Ukrainian Army Now Reportedly Controls Large Portions of the Center of the City of Luhansk

Ukraine Says Army Controls Center of a Rebel City

Andrew E. Kramer

New York Times, August 17, 2014

DONETSK, Ukraine — The Ukrainian military on Sunday moved into the heart of the separatist hub of Luhansk for the first time, officials said, chipping at one of the cornerstones of the pro-Russia rebels’ disintegrating virtual state.

Ukrainian officials said army units had raised the national flag over a police station in central Luhansk, the eastern city that, along with Donetsk, has been a center of rebel activity and an important destination for Russian fighters and aid. Other parts of Luhansk, however, were still said to be under rebel control.

The claim could not be independently confirmed, though a photograph of the flagand police station was circulating on social media, and the report was consistent with the progress of fighting there going into the weekend.

Along with increased Ukrainian pressure on rebel positions in Donetsk, the army’s move into Luhansk focused attention on the profound reversal of the separatists’ fortunes since they declared independence in April. Interviews across eastern Ukraine portray a rapid breakdown in discipline in the rebel ranks. Many fighters have abandoned their uniforms in favor of civilian clothes, and three senior leaders have left the war zone in recent days.

Pro-Russia rebels in eastern Ukraine. Credit Sergei Grits/Associated Press

Even as Ukrainian officials in Kiev celebrated the developments, and as international foreign ministers met in Berlin to try to ease the crisis with Russia, there was increased worry that the Kremlin would take the rebels’ disintegration as an incentive to intervene more forcefully in Ukraine, perhaps setting off a wider war.

“It’s a case of being very, very, very careful what you wish for,” said Cliff Kupchan, an analyst with the Washington-based Eurasia Group, speaking of Western officials who have endorsed the Ukrainian military option. If President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia believes “the rebels are about to get routed, we do have a problem,” Mr. Kupchan said.

Ukrainian Troop Encircle Rebel-Held City of Horlivka

Ukrainian Forces Press Rebels in Overnight Fighting-Military

Reuters, August 18, 2014

KIEV — Ukrainian government forces pressed pro-Russian separatists in fighting overnight into Monday, encircling the rebel-held town of Horlivka and taking control of smaller settlements in eastern Ukraine, the military said.

A military statement said it suspected the rebels had fired back with a powerful Russian-made Uragan missile system south east of Donetsk near the village of Novokaterinivka, their first use of the weapon.

It gave no indications of casualties on either side and the rebels made no immediate comment.

Ukrainian forces say they have been steadily pushing back the rebels and cutting off their communication lines in the four-month conflict in the east.

The separatist conflict erupted after Russia annexed Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula following the ousting of a Moscow-backed president in the capital Kiev. Separatists occupied key buildings in towns across the Russian-speaking east, declaring ‘people’s republics’ and saying they wanted to join Russia.

"The settlement points of Malaya Ivanivka and Andrianivka have been fully cleared (of rebels). The settlement of Alchevsk is now completely isolated. Horlivka is totally blockaded," the statement said.

Horlivka, a town of more than 230,000 which has been in the hands of the rebels from early on in the conflict, has strategic value since it lies just north of the main road linking Donetsk and Luhansk.

"The Russian mercenaries are in panic trying to get out of these places," the Ukrainian military statement said.

Of the rebel missile attack at Novokaterinivka, it said: “The attack in all probability was from a 9P 140 Uragan. This is the first time that such a powerful weapon has been used.”

The Kiev government has accused Russia, which is opposed to Kiev’s pro-Western policies, of allowing a steady flow of tanks, missile systems and armored vehicles to the rebels.

Moscow denies this. It says that the Ukrainian government, with backing from its Western allies, is subjecting millions of Russian-speakers in eastern Ukraine who reject Kiev’s rule to artillery bombardments and shortages of water and power.

The Danger for Washington If Russian and Ukrainian Forces Fight

August 16, 2014

West Faces Tough Choices if Russia, Ukraine Fight

WASHINGTON — If Russia and Ukraine slide into outright war, the United States and allies will face tough choices on how to support a friendly state they have no intention of making a full NATO member.

In what appeared to be a dramatic escalation on Friday, Ukraine said it had destroyed much of a column of armored vehicles that had entered its territory from Russia.

Moscow dismissed the account as “fantasy”. NATO confirmed what it described as an “incursion”. Ukraine did not specify if the vehicles were manned by Russian troops or separatist rebels, and it was not immediately clear if Russia would respond.

If Moscow ever took any such action against a NATO member, that would inevitably trigger the alliance’s Chapter 5 mutual defense clause, essentially committing it to war. Ukraine, however, is not a member and Western officials say is unlikely to become one any time soon.

Washington and others have spent much of the last five months chastising the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin, describing its actions in Ukraine as unacceptable. They accuse Moscow of arming the rebels, a charge the Kremlin denies.

The reality, however, is that U.S. and European leaders want to avoid a potentially nuclear superpower confrontation.

Direct military action by NATO states remains entirely off the table, current and former officials say.

"The West is already pushing at the limits of what it feels it can do without finding itself in a serious confrontation with Russia," said Samuel Charap, a former U.S. State Department official, now a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

"There could be more sanctions, there could be more supportive of Ukrainians, but beyond that I really don’t see the U.S. doing too much more."

NON-LETHAL SUPPORT ONLY - FOR NOW

Speaking on condition of anonymity before Friday’s incident, U.S. officials said several options were under discussion if Russia escalated further. They include tightening sanctions, freezing Moscow further out of international forums, beefing up NATO’s military presence in Eastern Europe and, perhaps, supplying more non-lethal aid.

Sanctions and economic pressure on Russia have prompted capital and expertise flight and a fully fledged trade war - but no policy shift from Moscow.

