Top US NATO general Hodges commits a grave error on Brexit

A top US general completely out of touch with reality:

A vote to leave the EU could threaten the Nato alliance at a time of Russian aggression in the east, the head of the US Army in Europe has warned.

Lieutenant-General Frederick “Ben” Hodges raised concerns that the European Union could unravel in the event of a Brexit, weakening efforts to resist Russian expansionism in Europe and the Middle East if Britons vote to leave the EU on June 23.

Speaking to the BBC, Lt-Gen Hodges said the result of the referendum on June 23 is of "strategic interest".

Yes, there is a possibility that the EU would begin to unravel (something we should welcome!), but that would not in any way weaken NATO, unless some NATO members deliberately choose to weaken the alliance! General Hodges has committed a serious error and will most likely be removed as soon as there is a new (Republican) president!

British general and military historian debunks Camerons claim that leaving EU would harm national security

Major-General Julian Thomson, eminent military historian and former Royal Marines officer who commanded 3 Commando Brigade during the Falklands War, destroys David Cameron´s claim that "Leaving Europe would threaten our economic and our national security" in a must read article:

"I fought for Britain and I know how the EU weakens our defences

The myth that leaving the EU would harm British national security must be destroyed once and for all

Myth One is that the EU has kept the peace in Europe since 1945. Former Commission President Barosso claimed that the EU stops us going back to trench warfare. This is nonsense. Look at the facts. What brought peace to Europe after 1945? The American Marshall Plan was largely instrumental in rebuilding European economies after the Second World War and restoring prosperity to a war-torn region. Secondly, from its inception in 1949, Nato deterred the Soviet Union from attacking; and deters the likes of Mr Putin to this day. And German fascism was burned out by their experience in the Second World War. They are now a peaceful nation. The EU wasn’t there, then. It didn’t start until the mid ‘50s.

But did the EU have a hand in keeping the peace later on? No. More facts: 1959-2011's Basque Conflict – the EEC/EC/EU played no part in resolution. 1968-1998: The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland – the EU did nothing to help end the violence. 1974: The Turkish Invasion of Cyprus – the EEC/EC/EU played no part in resolution.

So what about the Balkan conflicts of 1991-2013? 1991-1995: The Croatian War of Independence was mainly resolved thanks to the Nato-manned United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR). 1992-1995: The Bosnian War was resolved by Dayton Accords giving NATO authority for action. 1997: Unrest in Albania was resolved by Nato. 1998-1999:
The first Kosovo War was resolved by Nato. 2001: Insurgency in the Republic of Macedonia was resolved by Nato. 2004: Further unrest in Kosovo was resolved by UN/Nato. 2008: Yet more unrest in Kosovo was resolved by Nato. 2011-2013: North Kosovo Crisis was resolved by Nato, Conversely when people of EU member states, or of future member states, or of neighbouring nations needed help the EU failed. There is a pattern here."

Read the rest of the article here.

Central and Eastern European NATO countries to receive heavy weaponry from the US

The Obama administration has been weak when it comes to security and defense policy. However, this move is to be lauded:

The US will devote a substantial portion of its defense spending to building up its military presence in Eastern Europe in an effort to deter Russian aggression in the region, Obama administration officials told The New York Times.
Countries belonging to the NATO alliance in Central and Eastern Europe will apparently receive heavy weaponry, tanks, and other equipment from the US, which quadrupled its budget from $789 million to more than $3.4 billion for military spending in Europe through 2017.
"This is a really big deal, and the Russians are going to have a cow," Evelyn N. Farkas, the Pentagon's top policy official on Russia and Ukraine until October, told The Times on Tuesday. "It's a huge sign of commitment to deterring Russia, and to strengthening our alliance and our partnership with countries like Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia."
The move comes four months after Russia launched an air campaign in Syria to prop up embattled Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in a move widely seen as an attempt by Russian President Vladimir Putin to secure and expand Russia's influence in the Middle East.
Russia's presence in Syria, however, has "undermined" virtually everything the West is trying to accomplish there and beyond, British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said in an interview with Reuters from a refugee camp in Jordan on Monday.
That includes the US's attempts to bolster "moderate" Syrian rebel groups, which have been targeted by Russian airstrikes, and the US-led anti-ISIS coalition's attempts to wipe out the Islamic State in Syria, which has largely been spared the brunt of Russia's punishing air campaign.

