European politicians call for new sanctions on Russia over Ukraine
By Andrew Osborn and Anton ZverevReuters•
Ukrainian ships are detained in Kerch Strait in this still image from video released by Russian Federal Security Service November 27, 2018. Russian Federal Security Service/Handout via REUTERS By Andrew Osborn and Anton Zverev MOSCOW/KERCH, Crimea (Reuters) – Several senior European politicians on Tuesday raised the possibility of new sanctions against Russia to punish it for capturing three Ukrainian vessels at sea, an incident the West fears could ignite a wider conflict.A Russian minister said further sanctions would solve nothing and that the incident should not be used to derail the Minsk accord, which aims to end fighting in eastern Ukraine between Kiev’s forces and pro-Russian separatist rebels.Russian assets have come under pressure on financial markets amid concerns that possible new sanctions could hurt the economy, though the rouble on Tuesday clawed back some earlier losses as investors bet any sanctions would not be swift.Russia opened fire on the Ukrainian boats and then seized them and their crews on Sunday near Crimea – which Russia annexed from Ukraine in 2014. Moscow and Kiev have tried to pin the blame on each other for the incident.President Vladimir Putin told German Chancellor Angela Merkel by phone on Monday that Moscow was ready to provide more details to bolster its version of events. Moscow says Kiev deliberately provoked it in order to trigger a crisis.Merkel, who also spoke on Monday with Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko, called for de-escalation and dialogue.The United States urged European nations on Tuesday to do more to assist Ukraine in its standoff with Russia.Ukraine has introduced martial law for 30 days in parts of the country it deems most vulnerable to an attack from Russia. It has said its ships did nothing wrong and that it wants the West to impose new sanctions on Moscow.Some of the 24 Ukrainian sailors held by Russia for straying into Russian waters appeared on Russian state TV on Tuesday admitting to being part of a pre-planned provocation. Kiev denounced what it described as forced confessions.A court in Crimea ordered seven of the Ukrainian sailors to be detained for two months pending a possible trial. It was expected to order the other sailors to be detained for the same period in separate hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday.Their vessels were captured by Russian forces at sea near the Kerch Strait, which is the only outlet to the Sea of Azov and controls access to two major Ukrainian ports.A Reuters reporter at the Crimean port of Kerch where the vessels are being held saw masked armed men on board one of the ships removing boxes of ammunition.Two Russian police officers with automatic rifles stood on the pier where the Ukrainian vessels were moored. The vessels bore traces of collisions and big holes in places.NEW SANCTIONS ON RUSSIA? Senior German conservative Norbert Roettgen, a close Merkel ally, said the European Union may need to toughen its sanctions against Russia, imposed partly over Moscow’s annexation of Crimea.Karin Kneissl, foreign minister of Austria, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, said the EU would consider sanctions depending „on the exposition of facts and the further conduct of both parties”.Poland and Estonia, both hawkish on Russia, expressed support for more sanctions.Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Bartosz Cichocki told Reuters the incident in the Kerch Strait vindicated Warsaw’s call for a more unified Western stance toward Russia.”Russia remains wrongly convinced that the reaction of the West isn’t unified… because in energy matters there is one stance and in defense matters there is another,” he said, noting that some EU states such as Germany backed the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that increases Europe’s reliance on Russian gas.U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert also raised Nord Stream 2 on Tuesday when asked to comment on the Ukraine-Russia spat, saying some European nations should review their support for a project that „helps the Russian government”.Nauert also said Europe could more vigorously implement existing sanctions against Russia over its actions in Ukraine.”The United States government has taken a very strong position in… support of Ukraine. We would like other countries to do more as well,” she told a regular briefing in Washington.Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko, speaking during a visit to Berlin, said more sanctions against his country would „not help to solve any problem at all”.He suggested Kiev provoked the incident to derail already halting implementation of the Minsk accord in eastern Ukraine, and said Moscow had a keen interest in ending that conflict after absorbing more than a million refugees from the region.EU foreign ministers are due to discuss the crisis on Dec. 10. EU leaders are expected later next month to agree to extend existing sanctions on Russia, diplomats said.Russia’s FSB security service released video footage on Tuesday of the captured sailors saying they had ignored Russian orders to stop. At least one appeared to be reading from a script. Ukrainian politicians said the sailors were coerced, rendering their confessions meaningless.The FSB said it had information showing the sailors’ mission had been pre-planned by the Ukrainian government and that two intelligence officers from Ukraine’s SBU security service had been on board to coordinate the provocation.Vasyl Hrytsak, the head of the SBU, confirmed that his officers were on board to support the military and said one of them had been seriously wounded after Russian aircraft fired missiles at the Ukrainian vessels.(Additional reporting by Natalia Zinets and Matthias Williams in Kiev, Tom Balmforth and Andrew Osborn in Moscow, Tassilo Hummel, Sabina Siebold, Andrea Shalal and Andreas Rinke in Berlin, Gabriela Baczynska in Brussels, John Irish in Paris, Angel Krasimirov in Sofia, Joanna Plucinska in Warsaw, David Alexander and David Brunnstrom in Washington; Writing by Andrew Osborn; Editing by Gareth Jones)
Ukraine introduces martial law citing threat of Russian invasion
By Andrew Osborn and Natalia Zinets
MOSCOW/KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraine on Monday imposed martial law for 30 days in parts of the country most vulnerable to an attack from Russia after President Petro Poroshenko warned of the „extremely serious” threat of a land invasion.
