Messages In This Digest (20 Messages)

11.: Draft 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review leaked From: linguisticresearch

12.: U.S. State Department: Still Committed To Trans-Eurasian Energy War From: Rick Rozoff

13.: Russian Envoy: U.S. Missiles In Poland To Control All Of Kaliningrad From: Rick Rozoff

14.: World Social Forum: Campaign Against U.S. Bases In Latin America From: Rick Rozoff

15.: Biden: U.S. To Increase Spending On Nuclear Weapons Stockpile From: Rick Rozoff

16.: Venezuela Warns Of Coup Plot From: Rick Rozoff

17.: Yemeni Opposition Parties Condemn London Conference From: Rick Rozoff

18.: 50 Warships In Baltic: U.S. To Lead Naval Exercises Off Finnish Coas From: Rick Rozoff

19.: Albright Promotes Further NATO-EU Integration From: Rick Rozoff

20.: NATO Afghan Deaths In January: 41 Versus 25 In 2009 From: Rick Rozoff

View All Topics | Create New Topic

Messages

1.: Pentagon Confronts Russia In The Baltic Sea

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:01 pm (PST)

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/pentagon-confronts-russia-in-the-baltic-sea

Stop NATO
January 28, 2010

Pentagon Confronts Russia In The Baltic Sea
Rick Rozoff

Twelve months ago a new U.S. administration entered the White House as the world entered a new year.

Two and a half weeks later the nation's new vice president, Joseph Biden, spoke at the annual Munich Security Conference and said "it's time to press the reset button and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia."

Incongruously to any who expected a change in tact if not substance regarding strained U.S.-Russian relations, in the same speech Biden emphasized that, using the "New World Order" shibboleth of the past generation at the end, "Two months from now, the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will gather to celebrate the 60th year of this Alliance. This Alliance has been the cornerstone of our common security since the end of World War II. It has anchored the United States in Europe and helped forge a Europe whole and free." [1]

Six months before, while Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he rushed to the nation of Georgia five days after the end of the country's five-day war with Russia as an emissary for the George W. Bush administration, and pledged $1 billion in assistance to the beleaguered regime of former U.S. resident Mikheil Saakashvili.

To demonstrate how serious Biden and the government he represented were about rhetorical gimmicks like reset buttons, four months after his Munich address Biden visited Ukraine and Georgia to shore up their "color revolution"-bred heads of state (outgoing Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is married to a Chicagoan and former Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush official) in their anti-Russian and pro-NATO stances.

While back in Georgia he insisted "We understand that Georgia aspires to join NATO. We fully support that aspiration."

In Ukraine he said "As we reset the relationship with Russia, we reaffirm our commitment to an independent Ukraine, and we recognize no sphere of influence or no ability of any other nation to veto the choices an independent nation makes," [2] also in reference to joining the U.S.-dominated military bloc. Biden's grammar may have been murky, but his message was unmistakeably clear.

Upon his return home Biden gave an interview to the Wall Street Journal, the contents of which were indicated by the title the newspaper gave its account of them - "Biden Says Weakened Russia Will Bend to U.S." - and which were characterized by the Center for Strategic and International Studies as "the most critical statements from a senior administration official to date vis-a-vis Russia." [3]

It took the Barack Obama government eight months to make its first friendly gesture to Russia. In September of last year the American president and Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that they were abandoning the Bush administration's plan to station ten ground-based midcourse interceptor missiles in Poland in favor of a "stronger, smarter, and swifter" alternative.

The new system would rely on the deployment of Aegis class warships equipped with SM-3 (Standard Missile-3) missiles - with a range of at least 500 kilometers (310 miles) - which "provide the flexibility to move interceptors from one region to another if needed," [4] in Gates' words.

The first location for their deployment will be the Baltic Sea according to all indications.

The proximity of Russia's two largest cities, St. Petersburg and Moscow, especially the first, to the Baltic coast makes the basing of American warships with interceptor missiles in that sea the equivalent of Russia stationing comparable vessels with the same capability in the Atlantic Ocean near Delaware Bay, within easy striking distance of New York City and Washington, D.C.

Although Washington canceled the earlier interceptor missile plans for Poland, on January 20 the defense ministry of that country announced that not only would the Pentagon go ahead with the deployment of a Patriot Advanced Capability-3 anti-ballistic missile battery in the country, but that it would be based on the Baltic Sea coast 35 miles from Russia's Kaliningrad district. [5]

The previous month Viktor Zavarzin, the head of the Defense Committee of the Russian State Duma (the lower house of parliament), said "Russia is concerned with how rapidly new NATO members are upgrading their military infrastructure" and "that Russia was especially concerned with the reconstruction of air bases in the Baltic countries for NATO's purposes which include signal and air intelligence radio of Russian territory." [6]

As it should be.

Since the Baltic Sea nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were ushered into NATO as full members in 2004, warplanes from Alliance member states have shared four-month rotations in patrolling the region, with two U.S. deployments to date.

Shortly before the patrols began almost six years ago the Russian media reported that "Relations between Russia and Estonia have been tense ever since NATO built a radar station on the Russian-Estonian border last year. On March 23, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko warned Russia would retaliate 'if NATO planes fly over Russian borders after the Baltic nations join the alliance.'" [7]

Last year the Obama-Biden administration went ahead with a series of major military exercises in the Baltic region:

The annual BALTOPS (Baltic Operations), the largest international military exercise conducted in the Baltic Sea, run by the U.S. Navy, NATO and the latter's Partnership for Peace program which included naval forces from twelve nations - Britain, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the United States - led by U.S. Carrier Strike Group 12.