Edward Lucas on the claims that the Ukraine crisis was NATO´s and EU´s fault

A number of foreign-policy expterts have blamed NATO and the EU for the crisis in Ukraine. Edward Lucas looks at how the predictions made by political scientist John Mearsheimer and others have fared:

The Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault. That has been the contention of a slew of foreign-policy experts, notably the distinguished political scientist John Mearsheimer, who wrote a much-quoted piece in Foreign Affairs in August last year called “The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin.”

For those who missed it, Mearsheimer blamed the crisis in Ukraine on NATO enlargement, saying that Russia had adamantly opposed it (which is not true); that it breached undertakings given to the Soviet Union (also false); and that Putin feared that the “coup” against Yanukovych was a prelude to a NATO base in Crimea (also untrue).

Mearsheimer also argued that the EU had been “marching eastward” and therefore provoking Russia and that the West was recklessly promoting democracy with the aim of turning Ukraine into a “Western stronghold on Russia’s doorstep.”

The counter-arguments to this are well known. The biggest is that they remove from Ukrainians and others any say in their own future. They are just counters in a board game played by others. As Mearsheimer argues, might is right and countries Ukraine’s position just have to get used to it.

That is both inaccurate and morally dubious (given how much the countries of the “bloodlands” have suffered in the past century). It is right to say that Russia, not the West, gets to decide what constitutes a threat to Russia. We can’t help it if Russia’s ex-KGB regime is afflicted by paranoia. But if Russia’s threat-perception becomes the paramount and unchallenged factor in regional security, we are in effect assenting to a new Yalta.

Read the entire article here

The Daily Telegraph's defence editor: "When it comes to the crunch, the Germans are far from being reliable allies"

Why does the US consider it necessary to spy against Germany, supposedly one of its closest allies?The Telegraph's defence editor Con Coughlin gives a compelling answer:

We know, thanks to the treacherous activities of Edward Snowden, that America's NSA spy network regularly listened into the mobile phone conversations of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But that is small fry compared to the allegations now being made against the CIA, which is now accused of running two high-ranking agents at the heart of the Germany's security establishment.
And finding out what tactics the German football team might use in Sunday night's World Cup final is not what is on the spooks' agenda.
The reason I believe the CIA has agents working for the German defence ministry and intelligence service is that Washington – and indeed London – feel that, despite the fact Germany is supposed to be a leading member of the Western alliance, the Germans are not entirely trustworthy.
You only have to look at how the Germans responded to the recent crisis over Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea to see that Berlin is not always playing on the same side as the rest of us.
While other leading Western powers such as America and Britain were urging tough action against the Kremlin to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to back down – a policy that appears to have worked, by the way – Mrs Merkel seemed more interested in protecting Germany's business interests with Russia.
Nor is this the first time that Berlin has pulled in a different direction from the rest of the Western alliance. During the Libyan conflict three years ago the Germans sided with Moscow in opposing military action against Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and actively sought to undermine the Nato mission be refusing to provide vital air tankers to refuel Nato warplanes.
When it comes to the crunch, the Germans are far from being reliable allies, and understanding what the Germans are really up to is vital when it comes to making our own decisions about how to respond to global threats to our security, whether it is Mr Putin's military adventurism or Iran's obsession with building atom bombs.

Germany, France and the UK are unwilling NATO allies in the fight against Putin's aggression

In spite of some tough words, Germany, France and the UK are unwilling to do very much against dictator Vladimir Putin's aggression. Business interests dictate their lame response:

Yet the bigger surprise of March's Crimea crisis came from the west with Berlin's muted response to Russian aggression, and its rejection of Warsaw's calls for a stronger NATO response.

The German language has a new phrase for the political and business establishment's attitude: Russlandversteher, or "understanding Russia." Over half of Germans claim to "understand" Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea and the bloody conflict it is fomenting in Ukraine—in part blaming America's support for Kiev's democrats for provoking the Kremlin. A similar number oppose further sanctions on Russia. Chancellor Angela Merkel's rhetorically harder anti-Putin line finds little support in Germany.

For the past 25 years, the Poles were told that the new Germany would have their back. After German unification and the eastward expansion of the EU and NATO, as the reassuring slogan went, "When Germans now look East, they see the West"—namely Poland. Germany trades and invests more with Poland than with Russia. Yet Berlin's present approach evokes the memory of a Germany that once carved up Central Europe with Russia. No one's talking of another partition of Poland, but it's sobering to hear Polish officials grumble more about Berlin than about Moscow.

