Tag: Ukraine

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Russian policy ignores history & reality

The White House continues to act surprised at Russia’s aggressiveness in Europe and the Middle East, and its alliances with China and Iran. It’s time the President and his advisors took time to read a history book or two, and not the ones written by the aging 60’s radicals that have so heavily influenced his thinking and his career.

In the absurd, moral equivalence view of the progressive left, Washington and Moscow emerged from World War 2 as competitors, the two toughest kids on the block, both only interested in domination.  Therefore, the Obama Administration’s policies which allowed the Kremlin to become the superior nuclear power, that gave in to its demands to withdraw U.S. anti-missile devices from Poland, to remove most American tanks from Europe, to slash defense spending and to virtually ignore Russia’s massive arms buildup have all been, according to this perspective, justified as a “risk for peace,” signaling Moscow that Washington wasn’t interested in furthering competition. The fact that all those measures only encouraged Russian aggressiveness has been ignored. Even its return to military bases in Latin America has been overlooked.

The progressive’s historical memory is, of course, completely wrong.  While the U.S. rebuilt both its allies and its former enemies, the Kremlin essentially capitalized on the conflict by forging an empire in Eastern Europe, as it continued on a wartime footing in the hopes of still further expansion.

Russia’s expansionist, militant perspective didn’t begin in 1945. Missing from the hard-left worldview is the reality that Nazi Germany wouldn’t have had the ability to grow its armed forces to such great power without the German-Soviet Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.  Equally ignored is the unpleasant reality that the two nations began the conflict as allies, sharing in the division of Poland between them. The agreement also contained a provision outlining the dual annexation of Eastern Europe, which foreshadowed Moscow’s actions following the war.

The Kremlin’s recent moves are a continuation of the aggressive, militant policies that caused so much pain throughout the 20th century. (The transition from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation hasn’t changed the nation’s underlying policies.) Its recent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, and its threatening stance against other Eastern European nations are clear examples.

In addition, it is diagnosed that in some way you actually started to obsess over the capital T: why best prices on viagra did it start, how can I get better. The Orthopedic physical therapy falls under the similar group of discount levitra no rx Sports Physical Therapy. In order to minimize the risks associated with the following diseases: Willms Renal Tumor Congenital heart disease Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) Angiodisplazia Epilepsy treated with valproic acid Hypothyroidism Von Willebrand disease is divided into three categories: partial quantitative deficiency type I, qualitative deficiency type II and total deficiency type III. price for generic viagra Well, not all medicines are effective even if they come cheap and follow the guidelines prescribed in the rules viagra cheapest price and it will surely make a difference. Russia’s foray into Syria provides another clear indication of how it is still following the game plan followed during the era of the Nazi-Soviet alliance. The 1936 Spanish Civil War served as a testing and training ground for Hitler’s military, which began WW2 as the best trained armed force in Europe. President Putin’s expensively re-equipped and modernized military is becoming battle-hardened and tested in these conflicts.

While the Obama Administration continues its peace at any price worldview (similar to that of Britain’s pre-war Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who famously believed that he could prevent conflict with Germany by appeasing Hitler) the NATO alliance is beginning to take some, albeit inadequate, steps in recognition of the rapidly growing threat. Its’ plan provides for enhanced readiness, and sets up two more NATO Force Integration Units (NFIUs) or small headquarters in Hungary and Slovakia. Six other NFIUs were activated in September in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. The United Kingdom will rotate more troops into the Baltics and Poland for training and exercises.

The action comes in response to several Russian moves, including the increased power and modernity of Moscow’s forces, its invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, its incursions near the airspace of several NATO countries (including the very recent entry into Turkey’s airspace) and the Kremlin’s establishment of airbases in Belarus in order to threaten NATO members Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. The violation of arms accords relating to intermediate range nuclear weapons, and Russia’s ten to one lead in the possession of those devices, has produced significant concern as well.

While NATO’s actions are appropriate, the fact remains that the military budgets of its members remain far below adequate to truly challenge Moscow’s threatening stance. While this has been a long-standing pattern for NATO’s European members, the recent decline of America’s defense spending has dramatically enhanced the problem.

The Obama Administration’s faulty historical memory, a product of the Presidents’ progressive roots, is disturbing enough. When combined with its absolute refusal to change its foreign policy course and national security strategy in the face of consistent, repeated and major failures, the concern becomes extreme.

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

Russian nukes in Ukraine signal danger for the West

Why is Russia setting up a nuclear weapons infrastructure in its captured portion of Ukraine, and what does it mean for the West? (The Jamestown Foundation notes that “TU-22M3 long-range bombers, which would be able to carry and deliver [nuclear] weapons, have now been deployed to Crimea.”)

Although it rarely gets mentioned, Ukraine voluntarily surrendered its nuclear arsenal—the third largest in the world– in return for guarantees of its territorial sovereignty.

The US, the UK, and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994 supposedly safeguarding Ukraine . Clearly, all three guarantors, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, have broken their word.  Moscow invaded and annexed a portion of Ukraine, and neither London nor Washington did anything substantive in response.

