Russia Prepares For Nuclear War

Russia NATO War: Moscow Deploys Nuclear Missiles In Europe, Subsonic Weapons At Sea
BY TOM O'CONNOR @SHAOLINTOM ON

03/08/17 AT 4:06 PM

A top U.S. military official accused Russia of breaking its commitment to a decades-old arms treaty Wednesday by deploying a new land-based, nuclear-capable cruise missile in Europe. The remarks came days after the Russian military announced it was arming its nuclear submarine fleet with new supersonic cruise missiles to modernize its naval forces.

During a House Armed Services Committee hearing, Vice Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. Paul Selva said Russia's SSC-8 cruise missile threatens Washington's allies in NATO and warned Moscow intentionally is using it to put pressure on its neighboring foes. He echoed sentiments raised last month by U.S. officials who called Russia's developing and testing of the weapon a violation of the "spirit and intent" of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty signed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union to eliminate such short- and intermediate-range missiles. Selva said the renewed missile activity could threaten regional stability at an already tense period in relations between NATO and Russia.

"The system itself presents a risk to most of our facilities in Europe and we believe that the Russians have deliberately deployed it in order to pose a threat to NATO and to facilities within the NATO area of responsibility," Selva said, without mentioning whether the missile was armed with a nuclear warhead or not, Reuters reported.

The news came two days after Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yori Borisov announced Monday that Moscow's navy would be equipping its Project 949A Oscar II-class nuclear-powered guided missile submarines with 3M-54 Kalibr cruise missiles, the Diplomat reported. The move was reportedly part of a greater effort to update the country's naval capabilities, something Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu pledged to do last month.

Both NATO and Russia have undergone massive military escalations in recent months with each side accusing the other of provocation. Since Moscow annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea in 2014, Russia's European neighbors increasingly have become concerned about their national sovereignty and have looked toward the U.S. to bolster NATO's military forces, which it did under former President Barack Obama. Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has expressed less enthusiastic views toward the U.S. commitment to NATO as well as the 2010 New START agreement through which Russia and the U.S. agreed to limit their nuclear weapon arsenals.

Russia Soon To Be A Nuclear Ally With The US

Russia and AmericaDonald Trump seeks a grand bargain with Vladimir Putin

It is a terrible idea

Feb 11th 2017

GEORGE W. BUSH looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and thought he saw his soul. He was wrong. Barack Obama attempted to “reset” relations with Russia, but by the end of his term in office Russia had annexed Crimea, stirred up conflict elsewhere in Ukraine and filled the power vacuum that Mr Obama had left in Syria. Donald Trump appears to want to go much further and forge an entirely new strategic alignment with Russia. Can he succeed, or will he be the third American president in a row to be outfoxed by Mr Putin?

The details of Mr Trump’s realignment are still vague and changeable. That is partly because of disagreements in his inner circle. Even as his ambassador to the UN offered “clear and strong condemnation” of “Russia’s aggressive actions” in Ukraine, the president’s bromance with Mr Putin was still smouldering. When an interviewer on Fox News put it to Mr Trump this week that Mr Putin is “a killer”, he retorted: “There are a lot of killers. What, you think our country’s so innocent?”

For an American president to suggest that his own country is as murderous as Russia is unprecedented, wrong and a gift to Moscow’s propagandists. And for Mr Trump to think that Mr Putin has much to offer America is a miscalculation not just of Russian power and interests, but also of the value of what America might have to give up in return.

The art of the deal meets the tsar of the steal

Going by the chatter around Mr Trump (see Briefing), the script for Russia looks something like this: America would team up with Mr Putin to destroy “radical Islamic terror”—and in particular, Islamic State (IS). At the same time Russia might agree to abandon its collaboration with Iran, an old enemy for America in the Middle East and a threat to its allies, including Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. In Europe Russia would stop fomenting conflict in Ukraine, agree not to harass NATO members on its doorstep and, possibly, enter nuclear-arms-control talks. In the longer term, closer ties with Russia could also help curb Chinese expansion. Stephen Bannon, Mr Trump’s most alarming adviser, said last year that he had “no doubt” that “we’re going to war in the South China Sea in five to ten years.” If so, America will need allies, and Russia is a nuclear power with a 4,200km (2,600-mile) border with China. What’s not to like?

Pretty much everything. Russian hacking may have helped Mr Trump at the polls, but that does not mean he can trust Mr Putin. The Kremlin’s interests and America’s are worlds apart.

In Syria, for example, Mr Putin makes a big noise about fighting IS terrorists, but he has made no real effort to do so. His price for working with America could be to secure a permanent Russian military presence in the Middle East by propping up Bashar al-Assad, whose regime was revealed this week to have hanged thousands of Syrians after two- or three-minute trials. None of this is good for Syria, regional stability or America. Even if Mr Putin and Mr Trump shared a common goal (they don’t) and Americans did not mind becoming complicit in Russian atrocities (they should), American and Russian forces cannot easily fight side by side. Their systems do not work together. To make them do so would require sharing military secrets that the Pentagon spends a fortune protecting. Besides, Russian aircraft do not add much to the coalition air power already attacking IS. Ground troops would, but Mr Putin is highly unlikely to deploy them

Likewise, Russia is not about to confront Iran. The country’s troops are a complement to Russian air power. Iran is a promising market for Russian exports. And, most of all, the two countries are neighbours who show every sign of working together to manage the Middle East, not of wanting to fight over it.