Further west, the continent's divisions get amplified. The French are moving ahead with the $1.6 billion sale of two Mistral naval assault vessels to Russia later this year over the objections of Washington and the newer NATO allies in Poland and the Baltic states. Britain has sold the City of London along with its soul for a pot of dirty Russian money.

 

Thus, the US remains Poland's only real ally, even under a weak president. One must hope that the next US president is somebody closer to the Reagan legacy than Barack Obama and somebody who would put real pressure on the main European NATO allies.

Finland's military officers ready to join NATO

The overwhelming majority of Finland's military officers are in favour of Finland joining NATO:

Finnish military officers are concerned about Russia’s intentions, according to a survey published in the leading newspaper Helsingin Sanomat on Saturday. Four out of five officers who responded to a poll by the daily believe that the military threat from Russia has increased.
A majority of those interviewed said that Russia’s foreign policy has become more aggressive since Vladimir Putin was re-elected as president in 2012.
Helsingin Sanomat and the Finnish Officers’ Union carried out a joint, anonymous survey of union members’ views on security policy around Eastertime. Of the union’s 6,000 members, 2084 responded to the poll. Two thirds of them are on active duty.
More than 40 percent of those who replied said that Finland’s political leadership should have acted more firmly in regard to the Ukrainian crisis. The results also indicate an increase in support for NATO membership, with nearly two in three saying this would be the best security option for Finland.

Finland's real security experts have made their position clear. Unfortunately, the country's laeading politicians, including president Sauli Niinistö, are far less clear. They still appear to be caught in the legacy of Finlandization.

Anne Applebaum: "Russia is an anti-Western power with a different, darker visionof global politics"

Anne Applebaum's article in the Slate magazine should be compulsory reading for Western political leaders. Here is an excerpt:

Openly or subconsciously, Western leaders have since 1991 acted on the assumption that Russia is a flawed Western country. Perhaps during the Soviet years it had become different, even deformed. But sooner or later, the land of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, the home of classical ballet, would join what Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, so movingly called “our common European home.” --

For the first time, many are beginning to understand that the narrative is wrong: Russia is not a flawed Western power. Russia is an anti-Western power with a different, darker vision of global politics. The sanctions lists published in Europe this week were laughably short, but the fact that they appeared at all reflects this sea change. For 20 years, nobody has thought about how to “contain” Russia. Now they will.

In any case, even the new and longer U.S. sanctions list is only a signal. Far more important, now, are the deeper strategic changes that should flow from our new understanding of Russia. We need to reimagine NATO, to move its forces from Germany to the alliance’s eastern borders. We need to re-examine the presence of Russian money in international financial markets, given that so much “private” Russian money is in fact controlled by the state. We need to look again at our tax shelters and money-laundering laws, given that Russia uses corruption as a tool of foreign policy. Above all we need to examine the West’s energy strategy, given that Russia’s oil and gas assets are also used to manipulate European politics and politicians, and find ways to reduce our dependence.

Nobel Peace Prize nominee Vladimir Putin watching his troops threaten Poland and the Baltic states

This video shows Nobel Peace Prize nominee,Vladimir Putin, joined by fellow dictator Alexander Lukashenko, watching Russian and Belorussian troops in action during the huge military exercises Zapad 2013 last week:

Officially the forces trained how to combat "illegal armed groups" (terrorists), but the real reason for the exercises was to threaten Poland and the Baltic states:

“Russia has officially stated that these are anti-terrorism exercises,” Lithuanian Defense Minister Juozas Olekas told AFP. “But the number of participants and amount of military equipment indicates that that this is not their agenda.”
Senior Estonian military official Lt. Col. Eero Rebo said: “The Kremlin claims that the exercise is about fighting terrorism, but based on the information we have on Zapad 2013, the exercise has an anti-West agenda.”
“If you look at the Baltic sea region, the strategic balance has been changing quite drastically in the last decade, and not in our favor,” Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks said Friday.
“We are concerned because we see such large-scale exercises in context,” he added.

Russia had informed NATO that 22,500 troops would participate in the Zapad 2013 exercises, but according to Swedish intelligence sources the real number was much higher, about 70,000. No wonder that people in Poland and the Baltic states are - and should be - extremely concerned.