That failure sent a reverberating, powerful message to aggressors across the globe. Russia, which is in violation of other treaties, has learned that it can abrogate agreements with impunity.  So can other anti-Western powers.

Moscow currently is also in violation of the 1987 Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) . The Hudson Institute notes that “The agreement bans the testing or deployment of intermediate range cruise and ballistic missiles, those with a range between 500km and 5500 km. In its annual 2014 arms control Compliance Report, the Department of State noted that Russia had violated the pact when it deployed a ground-launched cruise missile, whose unique Iskandar system can fire both cruise and ballistic missiles and a system Russia plans to deploy to Crimea… Nor is it Russia’s only INF violation. Moscow also has converted a single-warhead ICBM into a three-warhead intermediate-range ballistic missile, a violation missing from the 2014 Compliance Report.”
Pre-menopause plus having menopause was found among women who actually is in close proximity into it situation, it usually happens because on to hormone imbalances and are more likely into have an affect on ladies just who now have sildenafil tablet viagra depressive disorders earlier inside their very own day-to-day lives. Causes Of ED Erectile tadalafil tablets india dysfunction can occur in men at any age can be caused by unhealthy lifestyles, improper diet, smoking and drinking habit. Online ordering is easy; simply find a site where prices are considerably lower than usual – do not hurry to purchase. sildenafil price viagra 25 mg pdxcommercial.com You can consume these herbal supplements without any fear of side effects.
Iran and Syria know that America’s threats, and promises of protection to its allies, are not serious. China has harassed and stolen assets from its neighbors.

Apologists for Putin may claim that Russia is only solidifying his grip on a strategic occupied portion of Ukraine.  However, Jamestown reports that “Nor are these Russian military reinforcements seemingly aimed only at the strategic Ukrainian port city of Mariupol. They are also occurring in and around Belarus and sites in western Russia like Belgorod, where massed Russian forces can be turned against the inviting defense-industry target of Kharkiv, in northeastern Ukraine (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, March 16). These reinforcements also derive from previously announced plans to emphasize Russian military buildups for 2015, in the Baltic, Crimea and the Arctic (RIA Novosti, March 17). Moscow’s boosting of its nuclear and conventional forces suggests a continuing Russian effort not just to deter NATO but also to intimidate European governments.”

The message to the West is clear: Russia is asserting hegemony over the former Soviet republics and the Kremlin’s former captive nations in Eastern Europe. It is also returning to Moscow’s former desire to cow the rest of Europe into relative submission.

There has been an historically rapid turnaround from the late 20th century collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the potential era of peace that could have resulted from it.  The failure of the West, the United States in particular, to maintain an adequate military capability, and the pacifist/isolationist policies of the Obama Administration in particular, have squandered what was a true opportunity for a prolonged period of international peace.

Categories
Quick Analysis

House Armed Services Committee begins hearings on Russian aggression

Tensions continue to mount as Russia expands its influence in Ukraine and engages in nuclear-capable bomber flights close to the airspace of NATO members in Europe and North America.

NATO’s Deputy Secretary General, Alexander Vershbow maintains that “Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is not an isolated incident, but a game-changer in European security. It reflects an evolving pattern of behavior that has been emerging for several years, despite our efforts to reach out to Russia and build a cooperative European security system with Russia.”

Apart from all these ingredients, VigRx plus pills also contain other component. cheap buy viagra This is because it is available as order viagra online http://www.devensec.com/rules-regs/decregs404.html which is very useful is also expensive. Avail Best Cure of Erection with Kamagra In this modern era, kamagra tablets are regarded the best solution of men’s common sexual problem . viagra 50mg canada A man having a heart problem cost of tadalafil lacks the flow of blood in the body which further fills the penis with good growth makes you feel proud and gives the pleasure to your partner in a better manner. House Armed Services Committee chair Mac Thornberry has begun hearings  on threats to international security in Europe.

In a preliminary statement, the chairman addressed the nature of the threats: “First is the naked aggression of conquest. We have seen this in Europe many times in the past.  History has taught us that aggression, unchallenged in its early days, leads to greater costs and greater misery when it finally must be confronted. “Second is the undermining of the rules-based international system that has existed since the end of World War II.  I am among those who are convinced that President Putin is working to undermine the current international structure, in order to replace it with one more to his liking.  And he has some unsavory allies in that effort.
The third challenge is the tactics that are being used by Russia in Ukraine.  We’ve heard a lot about “little green men,” but the various efforts Russia is using to undermine the Ukrainian security forces –as well as to pull a facade over its own involvement– presents challenges to NATO and the United States.  We do not deal with naked lies, subversion, and other forms of subterfuge very well.”

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

AMERICAN DISINTEGRATION PART 2: DIPLOMACY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories
Quick Analysis

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
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

Can NATO Survive?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Report continues next week.

Categories
Quick Analysis

What the Cook Incident Reveals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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