Critics in Washington and elsewhere say the paucity of the Western response may simply encourage President Vladimir Putin to act further.

The Pentagon Is Stuffing Caves in Norway Full of Tanks The U.S. Marine Corps expands its Scandinavian arms stockpile

The Pentagon is sending tanks, armored vehicles and containers full of other military gear to caves in Norway. It’s all for the U.S. Marine Corps, which wants to update and expand its Scandinavian stockpile.

The Corps has stashed weapons and equipment in the Norwegian countryside since the 1980s. With this setup, Marines can fly in and be ready for a fight in no time.

In addition, the Pentagon saves money by not having to keep a large force in Norway year-round. Washington already spends billions each year running huge bases across Europe.

But in the past, Marines rushing toward the sound of gunfire might have lacked firepower. Five years ago, Humvees with machine guns and missiles were the only combat vehicles in Norwegian storage, according to tables in an official Marine Corps handbook.

Now, the military is adding M-1A1 Abrams tanks and a number ofAssault Breacher Vehicles to the bunkers. The latter are heavily armored tracks designed to blow up minefields and push through other obstacles.

The Pentagon is also adding M-88 tank retrievers, amphibious assault vehicles, up-armored Humvees and various upgraded trucks to the cache. The Corps expects to finish moving the new materiel under the mountains by the end of the month.

Marine Humvees inside a bunker in Norway. Marine Corps photo

The American military storehouses in Norway have all the other basic equipment a Marine Expeditionary Brigade needs to get up and running. A MEB can range in size from 14,000 to 18,000 people and includes tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.

The Pentagon began planning to update the equipment in Norway last year. But the Marine Corps probably is especially happy now to have the extra vehicles as the crisis in Ukraine smolders.

Russian food embargo leaves Europe with a glut

August 17, 2014 

It is farmers in the major food exporters — Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and France — who have been hobbled.

A glut of French pears, warehouses full of German sausage, rotting Polish peppers and unwanted Scottish mackerel: Russia’s move to ban European food imports in retaliation for EU sanctions is having a telling effect across a continent already slouching towards another recession.

Last year, EU farm exports to Russia were worth €11 billion. Officials in Brussels are scrambling to come up with measures, which may be announced early next week, to soften the impact of a ban that could cut that export market in half.

But already there is sign of dissent. In recent days, the leaders of Hungary, Slovakia and Sweden have all spoken out about the damage done by tit-for-tat sanctions that are really starting to bite for businesses on both sides of the stand-off. Most notably, Hungary’s Viktor Orban called it “shooting oneself in the foot.” And it is farmers in the major food exporters — Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and France — who have been hobbled.

Across Europe

The Germans export more food and agricultural produce to Russia than any other EU country — €1.6 billion-worth in 2013. Germany’s biggest export to Russia is pig meat: of the 7,50,000 tonnes of pork, worth over €1 billion, sold to Russia last year, about a quarter came from Germany.

The association of German pig farmers, ISN, has calculated the average farm could lose out on as much as €40,000 this year. “Luckily Europe’s meat exporters have been able to open up new markets in other countries over the last few months, thus balancing out the amounts usually sold to Russia,” the ISN said.

“Especially the Philippines, Japan and South Korea have increasingly received exports from Europe. The demand may increase as South American suppliers take their meat to Moscow instead.”

France: The French exported €1 billion of foodstuffs to Russia last year, and the embargo is hitting France’s 27,000 fruit and vegetable farmers hardest. — one per cent of its fresh fruit and three per cent of vegetables — 50,000 tonnes a year in total — leave France directly for Russia. A further 50,000 tonnes more are exported to Russia via the Benelux and Baltic countries in a trade worth €48 million a year.

Xavier Beulin, head of the main French agricultural union, has asked to see the French President, Francois Hollande, and said he was worried a glut of fruit and vegetables destined for Russia would flood the European market, dragging down prices, especially produce that has a limited shelf life. He warned that some producers had already started laying off staff.

Eric Guasch, an apple producer from the Avignon region, sells 80 per cent of his fruit to the Russians, and has already laid off nine seasonal workers. “We are still in a state of shock over the embargo,” he said. “It wasn’t just that all the orders we had were cancelled, but that our lorries already on the road were stopped at the Russian border and turned back.”

Ballistic Missile Defense

Author: Jonathan Masters, Deputy Editor 

August 15, 2014

Introduction

U.S. ballistic missile defense systems are designed to protect the U.S. homeland, deployed military forces, and allies from limited attacks. The Pentagon originally sought development of ballistic missile defense (BMD) technology to counter the Soviet nuclear threat during the Cold War, but its focus in the twenty-first century has shifted to defending against potential strikes from regional actors, particularly Iran and North Korea. Proponents of BMD stress its role in the projection of U.S. power and its value as a deterrent, while critics question its reliability and high costs. In recent years, some military analysts have said that the planned expansion of U.S-NATO missile defense systems in the former Soviet bloc has unnecessarily frayed relations with Moscow.

How does ballistic missile defense work?

Ballistic missiles can be launched from a variety of platforms, including silos, trucks, trains, submarines, and warships. There are four general classifications based on the maximum distance the missile can travel: short range (less than 1,000 kilometers); medium range (1,000–3,000 kilometers); intermediate range (3,000–5,500 kilometers); and intercontinental (more than 5,500 kilometers).

Ballistic missiles have three stages of flight: boost phase, which begins at launch and lasts until rocket engines finish; midcourse phase, the longest stage, when the projectile is on its parabolic path to the target; and terminal phase, when the detached warhead reenters the atmosphere, often traveling less than a minute to impact. (Cruise missiles, by contrast, are jet-engine powered weapons that fly low and level to the ground, often avoiding enemy radar, before striking their target.)