On this Belorussian video you can see a soldier aiming at an unarmed Swedish Gripen reconnaissance plane (at about 2 min):

 

 

Germany - an ally of Russia?

Now, when Angela Merkel's government - siding with Russia - has reiterated its opposition to sending weapons to opposition forces fighting Syria's murderous dictator Bashar al-Assad, the US and its true allies must ask the question: 

Is Germany - although formally a member of NATO and a "close" ally of the US - in reality an ally of Russia? 

Considering Germany's earlier opposition and refusal to participate in the toppling of two other murderous dictators, Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi - again siding with Russia  - the surprising answer looks more and more like, yes it is.

Germany's sad gliding into the Russian sphere began when dictator Vladimir Putin's close personal friend, socialist chancellor Gerhard Schröder helped to prolong the Iraq war by several years, when he chose to ally himself with Russia and China instead of the US. (The decision to remove Saddam, who had killed tens of thousands of innocent people, was the right one. The UN debate about the missing proof of weapons of mass destruction was only a sideshow, serving the interests of Russia and China). 

Later Germany - now under supposedly conservative politician Angela Merkel - again in good cooperation with Russia, also opposed military intervention against the bloody dictator Gaddafi in Libya. 

With friends like the Germans, who needs enemies?

Putin's puppet Medvedev tries to please his master

Russian dictator Vladimir Putin's tiny puppet, Medvedev, apparently tries to please his master: 

 Any expansion of NATO to include Sweden and Finland would upset the balance of power and force Russia to respond, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Tuesday, underlining Moscow's nerves over moves to bring the Western alliance closer to its border.

Although Sweden and Finland are not actively seeking membership, both nations cooperate extensively with NATO and have openly debated the possibility of joining.

Speculation over Sweden mounted after it warned earlier this year that its defense capabilities were alarmingly limited. It was embarrassed in April when it could not respond to Russian military jets nearing its border, according to media reports.

Finland shares a long boundary with Russia.

"New participants emerging close to our border will change the parity and we'll have to take this into account and respond to that," Medvedev told a news conference at a summit of Nordic and Russian leaders in Norway.

"NATO ... has a military potential which can be used against our country in certain cases," Medvedev said, as Finnish Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen and Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt looked on.

Bildt's response was good - the cautious Katainen probably remained silent: 

"The fact that Norway is a member of NATO has not had any negative effect whatsoever on the development of cooperation in this part of the world," Sweden's Bildt said in response.

Of course, nobody takes Medvedev seriously anymore, and Putin will not have the resources to beef up his armed forces in any significant way. Russia earns billions from raw gas and energy exports, but most of it disappears through corruption into the ever expanding pockets of those favored by the KGB mafia now in charge. 

Nigel Farage: NATO has kept peace in Europe - "not a bunch of overpaid bureaucrats"

The New Yorker's piece on Nigel Farage - who recently attended a reception in New York - is a must read:

“I’m not anti-European at all. I’m married to a German, for goodness’ sake, so I know the dangers of a German-dominated household.” But, he said, “The idea that we should take all these different countries in Europe, force them together against their democratic will, and put them under the control of people like Herman Van Rompuy is, frankly, beyond belief.

These are very, very dangerous, bad people,” he went on. “They want to stop nation-state democracy.” The consequence, in his view, will likely be violent revolution and political extremism. (A few days later, after hearing that the E.U. had won the Nobel, he said, “I thought it was a joke. I thought it must be April the 1st. The timing is absolutely bizarre. And, anyway, what has kept the peace in Europe since 1945 is not a bunch of overpaid bureaucrats but, rather, nato, with no small contribution by the United States.”)

“Did you see Merkel today?” he asked. Angela Merkel had visited Greece, prompting demonstrations and riots. “I mean, how insensitive. Is it any wonder they all turned out wearing swastikas on their arms and giving Nazi salutes? This project, which was supposed to make the countries of Europe love each other, is actually making the countries of Europe hate each other.”

He described a meeting he had with Merkel last year, in which he suggested that everyone would be happier if the Greeks left the euro—the Greeks would be free to default on their debts, re-adopt the drachma, and escape “the economic prison” of the euro zone; and the Germans would no longer have to contemplate bailing them out, in perpetuity. Merkel (who, he said, “outside of the public glare, is a completely different person from the one you see on the TV: she is even more miserable in private”) explained that if the Greeks pulled out, other countries would, too, and that would doom “our European dream.”