The 10-day Loyal Arrow 2009 NATO military exercises in Sweden with 50 jet fighters (the U.S. Air Force's F-15 Eagle among them) and NATO AWACS.

The Cold Response 09 NATO exercises in Norway (north and west of the Baltic) with over 7,000 troops from thirteen nations as well as air and naval forces.

"Cold Response 2010 is expected to be even larger" than last year's war games. [8] The U.S. Marine Corps "is planning Cold Response 2010, an exercise in Norway that could include a company of infantry Marines and a detachment of trainers with Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command." [9]

"The Corps has used caves carved into the sides of mountains here [Norway] for nearly 20 years, storing vehicles, equipment and ammunition later shipped everywhere from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to training exercises in Africa....[T]he Norwegians plan their security knowing that Marines will defend Norway in an attack using everything from Humvees to Howitzers that are already in place." [10]

The Defense Professionals website in Germany published a report on January 26 of a meeting of the Nordic-Baltic Chiefs of Defense (Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Norway, Finland. Lithuania and Sweden) to plan the "Baltic Host, Sabre Strike, and Amber Hope exercises to be held in the Baltics this and the following year."

"Exercise Baltic Host will be held this year in Latvia for participants from Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the US." [11] Last year's Baltic Host in Estonia included military personnel from that nation and from Latvia, Lithuania, United States European Command (EUCOM) and Strike Force NATO.

The earlier Amber Hope 07 was held in Lithuania and included the participation of over 1,700 troops from NATO and Partnership for Peace countries: Armenia, Britain, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, as well as representatives from NATO multinational headquarters.

Earlier this month a planning conference was held at the Gen. Adolfas Ramanauskas Warfare Training Center in Lithuania for the Sabre Strike 2010 military drills "where representatives of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the US prepare[d] documentation and draft plans for the exercise which is scheduled to take place in Latvia in October 2010."

"Sabre Strike 2010 will be designed to tune together interoperability procedures of the three Baltic States and the US with prospects of participation in the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) operation in Afghanistan and other multinational operations in the future. This exercise for the first time will pull together troops of the Baltic States and the US for a training event of such character." [12]

2,000 troops from the four nations will take part and the war games will end with "a complex field exercise." [13]

On January 28 the Helsingin Sanomat announced that "Finland is to play host to what is by far the largest naval military exercise that has ever been seen in Finnish territorial waters" in September which "will be joined by 50 ships and 2,500 persons."

The Northern Coasts maneuvers will include warships and troops from Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Latvia, Poland, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States and will consist of both sea and land drills, and the "maritime operations will be supported by air and special troops." [14]

Not only hosting the largest naval war games in its history - ones simulating "a conflict between two countries that has an effect on the surrounding countries as well" - Finland will provide "nearly the entire Navy fleet" for the operation.

A local reported inquired whether the maneuvers were related to Russia's plans for a natural gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea:

"At least according to the Finnish Navy, the exercise does not have anything to do with the Baltic Sea's planned underwater gas pipeline, Nord Stream.

"But at least off hand, Annele Apajakari, Chief Public Information Officer at Navy Command Finland, was unable to say why also the United States, the
Netherlands, and France will be involved." [15]

The preceding day the same newspaper ran a story about prospective NATO-Russia military tensions in the Baltic region and quoted retired Lieutenant-General Matti Ahola as warning: "If the United States were to bring its planned anti-missile vessels into the Baltic Sea, it would bring about a reaction." [16]

That was a week after the announcement that U.S. Patriot missiles and 100 troops were headed to Poland's - eastern - Baltic coast.

In an article bearing the headline "Thanks to Poland, the alliance will defend the Baltics," the British weekly the Economist on January 14 wrote that NATO would "stand by its weakest members — the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania" - and was elaborating "formal contingency plans to defend them."

The magazine reported that "The main push came from Poland, a big American ally in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the first to gain contingency plans — initially only against a putative (and implausible) attack from Belarus, a country barely a quarter of its size....Poland accelerated its push for a bilateral security relationship with America, including the stationing of Patriot anti-missile rockets on Polish soil in return for hosting a missile-defence base." [17]

"Formal approval is still pending and the countries concerned have been urged to keep it under wraps. But sources close to the talks say the deal is done: the Baltic states will get their plans, probably approved by NATO's military side rather than its political wing. They will be presented as an annex to existing plans regarding Poland, but with an added regional dimension. That leaves room for Sweden and Finland (not members of the alliance but increasingly close to it) to take a role in the planning too. A big bilateral American exercise already planned for the Baltic this summer is likely to widen to include other countries." [18]

Poland is the prototype for and the foundation upon which the Pentagon and NATO are constructing a formidable military - naval, air, ground and interceptor missile - network in the Baltic Sea region on Russia's northwest frontier.