Defeating a ballistic missile involves four functions: detection, discrimination (separating the missile from everything else), fire control (determining exactly where to intercept), and killing (hitting the missile with some type of interceptor). However, the effectiveness of BMD systems in test trials has been mixed, and critics continue to question their value in realistic battle conditions.

The effectiveness of BMD systems in test trials has been mixed, and critics continue to question their value in realistic battle conditions.

What is the history of U.S. missile defense?

The Pentagon launched an intensive effort to counter the threat of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the mid-1950s, when a number of competing programs was initiated by the U.S. Army, Air Force, and Navy. But by 1972, with U.S. and Soviet arsenals growing exponentially, Washington and Moscow signed theAntiballistic Missile Treaty (ABM), limiting to two the number of missile defense sites each could maintain.

In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration expanded research and development of space- and ground-based defensive systems, and unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative [PDF], later nicknamed "Star Wars." The next year, the army tested its Homing Overlay Experiment, the first successful demonstration of a hit-to-kill vehicle.

Meanwhile, tactical systems, or theater missile defense, continued to develop. U.S. Patriot missile batteries, originally designed to intercept Soviet intermediate-range ballistic missiles in Western Europe, were deployed to the Middle East during the Persian Gulf War. While they proved ineffective at defending against Scud attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia in 1991, the concept drew increased attention and funding during the 1990s. By the latter part of the decade, BMD advocates pushed for a full-blown national missile defense system, citing nascent North Korean, Iraqi, and Iranian threats.

Worldwide Ballistic Missile Inventories

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/missiles

Latest ACA Resources

Missile Proliferation

Saudi Arabia Displays Missiles

(June 2014) 

South Korea Extends Missile Range

(November 2012) 

Press Contacts: Kelsey Davenport, Research Analyst, (202) 463-8270 x102

Updated: July 2014

The following chart lists 31 countries, including the United States and its allies, which currently possess ballistic missiles. For each country, the chart details the type of missile, its operational status, and the best-known public estimates of each missile’s range and payload. The source of the missiles—whether domestically produced, imported, or some combination of the two methods (derived or replicated from foreign technology with or without the original exporter’s consent)—is also provided.

Only nine (China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) of the 31 states below are known or suspected of possessing nuclear weapons. These nine states and Iran have produced or flight-tested missiles with ranges exceeding 1,000 kilometers. China and Russia are the only two states that are not U.S. allies that have a proven capability to launch ballistic missiles from their territories that can strike the continental United States.

Ballistic Missile Basics

Ballistic missiles are powered by rockets initially but then they follow an unpowered, free-falling trajectory toward their targets. They are classified by the maximum distance that they can travel, which is a function of how powerful the missile’s engines (rockets) are and the weight of the missile’s payload. To add more distance to a missile’s range, rockets are stacked on top of each other in a configuration referred to as staging. There are four general classifications of ballistic missiles: 

Short-range ballistic missiles, traveling less than 1,000 kilometers (approximately 620 miles); 

Medium-range ballistic missiles, traveling between 1,000–3,000 kilometers (approximately 620-1,860 miles); 

Intermediate-range ballistic missiles, traveling between 3,000–5,500 kilometers (approximately 1,860-3,410 miles); and 

Intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), traveling more than 5,500 kilometers. 

Short- and medium-range ballistic missiles are referred to as theater ballistic missiles, whereas ICBMs or long-range ballistic missiles are described as strategic ballistic missiles. Missiles are often classified by fuel-type: liquid or solid propellants. Missiles with solid fuel require less maintenance and preparation time than missiles with liquid fuel because solid-propellants have the fuel and oxidizer together, whereas liquid-fueled missiles must keep the two separated until right before deployment.

Nigerians Don’t Understand Boko Haram … Or Its Victims The Testimonial Archive Project aims to change that

“So much is happening and nobody is hearing,” says Saratu, the founder and coordinator of the Testimonial Archive Project.

She’s talking about the situation in northeastern Nigeria, where the Boko Haram insurgency and government forces have killed thousands of people in recent years.

“Even within Nigeria, many people don’t know what’s going on,” Saratu points out.

That may seem hard to believe, especially after Boko Haram abducted more than 200 schoolgirls in the town of Chibok—an atrocity that made headlines all over world and inspired U.S. first lady Michelle Obama to demand the girls’ return … via a selfie.

But Saratu—who asked we identify her only by her first name for security reason—is right. Even close observers poorly understand the conflict in Borno state and surrounding regions.

Media can’t freely report on the ground because of the threat to journalists. “Nobody is going to Borno and talking to the residents,” Saratu says.

Saratu, who has lived in the U.S. and only recently returned to Nigeria, wants to change that. At the beginning of the year, she started to ask friends and colleagues in her hometown Abuja, Nigeria’s capitol, for telephone numbers of people in the northeast.

Contacting possible victims or witnesses of violence is difficult, Saratu explains. People are mistrustful. “As you can imagine, in a situation like this folks don’t want to talk to somebody they just met on the phone.”

Her contacts fear that Saratu might be in fact an agent of the government or Boko Haram, covertly trying to question them.

The fear is appropriate for the circumstances. Those that agree to speak with Saratu and her volunteer colleagues of the Testimonial Archive Project tell stories of abuse from all sides in the conflict.

“After [Boko Haram] do their own operation and go, the police will come for innocent people in that area and they will start … putting them into [jail],” recounts Karu, a businesswoman from Damaturu.

The relationship between the Nigerian state and its people is difficult, Saratu says, because the state usually has little presence in conflict areas. Especially in the marginalized and poor northeast, the military surge in response to Boko Haram was, for many, their first intensive contact with the government.