“What Merkel is saying,” Farage went on, “is that if the whole of Greece goes bankrupt, if everybody in Greece is starving, if they’re all homeless, that doesn’t matter, we have to preserve our dream. In pursuing something that is clearly a failed economic model, we’re doing just what the Communists did in Soviet Russia.”

Read the entire article here

A delusional commander of Putin´s armed forces

There are numerous signs showing that lifetime president Vladimir Putin´s Russia is becoming increasingly delusional. Putin´s commander of the armed forces, General Nikolai Makarov, appears to be one of the worst afflicted. He seems think that he is living in the Soviet Union of the 70s: 


Russia's efforts to re-establish its great power status and to increase its influence in great power politics are manifesting themselves on a concrete level in policy toward Finland.
      Moscow has made note of Finland’s defence and security policy decisions, and the Russian government is becoming more open in attempts to influence those decisions.
      Perhaps the bluntest message in recent history came when General Nikolai Makarov, the commander of the Russian armed forces, offered a fusillade of views concerning Finland at an event organised by the Finnish National Defence Course Association at the University of Helsinki.
      
In previous years Russia’s official stance was that it is up to Finland to decide whether or not to join NATO. However, this view now seems to have changed quite radically.
      Makarov warned directly that possible NATO membership for Finland would constitute a military threat against Russia. Russia is also concerned about closer military cooperation between Finland and NATO.
      General Makarov mentioned as examples the military exercises held in Northern Norway earlier this year, as well as the manoeuvres held in the Baltic Sea in 2010.
      
Even defence cooperation among the Nordic Countries was seen by Makarov to be a military threat to Russia.
      Makarov did not stop at the international activities of Finland's Defence Forces. In his speech he wondered why the Finnish Air Force is holding so many exercises near the Russian border, and why an exercise by the Army was given the name “East”.
      “We feel that these kinds of actions are not compatible with the aim for bilateral cooperation”, Makarov said.
      
One of the participants in the meeting was Charly Salonius-Pasternak, a researcher at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs, who said that such straight talk has not been heard in Finland in recent times. In her view, it is clear that the general’s warnings about cooperation with NATO had the approval of the highest political level.
      “Russia wants to show that it is a regional great power, an in its view, all neighbouring countries are part of its sphere of interest”, Salonius-Pasternak said.
      
Minister of Defence Stefan Wallin (Swed. People’s Party) commented on the speech by saying that Finland is a free country, where people can express their opinions freely.
      “Finland evaluates its relationship with NATO in a manner consistent with its government policy programme on the basis of its own security and defence policy interests. This sentence says that Finland makes its assessments and deci,sions itself and independently”, Wallin told Helsingin Sanomat.
      
PS
Maybe Russia´s strategic partner, the European Union, could make an offer to the general to be treated at some appropriate institution in e.g. Germany, France or the UK? Or maybe the Obama administration would be able to locate the required treatment for this representative of its reset partner in one of the excellent US military hospitals? 

President Sarkozy deserves some credit for his Libyan policy

Taylor Dinerman lauds president Nicolas Sarkozy for his Libya policy. The victory over Gaddafi belongs to the Libyans themselves, but Sarkozy also can take some credit for the success:

Much of the credit should also go to the world leader who, early on, decided to bet on the rebels: France's President Nicolas Sarkozy. After some prodding from the celebrity intellectual, Bernard Henri Levy, Sarkozy began to lobby the rest of the West, especially US President Barack Obama and a few Arab governments,against Gaddafi.
While there were some political reasons for Sarkozy's actions, including the need to make everyone, in Libya and elsewhere forget about the ill-considered 2008 arms sales to Libya, the French government's motives were less cynical than one might have come to expect, based on past performance from past regimes. This is to Sarkozy's credit, and may presage an enduring shift in France's overall foreign policy towards a less automatic anti-US and anti-NATO posture.
It was Sarkozy's decision in June to airdrop a massive supply of weapons, including especially the Milan wire-guided anti-tank missiles, for the Arab and Berber rebels in the Jebel Nefousa mountains south of the Libyan capital, Tripoli, that future military historians will probably see as the decisive move that broke the back of Gaddafi's military forces. France's traditionally intimate knowledge of Berber tribal politics may have been one of the reasons behind this move; also, the fact that French intelligence believed, correctly as it turned out, that, if well armed, the Berbers would prove formidable fighting men.