Late last year Lithuanian Minister of Foreign Affairs Vygaudas Usackas
delivered a lecture called "The New NATO Strategic Concept: Lithuania's Vision" to participants of the Higher Command Studies Course of the Baltic Defense College (BALTDEFCOL) in which he stated "NATO is the embodiment of transatlantic relations. NATO should remain open to western countries, such as Finland or Sweden, to eastern countries like Ukraine or Georgia, as well as to the Balkan countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Montenegro and other countries." [19] (The Baltic Defense College is based in Estonia and in addition to instructing officers from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania also trains personnel from other NATO and EU states and countries like Bosnia, Georgia, Moldova, Romania and Ukraine.)

As well as advocating the incorporation of states neighboring Russia to its west and its south into NATO, the Lithuanian foreign minister asserted "that Article 5 was the basis of the organisation and it should remain the cornerstone of NATO in the future." [20]

NATO's Article 5 is a mutual military assistance obligation, the main substance of which is in its first paragraph, which reads:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

The outlines of a NATO "defense force" in the Baltic area and beyond were further delineated last November when it was revealed that Poland, Lithuania and Ukraine are to establish a "joint army." The combined military unit "may have a political objective. It is meant to set up an alternative center of military consolidation for West European projects, a center which could embrace former Soviet republics (above all Ukraine), now outside NATO. There is no doubt who will control this process, considering U.S. influence in Poland and the Baltics." [21]

Additionally, it will be linked to the Multinational Corps Northeast which was initially formed of Danish, German and Polish troops and later joined by forces from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. And the U.S. "[T]he Baltic military has cooperation experience with Polish troops. The Ukrainian military, too, has cooperation experience with NATO within the Partnership for Peace program....Establishment of a permanent brigade-class joint unit is expected to improve teamwork, allowing Ukrainians to grow into NATO's command, staff, tactical and logistic culture." [22]

The Multinational Corps Northeast has been used in Afghanistan where it has acquired direct combat zone experience.

The American client responsible for Ukraine's abrupt pro-NATO orientation, President Viktor Yushchenko, barely won 5 percent of the vote in this year's January 17 presidential election and is on his way out of office barring a reprise of the "orange revolution" of six years ago. Though at the NATO Military Committee meeting on January 27 Colonel-General Ivan Svyda, Chief of the General Staff and Commander-in-Chief of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, announced that his nation was training troops for the NATO Response Force, a 25,000-troop global strike force. "The NATO Response Force (NRF) is a highly ready and technologically advanced force made up of land, air, sea and special forces components that the Alliance can deploy quickly wherever needed.

"It is capable of performing missions worldwide across the whole spectrum of operations...." [23]

The Ukrainian military chief announced "We selected 12 detachments that are undergoing training in line with NATO standards and represent all types and branches of troops, including engineer units, the marines, field engineers, chemical and biological defense troops and others. Up to 500 Ukrainian servicemen will participate in the [alliance's response] force." [24]

The U.S. and NATO intend Ukraine to serve as a bridge between their new outposts on the Baltic Sea to the north and Georgia and Azerbaijan on Russia's southern border.

Ukraine is being mentored and shepherded into the NATO pen with the U.S. employing the Baltic states of Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as both models and guides. The same mechanism with the same actors is being used for Georgia.

Last month the defense ministers of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania signed a communique on joint military collaboration which "welcomed closer military cooperation in the security sector between the Baltic States and the USA which also included joint exercises in the Baltic region." [25]

After releasing the statement, the three defense chiefs visited the Adazi Training Base in Latvia and "met with Gen. Roger A. Brady, Commander US Air Forces in Europe and NATO Allied Air Component.

"In the communique the NATO operation in Afghanistan was underscored as a priority of all the Baltic States." [26]

On January 1 the Trilateral Baltic Battalion (BALTBAT) - with troops from Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia - began duty in the 14th rotation of the NATO Response Force. "On the same date Lithuanians...also enter[ed] a half-year standby period in the EU Battle Group." [27]

On the Western end of the Baltic, on January 17 Swedish Defense Minister Sten Tolgfors spoke on the Targeting Decisions on Strengthening Defense
Capability (TDSDC) program launched on January 1, pledged that "Sweden will develop its national defense in cooperation with NATO and neighbors Finland, Denmark and Norway" and added:

"Our defense policy adds a new neighborhood perspective. The structure and direction of Sweden's Armed Forces will continue to have a clear Baltic profile. We have northern Europe's largest and most qualified Air Force
that is twice as large as any of our neighbors, and it has a full operational range."

"It is the biggest renewal of security and defense policy for decades in
Sweden. We will use 2010 to make the requisite decisions to carry out the modernization of our military, and civilian crisis, management capabilities." [28]

Under the new program all members of the Swedish armed forces, now transitioned from a conscript to an all-volunteer (according to NATO demands for military "professionalization" of member and partner states) status, "are to be available for deployment at home or abroad in five to seven days in situations of 'heightened alert.'" [29]

"In the old system, a third of the forces - which in 2008 meant 11,400 military personnel - were supposed to be able to deploy within one year from mobilization. In the new defence system, all 50,000 members of the forces would have to be 'usable and available' within a week....The soldiers in the conscript army could never be used for missions outside Sweden's borders, but now that all soldiers will either be full-time employees or on contract, they will be available to deploy anywhere....New is also the focus on the Baltic Sea Region." [30]

Last autumn a German Luftwaffe Eurofighter intercepted a Russian plane over the Baltic Sea. "After the German jet challenged the radar plane, the Russians scrambled two fighters, which approached at supersonic speed. Finnish jets then escorted the Russians back to international airspace, averting a further escalation of the situation." [31]

This month NATO extended its Baltic warplane deployments until 2014. "The Baltic skies are presently secured by the so-called NATO air police, which
in addition to fighter planes also provide air defense systems and manpower." [32]

Added to the permanent presence of Western military aircraft are now American Patriot missiles and troops to operate them in Poland, "a demonstrative anti-Russian move" according to a leading general of the latter nation. [33]

Persistent U.S. and NATO military moves are threatening to turn the Baltic Sea region into a powder keg that another hostile encounter between Western and Russian military aircraft could ignite at any time.