And for the most part, the government only militarily engages the region, says Yusufu, another resident of Damaturu TAP hasinterviewed. “Our people are yet to receive any form of assistance from the authorities concerned,” Yusufu says.

“We have written to the authorities several times, but to no avail,” he continues. “Sincerely speaking, [the state of emergency] is not yielding any positive result. In fact, it is of no use to us. The emergency rule took effect about a year ago, but up to today, the insurgency is still escalating.”

But once people overcome the mistrust and open up, they tell harrowing stories of Boko Haram killing friends and relatives forcing them into cooperating.

For Saratu, the most important aspect of TAP’s work is not to bring these stories to the attention of the wider world. Instead, her audience primarily is Nigerians, who she says are often either unaware or in denial of the situation in the northeast.

Five Reasons Why the United States Can’t Beat China in Africa

Zachary Keck

August 18, 2014 

Source Link

Global interest in Africa is spiking. China has invested much time and treasure in the rising continent—placing America at a big disadvantage.

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama convened nearly fifty African heads of state in Washington, DC for the first ever U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit. As the largest event ever held between a U.S. president and African heads of state, the summit was the most visible expression of the Obama administration’s efforts to reengage Africa, which began with the president’s trip to the continent in the summer of 2013.

This “pivot” to Africa is being driven in no small part by a desire to counter China’s growing influence on the continent. Indeed, President Obama nearly said as much himself. While claiming that Africa was big enough for more than one global power, the president and senior administration officials repeatedly sought to draw a distinction between the United States’ and China’s engagement with Africa. Without naming China specifically, President Obama said at the summit:

We don’t look to Africa simply for its natural resources; we recognize Africa for its greatest resource, which is its people and its talents and their potential. We don’t simply want to extract minerals from the ground for our growth; we want to build genuine partnerships that create jobs and opportunity for all our peoples and that unleash the next era of African growth. That’s the kind of partnership America offers. 

The administration’s efforts to reengage Africa are well founded, especially with the growing opportunities in parts of the region such as Sub-Saharan Africa. Still, there are at least five reasons why the United States can’t beat China in Africa.

Too Far Behind

The first reason why the United States can’t beat China in Africa is because it is starting from too far behind. Although China only surpassed the United States in trade with Africa in 2009, it has quickly established a sizeable lead. Last year,America’s trade with Africa stood at just $85 billion. By contrast, China’s trade with the region stood at $200 billion. Similarly, while less than 1 percent of America’s foreign direct investment went to Africa last year, at least 3.4 percent of China’s direct FDI went to the region (and much of China’s FDI goes unreported).

Political ties between China and Africa are nearly as advanced. Since 2000, China and Africa have held the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) every three years. There is no regular forum even remotely similar between the United States and Africa, and this month’s one-time summit cannot replace an established forum. Nor is senior-level engagement between Beijing and Africa limited to the FOCAC. In the same month that Xi Jinping assumed the Chinese presidency, he visited three African nations as part of his first visit abroad. With the exception of a brief stop off in Ghana, President Obama didn’t even visit the continent until halfway through his second term. Similarly, while Vice President Joe Biden has yet to visit Africa while in office, Chinese premier Li Keqiang visited Nigeria, Angola and Kenya just over a year after taking up his current office. As a nice touch, Premier Li made his week long Africa visit the first official trip he took with his wife.

THREE INTERNATIONAL WATER CONFLICTS TO WATCH – ANALYSIS

By Patrick Johnson

AUGUST 16, 2014 

China-India: The Brahmaputra River

The Brahmaputra River is a 2,900 km river that originates in Tibet and flows through India’s Arunachal Pradesh state before merging with the Ganges and draining into the Bay of Bengal in Bangladesh. It is considered an important resource in all three countries that it flows through: for energy-hungry China, it provides hydroelectricity; and for India and Bangladesh, a key agricultural lifeline in otherwise overpopulated and arid region.

The Brahmaputra River is particularly important to the agricultural industry in India’s Assam plains, and worries have arisen recently regarding a series of hydroelectric plants that China is in various stages of construction on its Tibetan plateau. Some experts believe that these projects will reduce the flow of the Brahmaputra in India, compounding an already tenuous water situation in the affected areas.

While there is no comprehensive bilateral treaty in place for the sustainable management of the Brahmaputra River, some steps have been taken recently by the Modi and Xi Jinping governments, mainly in the form of an information sharing agreement for hydrological data. But until cooperation becomes more entrenched, the Brahmaputra River remains a potential source of friction between two of the world’s preeminent rising powers.

Ethiopia-Egypt: Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and the Nile River

In 2011, the Ethiopian government announced plans to build the ‘Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam’ – a $4.1 bn, 6,000MW-capacity hydroelectric dam on the Blue Nile near the border with Sudan. The dam is meant to capitalize on Ethiopia’s considerable hydroelectric potential and provide electricity for not just Ethiopians but regional populations as well. However, some fear that this dam will trade one problem for another. And by shoring up its energy supply, Ethiopia might be jeopardizing its water security by increasing the volatility of a river that already has a long history of being difficult to predict.

The potential impact on water supplies, particularly downriver, is a grave concern in Egypt; which, unlike neighboring Sudan, has consistently opposed the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam from the start. Cairo’s legal argument defers to treaties from 1929 and 1959 that guarantee Egypt two-thirds of the Nile’s waters along with the right to veto any upstream projects – a right that was ignored when Ethiopia unilaterally went ahead with construction.

Efforts to foster a multilateral approach to developing the Nile basin have so far failed, as evidenced in the 2010 Cooperative Framework Agreement that saw upriver countries join together against the downriver countries (Egypt, Sudan) who refuse to give up their historical rights despite changing economic power dynamics in the region.

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is expected to be completed sometime in 2017.