But Sarkozy´s Libyan success may not be enough to get him re-elected:

His poll numbers are far worse than those of any other Western leader. In one recent survey roughly 50% of Frenchmen said they would not vote for him under any circumstances. His job approval rating hovers consistently around 25%.

Read the entire article here

One must hope that Dinerman is right about the shift in French foreign policy "towards a less automatic anti-US and anti-NATO posture". That would be most welcome from a transatlantic/NATO point of view. There have not been too many positive developments in that area during the last few years.

Libya: No reason for too much NATO celebration in Europe

James Joyner, managing editor of the Atlantic Council notes that there there is not very much to celebrate for the European members of NATO after the recent events in Libya:

The fighting in Libya demonstrated just how hollow most European militaries are. Despite President Obama's continued assurance that the U.S. role would last "days, not weeks" and that the European allies would take the lead, the fact of the matter was that they simply lacked the resources to do so. Yes, Europeans eventually flew the bulk of the "strike sorties" in Unified Protector. But the Americans provided virtually all of the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; suppression of enemy air defenses; and aerial refueling missions.
Reeling from ten years of fighting in Afghanistan, most NATO forces are spent. Libya hastened the decay, using up resources to such an extent that several allies were literally out of ammunition and fuel and had to beg others for resupply. And, with austerity a way of life for the foreseeable future, few are prioritizing necessary replenishment, much less retooling for future fights.

Read the entire article here

PS
Joyner is, of course, right. And, regrettably, there are no signs that the key European NATO member countries intend to strengthen their defense capabilities in the near future. So, in spite of the modest success in Libya, the future of NATO does not look very good.

John Bolton on the Libya mess

John Bolton (who served as ambassador to the United Nations in the administration of President George W. Bush) has written an excellent article about why there does not seem to be any end to the mess in Libya:

Obama set the tone for this exercise in Libya at the outset. He limited the military mission to protecting civilians; by his own admission, he waited to act until the very last minute when rebel strongholds were under imminent attack; he declared publicly there would be no U.S. “boots on the ground”; and he insisted on advance approval by the UN Security Council and the Arab League.

Then, after U.S. forces dominated the first days of the “kinetic military activity,” his administration abruptly ceased most U.S. strike missions, even as it continued to supply the logistical, operational and intelligence backbone for air operations by NATO. By pretending to abdicate to our alliance partners, we behaved as if NATO hadn’t from its inception been U.S.-led and dominated, leaving our allies shaking their heads.
On March 18, Obama expressly said he wanted Qaddafi removed from power, but that we wouldn’t use force to do so: “We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal -- specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya.” This is the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, which countenances force for humanitarian purposes, at least as defined by those dropping the ordnance.

Subsequently, NATO strikes have killed one of Qaddafi’s children and three of his grandchildren, and the regime claims numerous other civilians have also died. NATO has admitted to mistakenly attacking rebel convoys on more than one occasion.
Even humanitarian interventions can cause tragedies.

This inherent confusion among our stated goals, the numerous restrictions imposed on NATO forces, and Obama’s unwillingness to do what is necessary -- namely, removing Qaddafi -- means that the Libyan operation has no end in sight.
---
The lesson for the U.S. is that it shouldn’t always ask permission from foreigners when pursuing its interests, but can ask forgiveness later if necessary. That, of course, is the conclusion Obama is least likely to derive. The absence of clear U.S. leadership on Libya has produced the current impasse, both diplomatically and militarily. Although NATO should ultimately prevail, it is wrenching that our president has caused so many of the problems we now confront.

Read the entire Bloomberg article here

France transfers sensitive military technology to Putin´s Russia

U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates tried in vain to stop the French sale of attack carriers to Russia already in the beginning of 2010.


Shame on president Nicolas Sarkozy and the French government! In order to save a few hundred jobs in the country´s crisis-ridden shipbuilding industry, the French have agreed the sale of two of its most modern Mistral attack helicopter carriers, equipped with advanced western military technology to Putin´s Russia, described by US defense secretary Robert Gates as "an oligarchy run by the secret services":

France has transferred to Russia all the technology it asked for under a $1.7-billion deal for two French-built Mistral class amphibious assault ships for the Russian Navy, a Russian arms exporter said on Monday.
Under the deal signed on Friday, the first warship will be delivered in 2014 and the second in 2015.
"The French side has transferred all technologies, including the SENIT 9 [command and control] system, as well as two other systems," said Anatoly Isaikin, head of the Rosoboronexport state-controlled arms exporter.