Poroshenko said martial law was necessary to bolster Ukraine’s defenses after Russia seized three Ukrainian naval ships and took their crew prisoner at the weekend.
U.S. President Donald Trump said he did not like what was happening between Russia and Ukraine and was working with European leaders on the situation.
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called Russia’s seizure of the Ukrainian vessels „a dangerous escalation and a violation of international law” and called for restraint from both countries.
„The United States condemns this aggressive Russian action. We call on Russia to return to Ukraine its vessels and detained crew members, and to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” Pompeo said in a statement.
The State Department said Pompeo spoke by phone with Poroshenko and reiterated strong U.S. support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of Russian „aggression”.
The Ukrainian parliament approved the introduction of martial law after Poroshenko reassured some skeptical lawmakers that it would not be used to curb civil liberties or delay elections scheduled for next year.
It came at the end of a day when Ukraine and Russia traded accusations about Sunday’s standoff and Kiev’s allies weighed in to condemn Moscow’s behavior.
With relations still raw after Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and its backing for a pro-Moscow insurgency in eastern Ukraine, the crisis risked pushing the two countries into open conflict.
„Russia has been waging a hybrid war against our country for a fifth year. But with an attack on Ukrainian military boats it moved to a new stage of aggression,” Poroshenko said.
In a phone call with Poroshenko, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg offered the alliance’s „full support for Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.” Ukraine is not a NATO member though it aspires to membership.
Washington’s envoy to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, said Russia’s actions were an „outrageous violation of sovereign Ukrainian territory” and sanctions on Russia would remain in place.
The European Union, Britain, France, Poland, Denmark, and Canada all condemned what they called Russian aggression. German Chancellor Angela Merkel stressed the need for dialogue.
The stand-off in the Azov Sea is more combustible now than at any time in the past four years as Ukraine has rebuilt its armed forces, previously in disarray, and has a new generation of commanders who are confident and have a point to prove.
(Map of the Kerch Strait bridge: https://tmsnrt.rs/2PRMbqh)
„PROVOCATION”
Russia’s foreign ministry blamed Kiev for the crisis.
„It’s obvious that this painstakingly thought-through and planned provocation was aimed at igniting another source of tension in the region in order to create a pretext to ramp up sanctions against Russia,” it said in a statement.
Such a policy was „fraught with serious consequences,” it said, adding that Kiev was acting in coordination with the United States and the European Union.
Russia summoned the ranking diplomat at Kiev’s embassy in Moscow over the incident, the foreign ministry said.
In Kiev, Poroshenko said intelligence data suggested there was an „extremely serious threat” of a land-based operation against Ukraine by Russia.
„I have a document of intelligence in my hands … Here on several pages is a detailed description of all the forces of the enemy located at a distance of literally several dozens of kilometers from our border. Ready at any moment for an immediate invasion of Ukraine,” he said.
Martial law would allow Ukraine to respond swiftly to any invasion and mobilize resources as quickly as possible, he said.
He dismissed „dirty speculation” by critics that he wanted to use the proposed measure to delay elections next year, where he faces a tough re-election fight and opinion polls show him trailing his opponents. Ukrainian lawmakers held a second vote to confirm the polls would take place as scheduled on March 31.