Turkey-Iraq: Ilisu Dam and the Tigris River

Turkey’s newly re-elected Erdogan government has been keen to push through the final part of its long-running Southeastern Anatolian Project: the Ilisu Dam on the Tigris River near the border of Syria. The Ilisu Dam is the most recent in a long line of Turkish projects meant to tap into the hydroelectric potential of both the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and once completed the Ilisu Dam will generate 1,200 MW, or roughly 2% of Turkey’s energy needs.

FORGING LEADERSHIP WORTHY OF WARRIORS

ROGER MISSO

AUGUST 16, 2014 

SEAMANSHIP AND LEADERSHIP

Men and women volunteering to serve their country during a time of war have a right to be taken seriously. They deserve a leadership capable of serving them as they serve the nation, throughout all phases of their career and current conflicts.

Three articles written in two separate military thought forums have put leadership on notice of late:

In “Millennials Bring a New Mentality: Does it Fit?” by CDR Darcie Cunningham, USCG, published in USNI’s Proceedings Magazine, the author argues that the most recent generation of military warfighters is lacking in adherence to the author’s view of military traditions, customs, and courtesies. She argues that millennials should recognize their place as subordinates and refrain from questioning senior leaders or asking “Why?” Cunningham writes, “We take pride in the missions we perform, serving as humble servants to the public. If millennials are more focused on what’s in it for them, they may not be the right fit.”

In “Fireproof Commanding Officers” by LT Lawrence Heyworth IV, USN, published in USNI’s Proceedings Magazine, the author discusses recent high-profile firings of commanding officers. He argues that “a career built on solid ethics and character development is the best way to safeguard naval leaders from relief due to personal misconduct.” He debunks the myths that ethically weak COs are either “bad apples” or “of weak moral character.” Rather, Heyworth concludes that commanding officers are predisposed to ethical failures due to their access to power, resources, an inflated sense of self-worth, and a loss of focus.

Unlike Cunningham’s analysis, Heyworth does not argue that senior leaders are “more equipped to take on increased levels of responsibility” based solely on their time in service. Rather, he argues that “deep and consistent introspection,” reading philosophy, and applying moral lessons each day can help leaders avoid ethical shortcomings and set the example.

Finally, in “Wasting the Warrior Culture: The Story of Frank” by Baz Khan, published in The Havok Journal, the author centers his discussion on a quote attributed to the Greek philosopher Heraclitus:

“For every one hundred men you send us, ten should not even be here. Eighty are nothing but targets. Nine of them are real fighters; we are lucky to have them, they the battle make. Ah, but the one. One of them is a warrior. And he will bring the others back.”

THE VIRTUE OF BEING A GENERALIST, PART 2: ARE ALL NUGGETS CREATED EQUAL?

JON PARIS 

AUGUST 15, 2014

CAPABILITY ANALYSIS, SEAMANSHIP AND LEADERSHIP

U.S. Navy Surface Warfare Officers have a Napoleon complex. The community is often described as inherently self-conscious and hyper-competitive. Though SWO’s often sell themselves short, in reality, they are in the highest demand at all levels of our service and throughout the joint world. Commanders want Surface Warfare Officers because they can be counted on to get any job done – regardless of past experiences or training. The community can be a meat grinder, and those with upward mobility possess well-earned street credibility. How do they get to that point, though? In Part 1 of this series, we compared the training pipeline, billet structure, and shipboard priorities of the Surface Warfare Officer and Royal Navy Warfare Officer communities. Now let us delve into the mysterious world of the Fleet Nugget. This piece will compare the products that the Naval Aviation, nuclear, and conventional Surface Warfare communities deliver to the Fleet on Day One.

Surface Warfare Officers and Naval Aviators – the Jets and theSharks. While there is no more fearsome combat team in the world, the communities are notorious for their sibling rivalry. Though we train fiercely to integrate our forces and work extremely well together to the detriment of the enemy, the professional blueprints of each community are oceans apart.

A T-45 Conducts Carrier Qualifications aboard RONALD REAGAN

A Nugget is a first-tour Naval Aviator or flight officer, especially applicable during their first deployment. The origin of the term absolutely belongs to aviators, but it does have cross-over appeal, and its connotation paints a faithful picture of a new officer in his first unit, regardless of designator. The general insinuation of the term is that the officer has little to offer their unit and must be taken under someone’s wing – pun intended. Is an F/A-18 Nugget equal to a SWO Nugget, though? What does each community really provide to their Fleet Squadrons and ships when they deliver a new batch of officers?

U.S.-EU Cooperation on Ukraine and Russia, CRS Insights, August 7, 2014

Up to a Point: Shrugging Our Way Back to War in Iraq

The Daily Beast

P. J. O’Rourke

08.16.14

We’ve begun a new military adventure in Iraq, and Americans don’t seem to mind. Isn’t that, you know, kind of weird?

I was on the patio honoring the cocktail hour and reading the paper when my son, who was supposed to be mowing the lawn, said, “Dad, is America at war in Iraq?”

“Usually,” I said. “Let me check.” And, sure enough, there on page 5 of The Daily Bugle, “Obama Orders Airstrikes – Small Group of Military Advisors Deployed.”

Now, to a fellow my age, whose memory dates back to well before the Tonkin Gulf Incident, you’d think “airstrikes” and “small group of military advisors” would be cause for alarm. But this is Iraq. It was cause for a second scotch, which, to tell the truth, I was going to have anyway.

Aren’t we always at war in Iraq? Mightn’t the Bugle headline just as well have been “Cloudy in Seattle”?

War in Iraq is exciting the first few times but then begins to pall, the way sex, drugs, and rock and roll turn into marriage, Prilosec, and the One Direction concert I took my daughter to.