Read the entire article here

No wonder that the Chairwoman of the US House of  Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, republican Ileana Ros-Lehtinen strongly denounced the deal under which France wíll transfer sensitive military technology to Russia for the first time since World War II:

"It is deeply troubling that France, a NATO ally, has decided to ignore the clear danger of selling advanced warships to Russia even as Moscow is taking an increasingly hostile approach toward the U.S., its neighbors, and Europe itself," she said in a statement.

"Many of our allies in the region, such as Georgia and the Baltic states, have experienced cyber attacks, severe economic pressure, and even invasion by Russia," she added.

Russia signed the long-awaited contract worth over a billion euros ($1.4 billion) to buy two French warships on June 17 despite alarm from its ex-Soviet neighbors and the United States.

Jamestown Foundation analyst Vladimir Socor gave some facts about the Mistral class assault carriers already when the deal was in its early stages:

The Mistral-class helicopter carrier, several of which France offers to sell and license to Russia, is the most modern French warship class. At 24,000 tons it is second only to the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle in size. The first Mistral-class warship entered service in 2006. The French Navy currently has two Mistral-class ships in operation and is building a third.

This warship is by definition a power-projection capability. The proposed sale, even without the most sophisticated technology, would endow Russia with a modern naval and amphibious warfare capability that Russia currently lacks. In Russian hands, the Mistral can be deployed for intimidating effect on Russia’s maritime neighbors in the Black Sea, Baltic Sea, or elsewhere.The Mistral carries 16 attack and landing helicopters (while allowing the operation of up to 30 on both decks), 900 troops, four conventional landing craft (also allowing the operation of two hovercraft), and 40 Leclerc tanks, or alternatively 13 tanks and 40 other vehicles (http://www.netmarine.net/bat/tcd/mistral/histoire01.htm). These are the figures for short-term operations, which are primarily relevant to Russia for possible actions in theaters nearby (EDM, September 18, November 2).
---
By promoting the Mistral sale, France turns a blind eye to: Russia’s August 2008 invasion of Georgia, including the Russian naval operation and landing; the [President Dmitry] “Medvedev doctrine” on protecting arbitrarily defined “compatriots” beyond Russia’s borders, including their military “protection;” Medvedev’s decree (approved by the Duma) authorizing the president to order immediate military operations beyond Russia’s borders, in a wide variety of circumstances; Russia’s September 2009 massive, offensively-oriented military exercises near the Baltic States and Poland; and Russia’s October 2009 revisions to the draft military doctrine, now authorizing preventive military operations against neighboring and other countries.
PS

With "allies" like France under Sarkozy, no wonder that U.S. defense secretary Robert Gates and many other American leading politicians and defense experts have begun to doubt the relevance of  NATO.

NATO - The slow death of a once so powerfulful military alliance

"In the Libya operation, Norway and Denmark, have provided 12 percent
of allied strike aircraft yet have struck about one third of the
targets"
"We have the spectacle of an air operations center
designed to handle more than 300 sorties a day struggling to launch
about 150. Furthermore, the mightiest military alliance in history is
only 11 weeks into an operation against a poorly armed regime in a
sparsely populated country – yet many allies are beginning to run
short of munitions, requiring the U.S., once more, to make up the
difference".


There is good reason to return to the important speech that U.S. Secretary of  Defense Robert Gates gave in Brussels on June 10. The reason is Angela Merkel´s Germany.

Robert Gates did not mention Germany specifically in his speech, but it is obvious which country he had on his mind when he said this:

In the past, I’ve worried openly about NATO turning into a two-tiered
alliance: Between members who specialize in “soft’ humanitarian,
development, peacekeeping, and talking tasks, and those conducting the
“hard” combat missions. Between those willing and able to pay the
price and bear the burdens of alliance commitments, and those who
enjoy the benefits of NATO membership – be they security guarantees or
headquarters billets – but don’t want to share the risks and the
costs. This is no longer a hypothetical worry. We are there today.
And it is unacceptable.