As to government officials and the news media in Russia, a year is a sufficiently long period of time to awaken from the illusion of an imaginative rest button that will reverse a decade of NATO penetration of the Baltic Sea and the consolidation of military infrastructure there aimed squarely - and exclusively - at their own nation.

Related articles:

Scandinavia And The Baltic Sea: NATO's War Plans For The High North
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/31/scandinavia-and-the-baltic-sea-natos-war-plans-for-the-high-north

Afghan War: NATO Trains Finland, Sweden For Conflict With Russia
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/afghan-war-nato-trains-finland-sweden-for-conflict-with-russia

End of Scandinavian Neutrality: NATO's Militarization Of Europe
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/end-of-scandinavian-neutrality-natos-militarization-of-europe

ABC Of West's Global Military Network: Afghanistan, Baltics, Caucasus
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/28/abc-of-wests-global-military-network-afghanistan-baltics-caucasus

1) Berlin Wall: From Europe Whole And Free To New World Order
Stop NATO, November 9, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/berlin-wall-from-europe-whole-and-free-to-new-world-order
2) Associated Press, July 23, 2009
3) Center for Strategic and International Studies, July 28, 2009
4) Russia Today, September 17, 2009
5) With Nuclear, Conventional Arms Pacts Stalled, U.S. Moves Missiles And
Troops To Russian Border
Stop NATO, January 22, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/22/with-nuclear-conventional-arms-pacts-stalled-u-s-moves-missiles-and-troops-to-russian-border
6) Voice of Russia, December 8, 2009
7) RosBusinessConsulting, March 26, 2004
8) Barents Observer, March 4, 2009
9) Marine Corps Times, July 21, 2009
10) Ibid
11) Defense Professionals, January 26, 2010
12) Lithuanian Armed Forces, January 11, 2010
13) Ibid
14) Helsingin Sanomat, January 28, 2010
15) Ibid
16) Helsingin Sanomat, January 27, 2010
17) Economist, January 14, 2010
18) Ibid
19) Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, November 28, 2009
20) Ibid
21) Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 18, 2009
22) Ibid
23) http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49755.htm
24) Ukrinform, January 28, 2010
25) Defense Professionals, December 14, 2009
26) Ibid
27) Defense Professionals, January 4, 2010
28) Defense News, January 25, 2010
29) Ibid
30) Radio Sweden, January 18, 2010
31) The Local (Germany), November 3, 2009
32) Russian Information Agency Novosti, January 4, 2010
33) Interfax-Ukraine, January 20, 2010
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

2.: Die USA stationieren Raketen und Truppen an der russischen Grenze

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Thu Jan 28, 2010 4:04 pm (PST)

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/857

Stop NATO
28. Januar 2010

Gefährlicher Scheideweg: Die USA stationieren Raketen und Truppen an der russischen Grenze
Rick Rozoff

Atomwaffensperrvertrag und Sperrverträge über konventionelle Waffen sind ausgesetzt

Übersetzung:
http://www.propagandafront.de/gefahrlicher-scheideweg-die-usa-stationieren-raketen-und-truppen-an-der-russischen-grenze.html

Das Jahr 2010 begann auf eine Art, wie es sich eigentlich mehr für den dritten Monat des Jahres, der nach dem römischen Kriegsgott benannt ist, geziemt und nicht für den ersten Monat, dessen Name von einer friedlichen Gottheit herrührt.

Am 13.01.2010 berichtete Associated Press, dass das Weiße Haus am 01.02.2010 seinen Vierjahres-Verteidigungs-Bericht an den Kongress übermitteln will und eine Rekordsumme in Höhe von USD 708 Milliarden für das Pentagon fordert. Das ist der höchste absolute, wie auch inflationsbereinigte Betrag seit 1946, dem Jahr nachdem der Zweite Weltkrieg endete. Nehmen wir noch die anderen Verteidigungsausgaben hinzu, die nicht über das Pentagon laufen, könnte die Gesamtsumme USD 1 Billion übersteigen.

Zum Artikel:

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/857

===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

3.: Raytheon Sales Rise 20% On Global Missile Deals

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:22 pm (PST)

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aqjFqiwaGxeI

Bloomberg News
January 28, 2010

Raytheon Net Rises 20% on Missiles, Repeats Forecast (Correct)
Gopal Ratnam

Raytheon Co., the world's largest missile maker, said fourth-quarter profit rose 20 percent on higher sales of the Patriot weapon system and repeated its 2010 earnings forecast.