When I was a foreign correspondent, at the turn of the last century, it seemed like I was always rushing off to cover Desert Sword, Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Desert Swipe, Desert Wipe-Up. Nowadays I wouldn’t even know where to rush. We seem to have “war in Iraq” automated.

Is war in Iraq one of those things that U.S. Presidents just do? Perhaps it’s among the arcane and incomprehensible routine Oval Office ceremonies such as photo ops in the Rose Garden with foreign leaders nobody’s ever heard of, or giving every member of congress a pen, all of which have been supposedly used to sign a pointless piece of legislation.

JFK’s C.I.A. was complicit in the February 1963 coup that overthrew Iraq’s dictator Abd al-Karim Qasim and killed 50,000 Iraqis.

Relations with Iraq were severed during the LBJ administration. That’s usually a prelude to war, and we might have had one if LBJ hadn’t been so busy in Vietnam.

Nixon armed Iraq’s Kurdish rebels. 

Ukrainians Preparing to Inspect Huge Russian “Aid Convoy” Halted at Ukrainian Border

Ukraine officials prepare to inspect disputed Russian convoy

Agence France-Presse, August 15, 2014

AFP / Dmitri Sharomov

Trucks in a Russian humanitarian aid convoy heading for Ukraine wait outside Voronezh, some 400 km outside Moscow, on August 13, 2014

Ukrainian officials were preparing to inspect a massive Russian “aid” convoy bound for the conflict-torn east on Friday after Russian armoured vehicles crossed the border, fuelling fears Moscow is trying to bolster the unravelling insurgency.

The Ukrainian military had announced that checks had begun on the near 300-truck convoy but later said only that 59 border and customs officials had arrived at a Russian border post to prepare to carry out the inspections.

Military spokesman Leonid Matyukhin told AFP that after the inspections the trucks would head to the rebel-held bastion of Lugansk, where local officials have warned of a humanitarian crisis with shortages of food, water and power.

"As for now the work by the Ukrainian officials has not begun as they do not yet have the documents from the Red Cross giving them permission," the military said in statement.

Map of eastern Ukraine and western Russia showing latest clashes and the position of a Russian aid convoy heading for Ukraine

Ukraine and Western powers suspect that Moscow could try to use the convoy as a “Trojan horse” bringing military help to pro-Russian insurgents, who have been rapidly losing ground to government troops in the industrial east.

On Friday, Ukrainian authorities confirmed British media reports that a small number of Russian armoured vehicles had crossed into Ukraine, not far from where the aid convoy was parked near the Russian town of Kamensk-Shakhtinsky.

"Intelligence has confirmed that a column of APCs and Ural military lorries has crossed the border and entered Ukrainian territory… intelligence also confirms that there were Russian number plates and insignia on the military hardware," the Interfax Ukraine news agency quoted the military as saying.

India-China Border Engagement

http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/india-china-border-engagement/

As India races to catch up on infrastructure, its military is increasingly engaged with the PLA.

By Nitin A. Gokhale

August 14, 2014

For the Indian military, this is a time of some fairly fundamental changes.

After decades of pursuing Pakistan-centric war planning, the Indian Army and the Indian Air Force are recalibrating their sights towards the hitherto neglected northern frontiers with China, giving a hard push to improving its war-fighting capabilities against its more powerful neighbor and at the same time, increasing on-the-ground interaction with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

This two-track policy, outcome of the experience of the past five years, is aimed at preventing any unnecessary flare ups along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), as the contested border between the two countries is known.

In July 2014, this writer has had the opportunity to undertake a rare tour of the border areas in Ladakh, a high mountainous desert that abuts the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). This remote region, rendered inaccessible by road for seven months a year because the passes leading to it are snow bound, is buzzing with an unprecedented military buildup. Consider this:

- A new Air Force Station to base fighter jets is coming up just 25 km from the Line of Actual Control

- For the first time since India’s independence in 1947, a full-fledged armored brigade of T-72 tanks will now be based in Ladakh.

- One more infantry brigade (3000 plus troops) is now moving closer to a crucial area where Chinese troops had intruded and stayed put for over three weeks in 2013.

- Work has been accelerated on at least 13 strategically important road projects in this region.

**** WHY SOME FARE BETTER THAN OTHERS?

Mohan Guruswamy

August 15, 2014

Exactly thirty years ago, soon after I returned from Harvard, I undertook a long journey through Bihar and eastern UP to understand what the situation there was and why? This was “The Children of the Ganga: An Enquiry into the Poverty of the Gangetic Plains”. The study examined the distance of Bihar and UP on most major parameters from the average and the best. On all indices Bihar was way behind. That is pretty much the situation now, though the only index where it compares now with the best is in primary school enrollment.

But why was Bihar in this parlous condition was still the big question? How did the state, which the University of California Professor of Public Administration, Dr. John Appleby, had determined as the best-administered state in 1952 turn into a bureaucratic and administrative nightmare?

The answer, it seemed, was not difficult to seek for those who believed that economic growth in India, then as it is now, is State driven. The money the central government spent had a direct bearing on the economic outcomes of states and on the well being of their people. The evidence was very clear. Right from the First Plan, Bihar and UP, suffered from underinvestment by the Central Government. If there was per capita development expenditure for each plan, Bihar was always furthest from it.

When I computed the investment foregone, by getting so much less in every consecutive Plan, in 1984 – thirty years ago – Bihar was shortchanged by as much as Rs.27000 crores. That number is now as much as ten times more. For a start the Plans have become bigger. Bihar is still last in terms of per capita development expenditure, and industrial and infrastructure investment. The highest-ranking states in terms of government investment get as much as six times more than Bihar in per capita terms.