Also this was mostly directed at Germany, the richest and most powerful European country:

Indeed, if current trends in the decline of European defense
capabilities are not halted and reversed, Future U.S. political
leaders– those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience
that it was for me – may not consider the return on America’s
investment in NATO worth the cost.

Gates concluded his article with a polite hope - although he must know that neither Germany nor any  of the other major European NATO members are willing to increase defense spending:

Over the life of the transatlantic alliance there has been no shortage
of squabbles and setbacks. But through it all, we managed to get the
big things right over time. We came together to make the tough
decisions in the face of dissension at home and threats abroad. And
I take heart in the knowledge that we can do so again


The future of the once so powerful alliance does not look promising. Germany could and should take the lead in keeping NATO alive, but it is doing exactly the opposite. The only thing Germany - and the EU countries in general - are ready to fight - and finance - is imaginary human-induced global warming.

PS

The New York Times´s Judy Dempsey seems to make the same kind of conclusion about the future of NATO as I in an article called "The beginning of the end for NATO?":


NATO as such will probably survive. The alliance will continue to be of use to the United States when it looks to build coalitions of the willing. It might also come in handy to confer some added legitimacy to future military missions. But its role as the central trans-Atlantic organization with a truly united purpose and solidarity among all of the allies is in doubt.

Who is Mr. Putin to lecture anybody in the west about civilized behaviour?

This report is by the Russian propaganda channel Russia Today


The corrupted ruler of  Russia, Vladimir Putin has again been - this time in Copenhagen - lecturing the western countries about moral behaviour:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Western military efforts to overthrow Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi are destroying the nation’s infrastructure and violate a United Nations mandate to protect civilians.
“Who decided they had the right to execute a man (Gaddafi), regardless of who he is?”

US Defense secretary Robert Gates, who has described Russia as “an oligarchy run by the security services”.  of course rejected Putin´s dubious claim:

"We are not targeting him [Gaddafi] specifically." However command and control centres were legitimate targets, the US defence secretary clarified

Instead of just looking surprised, the host, Denmark´s Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen could replied with e.g. these words:

"Who are you, Mr. Putin, with blood on your hands, to lecture anybody anywhere about civilized behaviour. Your are directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and hundreds - probably thousands - of other innocent Russian people. More than 300 journalists have beeen murdered in Russia since 1993. Your legacy is a massacre, the mothers of Beslan have testified. You most likely gave the OK to the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. Only a few months ago Sergei Magnitsky, a 37-year anti-corruption lawyer was tortured and killed by your regime. The show trial and imprisonment of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, orchestrated by you, is an outrage. Yet you have the effrontery to come to my country and lecture us about morals. You probably think that the Russian energy resources - which you and your friends have been  busy stealing from the Russian people -  are so important for us in the west that we will not react to your insults. But let me assure you that you are dead wrong! No gas and oil contracts in the world can make us forget the criminal acts of your corrupted mafia state. And thanks to the shale oil revolution, there will soon be even less need for your dirty energy deals. No, Mr. Putin, why don´t you return back to Moscow and start thinking about your personal future - which will not differ very much from the fate of other bloodthirsty dictators."   

Well, it is of course no surprise that Mr. Løkke did not reply to Putin in this way. No, Putin is - regrettably - still welcomed as an honoured guest in the west. In Copenhagen he was e.g. received by Queen Margrethe and in Sweden by king Carl XVI Gustaf. Energy deals are more important than human rights concerns in most western countries - also in Denmark and Sweden.

Obama´s strange Libya policy

This is difficult to understand:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Despite rebel setbacks and an increasingly public rift with NATO allies, the U.S. will stick to its plan to remain in the back seat of the Libya air campaign, the Obama administration insisted Tuesday after three weeks of air missions that have failed to turn the tide against Moammar Gadhafi.

France's defense minister declared that without full American participation, the West probably would not be able to stop attacks by Gadhafi loyalists on besieged rebel cities.

U.S. officials said they were comfortable with their role and had no plans to step up involvement, even as British and French officials said Washington's military might was needed to ensure the mission's success. The Americans said NATO could carry out the operation without a resumption of the heavy U.S. efforts that kicked it off last month.

"The president and this administration believes that NATO, and the coalition of which we remain a partner, is capable of fulfilling that mission of enforcing the no-fly zone, enforcing the arms embargo and providing civilian protection," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.

Read the entire article here

PS

If this remains the policy of the Obama administration, then one might ask, why did they decide to join the operation at all?