Net income increased to $504 million, or $1.30 a share, from $421 million, or $1.01, a year earlier, Waltham, Massachusetts-based Raytheon said today in a statement. Excluding some items, profit was $1.29 a share. The average estimate of 19 analysts was for earnings of $1.24. Sales rose 9.5 percent to $6.67 billion.
....
"We did have a very strong year in international awards and we expect that to be the case as we go into 2010," Chief Financial Officer David Wajsgras said today in a phone interview. As examples, he pointed to Taiwan's order for Patriot missile systems in the fourth quarter and Japan's airborne radar systems order received in the first quarter of 2009. The company may make "strategic acquisitions in the range of about $500 million" to boost growth, he said.
....
Missile Systems sales increased 3.4 percent to $1.41 billion led by U.S. and international orders for Sea Sparrow, Maverick and Phalanx missile programs, Raytheon said in the statement. Operating profit rose 8.5 percent to $154 million.
....
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

4.: Karzai: NATO In Afghanistan Another Decade

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:22 pm (PST)

http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=114915

Azeri Press Agency
January 29, 2010

Afghan president predicts long NATO stay
Ziya Agazade

Baku: Afghan President Hamid Karzai warned Thursday that foreign troops must stay in his country for another decade, as world powers agreed on an exit map including a plan to persuade Taliban fighters to disarm in exchange for jobs and homes, APA reports citing Associated Press.

Divisions emerged between the U.S. and its partners over Kabul's willingness to offer peace to Taliban leaders who once harbored al-Qaida, instead of the more limited deal for lower-ranking fighters emphasized by the Americans.

The conference was called to help the U.S. and its allies find a way out of the grinding Afghan war amid rising U.S. and NATO casualties and falling public support. NATO has agreed to accelerate the training of Afghan security forces and gradually transfer more combat responsibility to them.

"With regard to training and equipping the Afghan security forces, five to 10 years will be enough," Karzai told the BBC. "With regard to sustaining them until Afghanistan is financially able to provide for our forces, the time will be extended to 10 to 15 years."

In a final communique, the conference said handover of security responsibilities to Afghan forces in more peaceful provinces would begin "by late 2010/early 2011."

Under the plans, the Afghan National Army would take responsibility of half of Afghanistan's 34 provinces within three years and assume control of the entire country within five years.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

5.: Obama Address: Missile Shield Is About Russia, Not Iran

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:23 pm (PST)

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/obama-makes-clear-that-missile-shield-is-about-russia-not-iran-2645

The Comment Factory
January 29, 2010

Obama makes clear that Missile Shield is about Russia, not Iran
By Alastair Kocho-Williams*

"I have embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons, and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades."

With these words in his State of the Union Address, Obama last night made clear what the missile shield in Eastern Europe is really about. While the Bush administration claimed that the missile shield was about dealing with a threat from Iran, Obama has made it clear that it is about a threat from Russia, or at least a perceived threat.

Having scrapped the plan for a missile shield in Eastern Europe last September, it is now back on the table with missiles set to be deployed in Poland as early as March or April of this year.

The missiles will be within 35 miles of the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, which makes clear that this is geographically about dealing with a perceived Russian threat to Eastern Europe, rather than an Iranian threat to the West.

This is not about Iran, this is about Russia, and the Cold War lives on.

Obama draws on the Cold War legacy of two of his predecessors who had an impact on arms control, but also developed missile defence programmes. While we should not forget the progress made by Kennedy in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis after 1962 on arms control, or the agreements made by Reagan in the 1980s on arms control, we must remember that both of these men also implemented missile defence programmes to deal with a perceived threat from the Soviet Union.

The Kennedy administration had installed Jupiter missiles in Turkey as a deterrent to the Soviets, although they were forced to remove them following the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Reagan famously developed Star Wars, and even if it foundered, that baton has been picked up in the more recent plans for a missile shield in Europe.

Obama is developing the plans of the Kennedy and Reagan eras, and although he is trying to dress it up as following on from the discussions that were had with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the deterrent aspect of his predecessors policies is also present.

Obama is playing this down, understandably, but we would be naive to buy into the notion that his arms initiatives are purely about control through treaties, and that there is no nuclear deterrent being deployed.

So too, we should not be fooled into thinking this is about Iran or North Korea.

While there may be an policy aspect concerned with deterring aggression from these states, Russia is the key to all of this. They are the named partner for the discussions in Obama's speech, and it is them that the missile shield is primarily to deter.

* Alastair Kocho-Williams earned his PhD in Russian History from the University of Manchester in 2006. He has taught History at the University of Leeds and the University of the West of England, where he is Senior Lecturer in International and Soviet History.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

6.: Sweden To Provide Finnish Army With More Air Defense Missiles

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:24 pm (PST)

http://www.brahmand.com/news/Finnish-Army-places-order-for-more-RBS-70-missiles/3027/1/10.html

Brahmand Defence and Aerospace News
January 28, 2010

Finnish Army places order for more RBS 70 missiles

STOCKHOLM: The Finnish Army will procure more RBS 70 short range air defence missile systems from Sweden's defence firm Saab Group.

The country has awarded a contract worth over $35 million to the company to supply the ground based air defence systems to its army.

First deliveries of materiel are scheduled for 2011, Saab announced.

The Finnish Army had placed an order for RBS 70s with Saab in 2007.

The RBS 70, specifically designed for the army's use, is a man-portable/vehicle-mounted air defence missile system. It can be carried by most wheeled and tracked vehicles.