Bihar was then the second largest state in India. It is in many ways the heart of India. It is certainly the cradle of Indian civilization, which evolved on the banks of the Ganges. And it is still very clear India cannot go forward leaving Bihar behind. But the question that still stays is whether Bihar would have done as well as the high fliers if the money were provided? This is what now requires study and I hope this institution will pioneer this.

In the years since I have done many more studies evaluating the performance of other states in India. Clearly there are high performers and laggards. But why are some this and others that is an answer that still eludes me. We seem condemned by our ways of comparison analysis to see things in terms of inputs and outputs, without ever really wondering if there are other processes at work which makes different states within one country, within one constitutional system, within one economic system and sharing a long and common ethno-cultural history which make a difference?

Now think of this, India is the third largest economy in the world in PPP terms and it is predicted that by 2050 it will be a $30-55 trillion economy, depending on whose projections is music to your ears. 2050 is just 36 years from now and in a nations lifetime that is a mere blink. This is not daydreaming. In 1990-91 when PV Narasimha Rao initiated the first dismantling of the centrally planned state the GDP of India at current US$ was a little over $200 billion. Twenty-three years later it is ten times that. Increasing twenty-fold in 36 years is really not a tall order.

India has grown at an average rate of over 7% since 2000. Between 208-11 it grew at more than 9%. In consonance with global trends India’s growth also has tapered off these past two years. Nevertheless overall the trends have never been like this before and there is optimism about the long term, despite recent troubles. It is a country where many state GDP’s are bigger than many countries.

The size of Maharashtra’s economy would place it just about alongside as Singapore and bigger than Hongkong or Nigeria. This overall performance however masks a diversity of performances. The HDI of Kerala is India’s highest 0.790, which would place it ahead of China, while the other end of the spectrum is Chhattisgarh with 0.358, which would place it just alongside Chad, one of the world’s poorest and most backward countries. At 0.790 Kerala would find a place in the high HDI list of nations.

**** If India and Pakistan Went to War: 5 Weapons Pakistan Should Fear

Kyle Mizokami

August 16, 2014 

If the unthinkable happened, India has quite the arsenal—including nuclear weapons—to cause Pakistan considerable trouble in a conflict.

Editor’s Note: Please see previous works from our “Weapons of War” series including Five Chinese Weapons of War America Should Fear, Five American Weapons of War China Should Fear, Five Japanese Weapons of War China Should Fear, Five Best Weapons of War from the Soviet Union and Five Taiwanese Weapons of War China Should Fear.

Recently India alleged a series of ceasefire violations—in the form of automatic weapons fire—by Pakistan on the border between the two countries. According to India, it was the sixth attack in just five days. Such events are a reminder that tension remains high on the Indian subcontinent.

The nuclear arsenals of both sides—and the red lines that would trigger their use—have made conventional war much more risky to conduct. The 1999 Kargil War is considered the closest the world has come to a nuclear war since the Cuban Missile Crisis. If India were to use its superiority in ground forces to seize a sizable amount of Pakistani territory, Pakistan could respond with nuclear weapons.

It’s distinctly possible that any future war between India and Pakistan would involve limited action on the ground and full-scale fighting at sea and in the air. India has the upper hand in both, particularly at sea where it would have the ability to blockade Pakistani ports. Pakistan imports 83% of its gasoline consumption, and without sizable reserves the economy would feel the effects of war very quickly. An economic victory, not a purely military one might be the best way to decisively end a war without the use of nuclear weapons.

With that scenario in mind, let’s look at the five Indian weapons Pakistan would fear most in a war.

INS Vikramaditya Aircraft Carrier

Commissioned in November 2013, INS Vikramaditya is the newer and more modern of India’s two aircraft carriers. In the event of war, Vikramaditya would lead an offensive at sea designed to sweep the Pakistani Navy from the field. The nightmare scenario for Pakistan would be Vikramaditya parked off the coast of Karachi, Pakistan’s largest port, enforcing a naval blockade.

Originally built for the Soviet Navy as the anti-submarine aviation cruiser Baku, Vikramaditya was mothballed in 1996 after it became clear post-Cold War Russia could not afford to operate her. The ship was purchased by India in 2004, to be upgraded by Russian shipbuilders to a true aircraft carrier complete with angled flight deck. The updated design deleted all cruiser armament, including two 100mm deck guns, 192 SA-N-9 surface to air missiles and 12 SS-N-12 Sandbox anti-ship missiles.

Vikramaditya is 282 meters long and displaces 44,000 tons, making it less than half the displacement of American supercarriers. Nevertheless Vikramaditya’s powerful air wing is capable of executing air superiority, anti-surface, anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare. The carrier air wing is expected to consist of 24MiG-29K or Tejas multi-role fighters and 10 anti-submarine warfare helicopters. India has ordered 45 MiG-29Ks, with the first squadron, 303 “Black Panthers” Squadron, stood up in May 2013.

Indian men joining Jihad in Levant: Why India needs to worry

By Shweta Desai

August 14, 2014 

Source Link

 Earlier in July, a group of four young men from Mumbai- the urban metropolis of India-left their pilgrim troupe visiting religious shrines in Baghdad, Iraq and changed routes to the northern city of Mosul to join the Islamic State - the militant extremist group whose ruthless religious zealotry has fragmented Iraq and Syria to form Caliphate which submits to fundamentalist Islamic laws. The flight of the Indian men to the war ravaging in Levant points to a phenomenon which has already drawn in over 12000 fighters from 83 countries. It has however put India on a list of potential Jihadi risk that has intelligence and security agencies in Europe to Australia, America to Indonesia hitting the panic button, worrying on the threat that these radicals pose: inspired by weapons training and Jihadist acts and returning home to commit acts of terrorism.