UKRAINIANS WOUNDED, VESSELS HELD
Russia’s rouble currency weakened 1.4 percent against the dollar in Moscow on Monday, its biggest one-day fall since Nov. 9, while Russian dollar-bonds fell.
Markets are highly sensitive to anything that could trigger new Western sanctions, and therefore weaken the Russian economy. A fall in the price of oil – Russia’s biggest source of revenue – has made its economy more vulnerable.
The crisis erupted when border patrol boats belonging to Russia’s FSB security service seized two small Ukrainian armored artillery vessels and a tug boat after opening fire on them and wounding three sailors on Sunday.
The Ukrainian vessels had been trying to enter the Sea of Azov from the Black Sea via the narrow Kerch Strait that separates Crimea from the Russian mainland.
Interfax news agency quoted Russia’s human rights commissioner, Tatyana Moskalkova, as saying on Monday that 24 Ukrainian sailors were being detained. Three of the sailors were wounded but were not in a serious condition and were recovering in hospital.
The FSB said the Ukrainian ships had ignored warning shots, forcing Russian vessels to open fire for real, after they illegally entered Russian territorial waters.
A Reuters witness in Kerch, a port in Crimea, said the three Ukrainian vessels were being held there on Monday.
Domestic politics in Moscow also add to the combustibility of the situation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has seen his high approval rating fall because of unpopular domestic policies. In the past, successful military action beyond Russia’s borders has buoyed his popularity.
Tensions have long been brewing over the Azov Sea. Crimea, on the western shore, is now controlled by Moscow, the eastern shore is Russian territory, and the northern shore is controlled by Ukraine.
(Additional reporting by Tom Balmforth and Polina Ivanova in Moscow, Jeff Mason, David Brunnstrom, Makini Brice and Doina Chiacu in Washington; Michelle Stine Buch Jacobsen in Copenhagen, Karin Strohecker in London, Joanna Plucinska in Warsaw, and European bureaux; Writing by Andrew Osborn, Christian Lowe and Matthias Williams; Editing by Angus MacSwan and James Dalgleish)
Trump, Pence seek to rescue embattled Republican in Mississippi
By Steve Holland
BILOXI, Miss. (Reuters) – President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence launched a rescue mission in Mississippi for a Republican candidate on the eve of a run-off election for the U.S. Senate, with Democrats hoping to win a seat in the state for the first time since 1982.
Trump appeared at two large, boisterous rallies in Biloxi and Tupelo, Mississippi, for Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith, who is in a close race against black Democrat Mike Espy in the deep South state.
The result of Tuesday’s run-off will determine whether Republicans widen their control of the U.S. Senate to 53 to 47 seats when the new Congress takes office early next year. Hyde-Smith remains a narrow favorite to win.
While Republicans did well in Senate races, Democrats took control of the U.S. House of Representatives from Republicans in midterm congressional elections three weeks ago.
In a question-and-answer session with reporters, Trump defended Hyde-Smith from criticism after a video surfaced showing her praising a supporter at a Nov. 2 public event by saying: „If he invited me to a public hanging, I’d be on the front row.”
The comments triggered a political firestorm in a state that has a history of racism and lynchings and was a flashpoint in America’s civil rights struggle.
Trump, asked about Hyde-Smith as she sat nearby at a question-and-answer session with reporters, said her comments struck him initially as „something that was sad” and a little flippant but that she had apologized for them when they spoke about it on the phone.
„I’ve gotten to know her over the last period of time as a senator, as a very, very talented United States senator and I know where her heart is, and her heart is good. That’s not what she was meaning when she said that,” he said.
Pence joined Trump for the Biloxi rally, declaring Espy too liberal for the state of Mississippi.
The rally venue was adorned with Christmas trees and wreaths and Trump emerged from backstage out of a fake fireplace, waving away some fake snow that was blown out from the ceiling.
„There goes the suit, there goes the hair,” he said.
(Reporting By Steve Holland; Editing by Simon Cameron-Moore)
Donald Trump Gets Fact-Checked By Reporter Right To His Face, Walks Away
A reporter earned praise Monday after she called out President Donald Trump, over one of his more questionable claims, right to his face.
CBS’ Paula Reid challenged Trump over his discredited assertion that his administration’s policy of separating migrant children from their families at the U.S.-Mexico border was the same as that conducted by former President Barack Obama.