The notion that Russia would be a good ally against China is even less realistic. Russia is far weaker than China, with a declining economy and population and a smaller army. Mr Putin has neither the power nor the inclination to pick a quarrel with Beijing. On the contrary, he values trade with China, fears its military might and has much in common with its leaders, at least in his tendency to bully his neighbours and reject Western lecturing about democracy and human rights. Even if it were wise for America to escalate confrontation with China—which it is not—Mr Putin would be no help at all.

The gravest risk of Mr Trump miscalculating, however, is in Europe. Here Mr Putin’s wishlist falls into three classes: things he should not get until he behaves better, such as the lifting of Western sanctions; things he should not get in any circumstances, such as the recognition of his seizure of Ukrainian territory; and things that would undermine the rules-based global order, such as American connivance in weakening NATO.

Mr Putin would love it if Mr Trump gave him a freer hand in Russia’s “near abroad”, for example by scrapping America’s anti-missile defences in Europe and halting NATO enlargement with the membership of Montenegro, which is due this year. Mr Trump appears not to realise what gigantic concessions these would be. He gives mixed signals about the value of NATO, calling it “obsolete” last month but vowing to support it this week. Some of his advisers seem not to care if the EU falls apart; like Mr Putin, they embrace leaders such as Marine Le Pen who would like nothing more. Mr Bannon, while admitting that Russia is a kleptocracy, sees Mr Putin as part of a global revolt by nationalists and traditionalists against the liberal elite—and therefore a natural ally for Mr Trump.

Played for a sucker by a silovik

The quest for a grand bargain with Mr Putin is delusional. No matter how great a negotiator Mr Trump is, no good deal is to be had. Indeed, an overlooked risk is that Mr Trump, double-crossed and thin-skinned, will end up presiding over a dangerous and destabilising falling-out with Mr Putin.

Better than either a bargain or a falling-out would be to work at the small things to improve America’s relations with Russia. This might include arms control and stopping Russian and American forces accidentally coming to blows. Congressional Republicans and his more sensible advisers, such as his secretaries of state and defence, should strive to convince Mr Trump of this. The alternative would be very bad indeed.

Iraq The Second Horn (Daniel 8:3)

Iraqis look up to Iran as main ally in fighting ISIL

Political Desk
25 February 2015

As Baghdad struggles to fight the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, many Iraqi now look up to Iran as their main ally.

Many Iraqis have grown to trust the powerful Iranian-backed fighters that have taken charge since the Iraqi army deserted en masse last summer. Dozens of paramilitary groups have united under a branch of the Iraqi government called the Popular Mobilization Committee, or Hashid Shaabi. Created by Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi’s predecessor Nuri al-Maliki, the official body now takes the lead role in many of Iraq’s security operations. From its position at the nexus between Tehran, the Iraqi government, and the militias, it is increasingly influential in determining the country’s future.

Until now, little has been known about the body. But in a series of interviews with Reuters, key Iraqi figures inside Hashid Shaabi have detailed the ways the paramilitary groups, Baghdad and Iran collaborate, and the role Iranian advisers play both inside the group and on the frontlines.

Those who spoke to Reuters include two senior figures in the Badr Organization.

In all, Hashid Shaabi oversees and coordinates several dozen factions. The insiders say most of the groups followed a call to arms by Iraq’s leading Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. However, they also cite the religious guidance of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, as a key factor in their decision to fight and defend Iraq.

Hadi al-Amiri, the leader of the Badr Organization, told Reuters: “The majority of us believe that … Khamenei has all the qualifications as an Islamic leader. He is the leader not only for Iranians but the Islamic nation. I believe so and I take pride in it.”

“Khamenei would place the interests of the Iraqi people above all else,” Amiri said.

Iraqi and Kurdish officials put the number of Iranian advisers in Iraq between 100 and several hundred – fewer than the nearly 3,000 American officers training Iraqi forces. In many ways, though, the Iranians are a far more influential force, the Reuters said.

The Iranians, the Iraqi officials say, helped organize volunteers after Grand Ayatollah Sistani called on Iraqis to defend their country days after ISIL seized control of the northern city of Mosul last June.

Prime Minister Abadi has said Iran has provided Iraqi forces and militia volunteers with weapons and ammunition from the first days of the war with ISIL.

They have also provided troops. Several Kurdish officials said that when ISIL fighters pushed close to the Iraq-Iran border in late summer, Iran dispatched artillery units to Iraq to fight them. Farid Asarsad, a senior official from the semi-autonomous Iraqi region of Kurdistan, said Iranian troops often work with Iraqi forces. In northern Iraq, Kurdish peshmerga soldiers “dealt with the technical issues like identifying targets in battle, but the launching of rockets and artillery – the Iranians were the ones who did that.”

Kadhimi, a senior Badr official, said Iranian advisers in Iraq have helped with everything from tactics to providing paramilitary groups with drone and signals capabilities, including electronic surveillance and radio communications.

“The U.S. stayed all these years with the Iraqi army and never taught them to use drones or how to operate a very sophisticated communication network, or how to intercept the enemy’s communication,” he said. “The Hashid Shaabi, with the help of [Iranian] advisers, now knows how to operate and manufacture drones.”