In less than two years, Syria has become number one jihadist destination and most prominent jihadist battlefield in the world, providing both a rallying point and a training ground for radical Islamists from other nations. This mobilisation of war volunteers remains one of the prominent features of the conflict in Syria as many Muslims feel exhorted to join the battlefield and liberate their brethren from the oppressors.

Until now there was an understanding that Syria is geographically far from India and the conflict does not have any impact on the domestic matters of the country, hence there is no real need to be involved. However, the presence of young men from Maharashtra, Kerala and Tamil Nadu in a transnational Jihadi organisation marks a radical shift in India’s strategic approach in West Asia. India’s concerns had widely remained on the peripheries of energy security, oil and natural gas deficit - as it continues to import 60 percent oil and gas from Gulf states - and the effect of the conflict on the 7 million labour force residing in the region that could impact the high remittances sent back home; but will now be forced to draw new counter indoctrination strategies to prevent people from volunteering in the war, engaging in terrorism and disseminating jihadist ideology.

The risk of foreign fighters first emanated in September 2013 when Syrian ambassador to India, Dr Riad Abbas disclosed that Indian Jihadists were fighting along with rebels. The case of Tamil Nadu-born Singapore resident Haji Fakkurudin Usman Ali who is suspected to have joined militants from Islamic State and radicalized by another man Gul Mohammad Maraikar was widely underplayed by Indian security agencies, as both fighters were non-resident Indians. But as recent details of 18 Indian men joining the ranks of ISIS as Sunni fighters emerge and one fighter reportedly dying in combat, the implications of the Islamic turmoil in Levant appear to have drawn closer home, which India can no longer afford to stay out of.

While there have been cases of home-grown radicals involved in terror and suspicious activities, the case of volunteers in Iraq is different in the context that until now such volunteers crossed over India’s border in the conflict ridden Jammu-Kashmir region to join militants in neighbouring Pakistan and infiltrated back in the valley to continue the offensive. This time, to consider some cases, around eight men are from the urban cities of Mumbai and Thane, parts of Kerala and also Tamil Nadu, regions with no any active military conflict. All in their 20s, the men have no combat experience nor have they been reported to be a part of proxy local groups like the Indian Mujahedeen, which has reportedly fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The narrative of how Indian fighters have been drawn in the conflict is remarkably similar to the enrolment of other foreign fighters with the Islamist rebel groups, where online propaganda has been pivotal. These fighters typically belong from outside Syria, have no direct connection to the conflict, are in the age range of 18-29 years, often teenagers and a fair percentage of them are converts to Islam from non-Muslim majority countries. The countries of origin of these fighters reveal high economic and social indicators and a higher variant of peace as compared to the turmoil in the Levant region. While ISIS is said to pay salaries to its militants, there are no direct benefits or visible material gains on offer for the Indian men to participate in the conflict.

Modi Bets the Farm Why Indian Agricultural Policy Might Unravel the WTO

By Surupa Gupta and Sumit Ganguly

AUGUST 12, 2014

Source Link

Farm laborers in the western Indian state of Gujarat, October 2012. (Amit Dave / Courtesy Reuters)

Atrade spat with India is threatening to push the World Trade Organization, already suffering from flagging credibility thanks to a lack of concrete results, into irrelevance. At the end of July, in a move that startled the WTO’s 160 members, India blocked a landmark international agreement that would have streamlined trade across the world. India had already approved the deal, which was struck at a WTO summit in Bali last December, but suddenly refused to live up to the deal’s first step -- signing a one-paragraph accession protocol -- without simultaneous progress on another matter -- food security, specifically greater concessions that would enable India to continue to subsidize its poor farmers.

India’s decision was a disappointing blow for a vast majority of WTO countries. The Bali deal was meant to be a crucial breakthrough, simplifying customs rules and potentially expanding the global economy by as much as $1 trillion. It would have also given a new boost to multilateralism at a time when most key players (including the United States and the EU) are increasingly focused on negotiating more specialized trade agreements in smaller groups. And if implemented, it would become the first unanimous agreement to be carried out by the WTO’s members in its two decades of existence. Although the clash with India does not spell the end of the WTO -- it has missed deadlines before and has so far carried on with its negotiations -- it marks a new low in the perennial WTO debate on agriculture while raising the risk of isolating India abroad.

India’s decision to link its approval of the pact to an unresolved WTO disagreement on food security might appear to defy strategic logic. After all, its newly elected prime minister, Narendra Modi, rose to power as a pro-market reformer. And New Delhi’s position has historically favored multilateralism -- lending support to trade liberalization since 1991 and campaigning for freer trade in services -- a consensus that even the rise of Modi’s nationalist party has done little to weaken. Moreover, unlike in previous WTO disputes involving India, when the country took the lead in voicing concerns shared by many developing countries and enjoyed their overwhelming support, this time only a handful of states backed its posturing. In contrast, a group of 26 WTO members, including several small, low-income countries, expressed “dismay” at India’s position.

No matter how erratic New Delhi’s stance might appear, however, it is shaped by compelling practical concerns and by domestic politics. Two factors in particular are at play: the primacy of India’s farming sector in its trade policy considerations and the WTO’s poor track record in recognizing the pressing needs of its developing-country members. 

No politician in India would want to be perceived as being anti-farmer.

First, domestic politics are the primary, if not the most crucial, factor shaping India’s trade policies. And the farming sector is especially influential, accounting for almost 55 percent of jobs in the country and for over 42 percent of its land. This sector is also very fragmented: there are around 138 million farm units in India, and over three-fourths of them are tiny. Most Indian farmers are subsistence producers with low incomes and poor access to resources who depend on the government for subsidies and aid. Yet these farmers also display an impressive capacity for political mobilization, including such highly visible forms of protest as huge rallies and sit-ins.