“Obama had a separation policy. We all had the same policy,” Trump said. “You did not have it, sir. No, you didn’t,” Reid fired back.
Trump said he “tried to do it differently” and claimed “Obama had a separation policy” but “people don’t like to talk about it.” As Trump walked away, Reid said: “Sir, it was different. You decided to prosecute everyone at the border.”
Check out the clip here:
Paula Reid
✔@PaulaReidCBS
Today @CBSNews challenged @realDonaldTrump about his reax to @60Minutes investigation on controversial child separation policy.
And some of the responses below:
Elle Bee Are@elle_bee_areI have been consistently calling for this—the media need to think like lawyers doing a cross exam. Print out the facts/quotes that support you and bring them. When Trump and @PressSec lie, impeach your “witness”.
Brian Stelter
✔@brianstelter
This was @PaulaReidCBS. Kudos to her!
Micah Grimes
✔@MicahGrimes
Who is this reporter who fact checked President Trump to his face in real time? https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1067158470326198273 …
NBC News
✔@NBCNews
Pres. Trump: “Obama had a separation policy; we all had the same policy”
Reporter: “You did not”
Pres. Trump: “I tried to do it differently, but Obama had a separation policy”
Reporter: “Sir, it was different — you decided to prosecute everyone at the border”
hope springs eternal@Stay_ResoluteFinally. A reporter prepared with the facts and not shy about calling him out on his lies. More please.
Thank you @PaulaReidCBS
Paula Reid
✔@PaulaReidCBS
Today @CBSNews challenged @realDonaldTrump about his reax to @60Minutes investigation on controversial child separation policy.
Tery@zoaves10
96 people are talking about this
Ukraine, trade crises stalk G20’s 10th anniversary
Partial view of the entrance to the Costa Salguero Centre, which will host the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires, taken on November 27, 2018
Buenos Aires (AFP) – G20 leaders, wrestling with the US-China trade war and ascendant populism at their 10th summit this week, face a new crisis following Russia’s naval confrontation with Ukraine.
In November 2008, countries representing four fifths of the world’s economic output came together to forge a collective front against the financial panic then engulfing the West.
A decade on, that unity has vanished as US President Donald Trump shreds the consensus underpinning international trade.
Other G20 countries such as Brazil, Italy and Mexico have turned to populist leaders, or, in Britain’s case, are grappling with a fractious electorate’s decision to file for divorce from the European Union.
And this year’s G20 host Argentina is enduring its own economic crisis, necessitating the deployment of more than 22,000 police against the threat of mass protests when the heads of government convene on Friday and Saturday.
„I would say that the G20 has lost a lot of the steam that it once had in the global financial crisis in 2008, 2009,” Matthew Goodman, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said during a briefing previewing the summit.
„The last summits have been somewhat disappointing and marked by contention, particularly over trade-related issues. And I would expect that to be the case again.”
Trump’s „America First” stance has already upended other recent world summits such as the G7 and the Asia-Pacific bloc APEC.
For the G20 as a whole, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie told AFP that the summit should stress the importance of trade itself.
But given the dysfunction at those other summits, the G20 leaders are expected to stop short of repeating their vows to fight protectionism, which were a founding principle in 2008.
Given US objections, analysts also dismiss any notion that the group can replicate its past consensus on the need to confront climate change, just ahead of a UN summit on the planetary threat in Poland.
After imposing a raft of tariffs on Chinese goods and threatening more to come, the US president is due to meet with Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping for a working dinner in Buenos Aires.
His economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters on Tuesday that „the president said there is a good possibility that we can make a deal and he is open to it.”
But he warned that „if things don’t work out in this US-China summit meeting, he will invoke another $267 some odd billion dollars in tariffs.”
Trump himself told The Wall Street Journal that it was „highly unlikely” that he would accept China’s request to defer the next increase scheduled for January 1.
The White House confirmed Trump will sit down with President Vladimir Putin for their first face-to-face meeting since a July summit in Finland, when he astonished observers by praising the Russian leader.
That bilateral has taken on new urgency after Russian vessels seized three Ukrainian ships near Crimea at the weekend, igniting a storm of protest in Europe.
– Dangerous waters –
However, Trump told The Washington Post he was waiting for a report on the incident from his national security advisors before making up his mind over whether he would meet Putin.
