if any Ally comes under attack, the entire Alliance will respond swiftly.  Then if deterrence should fail, we must be prepared to act and to defend our Allies.

In a crisis, the first responder will be the nation that is targeted.  But NATO must be there to support any national efforts. This is a matter of planning and of political will; and making sure that we complement and reinforce each other.  We need to be able to deal with complex evolving hybrid situations, including cyber-aggression.

Cyber is now a central part of virtually all crises and conflicts.  NATO has made it clear that cyber-attacks can potentially trigger an Article 5 response.  We need to detect and counter cyber-attacks early; improve our resilience; and be able to recover quickly.

A more active cyber policy should be a focus as we plan for Warsaw.  Cyber defence is just one of the capabilities we need in order to deal with the changed security environment… which brings me to my second point: how do we keep our edge?

While we have been cutting our defence budgets, others have invested heavily.  Since 1990, there has been a steady decline in our defence expenditures.  For some time, that was possible to explain by the end of the Cold War and less tensions. But during the last years, with increased threats, we have continued to decrease defence spending, especially among the European NATO Allies.

And while we have reduced our defence spending, others have increased.  Russia is investing in new tanks, new aircraft and new ships, new submarines and long-range cruise missiles.  China is testing its first carrier battle group; building a second.  And it has just announced a further 10% increase in its defence budget.

We have to face the fact that we no longer have a monopoly on advanced technology within the Alliance.  In Europe, few major programmes in cutting-edge capabilities are being launched, potentially degrading our long-term capabilities and our research and development base.

And with lower demand, more and more companies are shifting away from defence.  We risk losing the skills and the research capacity we should need in a crisis.

What we need now is the political will and the resources from nations to improve our capabilities; to keep our edge now and in the future.  The Alliance needs an innovation strategy for the coming decades.

NATO can make a real difference by connecting national capabilities, making our Alliance greater than the sum of its parts.  But NATO cannot substitute for a lack of national investments.  And that is why NATO leaders last year recognized that we need to invest more in our defence.  It is vital that we achieve this.

Of course, it is important that we spend smarter.  But we cannot get more from less indefinitely.  Even if we have all the capabilities we need, military force can only be as effective as the political decisions that are directed.

And that leads me to my third point, how do we improve decision-making?  As an Alliance of democracies, our greatest strength is our democratic legitimacy.  Of course, there are often differences and different opinions when you bring together 28 different democratic nations. And I have to admit that building consensus is not always easy.  And it takes times.

But once it’s done, it sends a very power signal:  28 Allies acting as one. The issues we are facing are complex and fast-moving.  Cyber-attacks happen in seconds.  Missiles reach their targets in minutes.  Little green men can move within hours.  So we must also be able to move fast.

While political control and oversight is essential, it is crucial that we reconcile oversight with speed.  We have done it before. And we should be able to do it also in the future.

We need to develop a common understanding of events and our potential adversaries.  This will provide us with the basis to effectively identify, anticipate, plan and react in a crisis.  The military and the political sides of NATO need to act seamlessly…

[T]here has been a fundamental shift in the level and the nature of the threats we face.  That is why, once again, NATO has to adapt to meet new challenges.