The missile can be operated independently in stand-alone mode or can be configured with several firing units linked with a surveillance radar. The Giraffe land mobile radar, mounted on a truck, can be linked to nine such missiles to form an anti-aircraft battery.

The missile takes credit for being the first laser guided defence missile system in the world.

In its basic configuration, the RBS 70 comprises a stand, sight and missile. The missile is equipped with a solid propellant booster motor and a solid propellant sustainer motor.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

7.: Georgian Militarization And Its Diplomatic Backing

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Thu Jan 28, 2010 7:25 pm (PST)

http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=2728

Strategic Culture Foundation
January 28, 2010

Georgian Militarization and Its Diplomatic Backing
Andrei Areshev

-The orientation of the Georgian administration is growing increasingly anti-Russian, the overall objective being to confront Russia militarily in a broader sense rather than to regain Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
-Debates over the potential opening of US military bases in Georgia – and also in Azerbaijan – have become a recurrent theme. In the context of the already announced US plan to attack Iran, airbases in the region could be of great use to Washington. There are rumors that Georgia and Israel signed a secret agreement by which two Georgian airports are passed under the Israeli control, tentatively to target Iran's nuclear facilities.

Former Georgian Prime Minister and Movement for Fair Georgia leader Z. Noghaideli plans to visit Moscow again this February. According to the Vzglyad Internet outlet, the purpose of the visit is to sign a cooperation agreement with the pro-government United Russia party. Noghaideli said in an interview to Vsya Nedelya it is time "to put an end to the useless confrontation with Russia and to establish normal if not friendly relations with it". He said this is, among other things, necessary to address Georgia's problems with Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

The same view is held (at list publicly) by NATO leaders. Following the December, 2009 meeting between the foreign ministers of the alliance member countries and those of Ukraine and Georgia, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen called Georgia to open dialog with Russia and said this is what the country needed to boost its chances for NATO admission.

Nevertheless, Brussels continues to support Georgia's "territorial integrity" and military reforms. Discussions of the draft Georgian Strategies with Respect to Separatist Regions are underway in Tbilisi. The document seems to stress humanitarian issues such as making it possible for the residents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to take part in US-Georgia student exchanges (students need Georgian passports to get enrolled in the corresponding programs).

In the meantime, the "military reform" in Georgia is in full swing.

Military and patriotic instruction at Georgian schools, which was abolished in 2007, has been reinstated. On December 26, 2009 Georgian President M. Saakashvili declared the country was ready to start training reservists. He said at the inauguration of the new building of the National Guard administration that a war is waged against Georgia, the country is facing a daily threat, and not only its military, but all of its citizens including women must be armed and prepared to resist and to turn every home into a stronghold. Saakashvili said Georgia had enough machine guns and rounds of ammunition to arm 100,000, 200,000, or even half a million people if necessary (1).

It is an open question how many Georgians are actually ready to risk their lives fighting for Georgia and its controversial president. Obviously, the mobilizing effect of the campaign asserting that Russia launched aggression against Georgia in August, 2008 was modest. Nevertheless, Georgia has serious armed forces and special services.

The conclusion in the August Tanks study of the five-day war is that at present Georgia is continuing to implement the military programs launched before the five-day war. The orientation of the Georgian administration is growing increasingly anti-Russian, the overall objective being to confront Russia militarily in a broader sense rather than to regain Abkhazia and South Ossetia. (2)

By the summer of 2008 the Georgian army numbered 32,000 servicemen. Its overland component - 22,000 servicemen – comprised five infantry brigades, an artillery brigade, an engineering brigade (in the formative phase), a special operations group, seven battalions (tanks and infantry, light infantry, medical, military police, communications, radar reconnaissance, supplies), and an air defense battery. The 5th infantry brigade was in the process of being formed (its 53rd light infantry battalion was through with 12 weeks of basic training only by October 3, 2008), and most of the best-trained 1st infantry brigade (2,000 servicemen) was in Iraq.

According to the budget data of the Georgian ministry of defense, as of the summer of 2009 the number of servicemen in the Georgian armed forces reached 37,800. Alternative sources set the number at 36,600, including 36,200 in direct military service. Georgia's ground forces count 23,000 servicemen (currently the officially stated figure is 20,500, but it does not include new formations such as the recently created anti-tank battalion). In contrast to the situation of August, 2008, at the moment practically all of Georgia's military are in the country and, apart from a plan to send a small continent to Afghanistan, aren't going to leave it. Besides, the relatively new 4th and 5th infantry brigades have received additional training after the five-day war.

A separate artillery brigade #2 is being formed on the basis of the Khoni group of the Gori artillery brigade. The training of its personnel began in November, 2008. The 5th tank brigade is being formed in the western part of Georgia, the purpose being to strengthen the Georgian military capability in the Abkhazian direction. The process of personnel training in the Georgian army, its mobilization procedures and reserve training have been improved radically. (Georgian reservists demonstrated a zero level of combat readiness in August, 2008.)

On the whole the overland component of the Georgian armed forces added a regular infantry brigade (or three brigades, considering that two army-type brigades of reservists are being formed) and an artillery brigade, which means a buildup by a factor of 1.5-23. Since no embargo is imposed on Georgia, arming the forces should not be a problem for the country.