„That will be very determinative. Maybe I won’t have the meeting,” he said.
On Monday, his UN ambassador Nikki Haley condemned such „outlaw actions” by Russia.
The exact location of the Ukrainian ships when they were boarded is subject to dispute. Kiev, backed by allies in Western Europe, says they were in international waters in the Sea of Azov.
In the G20 context, that parallels controversies pitting Beijing against other nations over the passage of ships through the South China Sea, a vital trading artery.
„What’s happening in the Sea of Azov is serious,” said Francois Heisbourg, special adviser at the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris.
„If you start transgressing on the principles of freedom of navigation, that could serve as a precedent around the world. Any country controlling a strait could be tempted to forbid passage.”
On the trade front, Heisbourg said the question at the G20 was whether Xi will „rear up” against Trump’s combative stance, or try to find an accommodation between the world’s two largest economies.
Analysts are skeptical that Buenos Aires will witness a breakthrough big enough to forestall Trump’s threat to toughen the China tariffs in January — or even if there is, whether it will hold for long.
Cui Lei, an expert at the Department for American Studies at Beijing’s China Institute of International Studies, said the signs were not promising following the stormy APEC summit and new US accusations of Chinese sharp practice on fronts such as intellectual property rights and technology transfers.
„There may be a statement of principles (in Buenos Aires), confirming they will maintain negotiation and communication, but I think it will be difficult to reach a comprehensive agreement, because to do that both sides need to make big concessions,” he said.
Markets will be watching the G20 for any steps by Saudi Arabia and Russia — the world’s two biggest exporters of crude — to reverse a recent collapse in oil prices.
Such petro-diplomacy would, however, run headlong into Trump’s loudly stated desire to keep oil prices low.
And Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman can ill afford to alienate the one Western leader who seems to be standing by him following the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey last month.
Introducing the U.S. Army’s New Plan to Wage War (Against Russia)
Kris Osborn
The National Interest•November 27, 2018
Kris Osborn
Security,
The Army’s new “Vision” for future war calls for a fast-moving emphasis on long-range precision fire to include missiles, hypersonic weapons and extended-range artillery — to counter Russian threats on the European continent, service officials explain.
Introducing the U.S. Army’s New Plan to Wage War (Against Russia)
Long-range surface-to-surface fires, many contend, could likely be of great significance against an adversary such as Russia – a country known to possess among most advanced air defenses in the world. Such a scenario might make it difficult for the US to quickly establish the kind of air supremacy needed to launch sufficient air attacks. As a result, it is conceivable that LRPF could provide strategically vital stand-off attack options for commanders moving to advance on enemy terrain.
The Army’s new “Vision” for future war calls for a fast-moving emphasis on long-range precision fire to include missiles, hypersonic weapons and extended-range artillery — to counter Russian threats on the European continent, service officials explain.
(This first appeared several months ago.)
While discussing the Army Vision, an integral component of the service’s recently competed Modernization Strategy, Secretary of the Army Mark Esper cited long-range precision fire as a “number one modernization priority” for the Army.
Senior Army officials cite concerns that Russian weapons and troop build-ups present a particular threat to the US and NATO in Europe, given Russia’s aggressive force posture and arsenal of accurate short, medium and long-range ballistic missiles.
“The US-NATO military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, for example, is in the range fan of Russian assets. That is how far things can shoot. You do not have sanctuary status in that area,” a senior Army official told Warrior Maven in an interview.
The senior Army weapons developer said the service intends to engineer an integrated series of assets to address the priorities outlined by Esper; these include the now-in-development Long Range Precision Fires missile, Army hypersonic weapons programs and newly configured long-range artillery able to double the 30-km range of existing 155m rounds. The Army is now exploring a longer-range artillery weapon called “Extended Range Cannon,” using a longer cannon, ramjet propulsion technology and newer metals to pinpoint targets much farther away.
Army leaders have of course been tracking Russian threats in Europe for quite some time. The Russian use of combined arms, drones, precision fires and electronic warfare in Ukraine has naturally received much attention at the Pentagon.
Also, the Russian violations of the INF Treaty, using medium-range ballistic missiles, continues to inform the US European force posture. Russia’s INF Treaty violation, in fact, was specifically cited in recent months by Defense Secretary James Mattis as part of the rationale informing the current Pentagon push for new low-yield nuclear weapons.