The analysis of the dynamics of Georgia's military budget confirms the above. It totaled 138.8 mln Lari ($77.6 mln) in 2005 and 260 mln Lari ($146 mln) in 2006. Interestingly, in 2006 the EU demanded that Georgia freeze its military budget since the countries more urgent needs lay in the spheres of health care, social welfare, and small business support, while the swelling of the military budget in no way benefited the population. Nevertheless, next year the military budget of the country whose President for some reason puts the EU flag in his office during interviews rose to 955 mln Lari ($680 mln). It reached 1,350 mln Lari ($965 mln) in 2008, and shrank by a third only last year – to 950 mln Lari ($679 mln). Despite the contraction, Georgia continues to steer a course aimed at its total militarization1.

Debates over the potential opening of US military bases in Georgia – and also in Azerbaijan – have become a recurrent theme. In the context of the already announced US plan to attack Iran, airbases in the region could be of great use to Washington. There are rumors that Georgia and Israel signed a secret agreement by which two Georgian airports are passed under the Israeli control, tentatively to target Iran's nuclear facilities. (5)

In the light of the above, the January, 2010 visit of Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze to Iran caused a sensation. The statements made by Vashadze during talks with his Iranian counterpart and with M. Ahmadinejad deserve careful analysis. The Georgian foreign minister stressed that his country would never join a war against Iran regardless of Georgia's involvement with any alliances. In other words, Georgia is combining close military and political ties with the US with cooperation with Iran, the country actively integrating into Caucasian energy projects. It is generally too early to draw conclusions on the development of the relations in the Washington-Tbilisi-Tehran triangle, but the question about the objectives of the current Georgian military buildup, the missions the Georgian armed forces are going to undertake, and their timing is quite natural.

It seems that G. Vashadze's visit to Tehran and Z. Noghaideli's visit to Moscow are meant to balance the overly US-oriented Georgian policy, which has already bred disasters affecting not only Georgia but the entire Caucasus. However, the initiative has been limited to words so far, and it is unclear whether anything practical will follow or all that there is amounts to a mere political show.
_________________________
1 http://www.georgiatimes.info/analysis/29358.html

2 N. Poroskov. Coersion lessons. Vremya Novostei, December 3, 2009

3 V. Tseluyko. The Present and the Future of the Conflict Between Georgia and Russia. The Military Aspect // M. Barabanov, A. Lavrov, V. Tseluyko. August Tanks. Moscow. Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.

4 http://www.georgiatimes.info/analysis/29538.html

5 http://www.nob.su/2009/11/30/mishiko-ne-navoevalsja.html
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

8.: Clinton In Paris: Expanding NATO's Global Purview

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:36 am (PST)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jW4ww8Biq52wn8KpN7Oml-qF1MbQ

Canadian Press
January 29, 2010

Clinton to outline new NATO roles in Paris speech on Europe's security
By Matthew Lee

-Clinton said she wanted her speech to be part of "the whole discussion that's going on about the definition of European security" as NATO reviews its goals and strategies for the next 50 years.
She said the traditional definition of security as deterrence is obsolete and is broadening to include threats from non-state actors, terrorism, cyber-security and disaster mitigation and response.
"There are a lot of implications that were not part of the original NATO concept but which we increasingly define as security," she said.

PARIS, France: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to Paris on Friday for talks with French officials and to give a speech on European security in which she will underscore the Obama administration's commitment to the continent's security.

She was meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy and his national security adviser, Jean-David Levitte, before delivering an address at France's military academy. Clinton will speak to threats facing Europe, the administration approach to missile defence, arms control with Russia and the importance of NATO.

Speaking to reporters travelling on the plane with her to France, Clinton said she wanted her speech to be part of "the whole discussion that's going on about the definition of European security" as NATO reviews its goals and strategies for the next 50 years.

She said the traditional definition of security as deterrence is obsolete and is broadening to include threats from non-state actors, terrorism, cyber-security and disaster mitigation and response.

"There are a lot of implications that were not part of the original NATO concept but which we increasingly define as security," she said.

Clinton also said she would address new Russian proposals for European security.

On the controversial issue of a missile defence network for Europe, Clinton said the U.S. would welcome Moscow's input on research and development.

"From our perspective missile defence is much more now about defending against non-state actors and rogue regimes than it is about what we classically thought as the need for deterrence," she said.

Clinton arrived in Paris after attending two days of conferences on Afghanistan and Yemen in London. At the meeting she also stressed the necessity of punishing Iran for its failure to come clean about its nuclear intentions.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

Blog site:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
rwrozoff@yahoo.com
or
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.
==============================

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

9.: President Put Politics First on Afghanistan by Ray McGovern, Jan.28,

Posted by: "arn specter" arnpeace@yahoo.com arnpeace

Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:41 am (PST)

More Failures of US Foreign Policies for Afghan War Revealed
by Arn Specter, Phila. (arnpeace-Twitter), January 29, 2010

With this article by Ray McGovern, President Put Politics First on Afghanistan we can understand why President Obama, with the War Council consisting of Military people, National Security , State Department and others, during the few months of "Review" of the Afghanistan War and situation
with the Karzai government, reconstruction, etc... lent his weight
in full support of General Stanley McChrystal, head of US and NATO forces
in Afghan, for an additional 30,000 troops, as escalation which will cost
Americans huge numbers lives and limbs, money and resources in the years ahead. With troops from over 40 other countries in NATO many of them
will also continue to be in harms way in the coming years.

The President failed to take advantage of US Intelligence, reports
on Afghan by the CIA, as McGovern points out in great detail along with
historical references of similar actions by President George Bush before
the US invasion of Iraq, quickly ushered in behind the 9/11 attack in
2001 and pursued again in 2003 to vindicate US pride tarnished by the
vicious Iraq leader, Saddam Hussein, on former President George Walker
Bush.

President Obama also failed to take advantage of testimony by various
people closely affiliated with the Afghan war who's experience convinced
them that the Afghan National Army was severely flawed, incompetent,
poorly led, and prone to violence, even against the American forces who
have been training them. They were (are) a "poor" lot needing work in
order to survive in a war torn country that is extremely difficult and dangerous
to get by from day to day. Evidence was brought forth in articles and reports
showing up on web sites, and in published newspaper articles and TV news
stories, but - apparently not included or considered in the various testimonies
during the Afghan Review process.

One of the most recent revelations came about on NBC News with testimony
by Chief Foreign Correspondent Richard Engel, who obtained a 25 page report
belonging to the Pentagon. This report may have been classified top secret
as it showed the Afghan Army to be in terrible shape, full of shortcomings
and wasting US taxpayers millions of dollars, as well as lives, during the last few years. Prospects for them to grow in numbers into a competent fighting force able to support the US/NATO forces, then take over security and create stability in their country seemed rather impossible! The report, made for the Pentagon, was extremely damaging yet was not a determining factor at all
in the President's decision to escalate troop deployment for the Afghan War.

Thus, we see a President who chose to make a political decision, according to McGovern, rather than a sound national security assessment for the sake of the country (the government had already evaluated the Taliban and issued reports stating that they were not a threat to the United States). The decision to escalate 30,000 troops gives more millions and billions of dollars to the military industrial business complex and keeps the US in a position of power and influence in that geopolitical region of the world. The region of Kandahar, in southern Afghanistan, is scheduled to be territory of a major gas pipeline which may well bring billions of dollars into the financial clutches of American corporations. contractors, military, and politicians in the future.

Too, al-Qaeda is nowhere to be found in Afghanistan, rather they are now located in Pakistan doing battle with the Pakistan Army and US drone attacks (which are killing and maiming many civilians who have complained vehemently during the last years or so. Their cries for the US to stop the bombings have gone unheard by our military and government). Seeking out al-Qaeda and their leader Osama bin Laden (seemingly nowhere to be found upon the earth) was
the prime reason for the US deciding to go to war against Afghanistan back in 2001.

To-date the US has not issued forth an exit strategy for the Afghan War, called for by the American people from many walks of life, who are tired of our fighting yet another war in a foreign land and costing us billions of valuable dollars better used for domestic social service projects and programs, the creation of millions of needed jobs, and the saving of more precious American lives. "Bring Our Troops Home" is seen on protest signs, in demonstrations on the streets of many cities throughout America these days.

McGovern's revelations of the shortcomings of the Obama Adminstrations' deliberations and strategies are supported now with the weak - almost absent- forecast of the Afghan War in Obama's State of the Union Message Wednesday evening, January 27, 2010. Without changes in US foreign policy for the Afghan War to one that includes much more non-military strategies; i.e. diplomacy and negotiations with the Taliban and much more international involvement by the United Nations with the Afghan government and recovery projects, the US is destined to remain in a prolonged battle which it has little hope of winning.

Arn Specter, Phila. (arnpeace-Twitter)
----------------------------------------------------------

AfterDowningStreet.org" border="0">
arn thought you would like to see this page from the AfterDowningStreet.org web site.
Message from Sender:
Ray McG
President Put Politics First on Afghanistan
by Chip
President Put Politics First on Afghanistan
By Ray McGovern
Nothing highlights President Obama's abject surrender to Gen. David Petraeus on the "way forward" in Afghanistan than two cables U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry sent to Washington on Nov. 6 and 9, 2009, the texts of which were released Tuesday by the New York Times.
No longer is it possible to suggest that Obama was totally deprived of wise counsel on Afghanistan; Eikenberry got it largely right. Sadly, the inevitable conclusion is that, although Obama is not as dumb as his predecessor, he is no less willing to sacrifice thousands of lives for political gain.
Ambassador Eikenberry, a retired Army Lt. General who served three years in Afghanistan over the course of two separate tours of duty, was responsible during 2002-2003 for rebuilding Afghan security forces. He then served 18 months (2005-2007) as commander of all U.S. forces stationed in Afghanistan.
Straight Talk
In the cable he sent to Washington on Nov. 6, he explains why, "I cannot support [the Defense Department's] recommendation for an immediate Presidential decision to deploy another 40,000 here." His reasons include:
Click here to read more on our site

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

10.: Georgia Offers U.S. Arms Route To South Asia

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com rwrozoff

Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:43 am (PST)

http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=21930

Civil Georgia
January 29, 2010

Georgia Offers Arms Supply Route to Afghanistan

Tbilisi: Georgia has offered to the United States to use its territory for armaments supply route to Afghanistan, President Saakashvili said in an interview with The Associated Press.

The proposal, which Saakashvili said was first presented to U.S. Vice Presi