The Arms Control Association’s (ACA) “Worldwide Inventory of Ballistic Missiles” cites several currently operational short, medium and long-range Russian missiles which could factor into the threat equation outlined by US leaders. The Russian arsenal includes shorter range weapons such as the mobile OTR-21 missile launch system, designated by NATO as the SS-21 Scarab C, which is able to hit ranges out to 185km, according to ACA.
Russian medium-range theater ballistic missiles, such as the RS-26 Rubezh, have demonstrated an ability to hit targets at ranges up to 5,800km. Finally, many Russian long-range ICBMs, are cited to be able to destroy targets as far away as 11,000km – these weapons, the ACA specifies, include the RT-2PM2 Topol-M missile, called SS-27 by NATO.
It is not merely the range of these missiles which could, potentially, pose a threat to forward-positioned or stationary US and NATO assets in Europe — it is the advent of newer long-range sensors, guidance and targeting technology enabling a much higher level of precision and an ability to track moving targets. GPS technology, inertial navigation systems, long-range high-resolution sensors and networked digital radar systems able to operate on a wide range of frequencies continue to quickly change the ability of forces to maneuver, operate and attack.
While discussing the Army Vision, Esper specified the importance of “out-ranging” an enemy during a recent event at the Brookings Institution.
“We think that for a number of reasons we need to make sure we have overmatch and indirect fires, not just for a ground campaign, but also, we need to have the ability to support our sister services,” Esper told Brooking’s Michael O’Hanlon, according to a transcript of the event.
Recommended: Imagine a U.S. Air Force That Never Built the B-52 Bomber
Recommended: Russia’s Next Big Military Sale – To Mexico?
Recommended: Would China Really Invade Taiwan?
The Army’s emerging Long-Range Precision Fires(LRPF), slated to be operational by 2027, draws upon next generation guidance technology and weapons construction to build a weapon able to destroy targets as far as 500km away.
LRPF is part of an effort to engineer a sleek, high-speed, first-of-its-kind long-range ground launched attack missile able to pinpoint and destroy enemy bunkers, helicopter staging areas, troop concentrations, air defenses and other fixed-location targets from as much as three times the range of existing weapons, service officials said.
Long-range surface-to-surface fires, many contend, could likely be of great significance against an adversary such as Russia – a country known to possess among most advanced air defenses in the world. Such a scenario might make it difficult for the US to quickly establish the kind of air supremacy needed to launch sufficient air attacks. As a result, it is conceivable that LRPF could provide strategically vital stand-off attack options for commanders moving to advance on enemy terrain.
Esper specifically referred to this kind of scenario when discussing “cross-domain” fires at the Brookings event; the Army Vision places a heavy premium on integrated high-end threats, potential attacks which will require a joint or inter-service combat ability, he said. In this respect, long range precision fires could potentially use reach and precision to destroy enemy air defenses, allowing Air Force assets a better attack window.
“This is why long-range precision fires is number one for the Army. So, if I need to, for example, suppress enemy air defenses using long-range artillery, I have the means to do that, reaching deep into the enemy’s rear. What that does, if I can suppress enemy air defenses, either the guns, missiles, radars…ect.. it helps clear the way for the Air Force to do what they do – and do well,” Esper said.
In addition, there may also be some instances where a long-range cruise missile – such as a submarine or ship-fired Tomahawk – may not be available; in this instance, LRPF could fill a potential tactical gap in attack plans.
Raytheon and Lockheed recently won a potential $116 million deal to develop the LRPF weapon through a technological maturation and risk reduction phase, Army and industry officials said.
Service weapons developers tell Warrior a “shoot-off” of several LRPF prototypes is currently planned for 2020 as a key step toward achieving operational status.
Esper also highlighted the potential “cross-domain” significance of how Army-Navy combat integration could be better enabled by long-range fires.
“If we’re at a coast line and we can help using long-range weapons …. I’m talking about multi-hundred-mile range rockets, artillery, et cetera, to help suppress enemies and open up the door, if you will, so that the Navy can gain access to a certain theater,” Esper explained.
This first appeared in Warrior Maven here.
What America Can Do to Avoid War in the South China Sea
Daniel R. DePetris
The National Interest•November 26, 2018
The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis conducts a replenishment-at-sea with the dry cargo and ammunition ship USNS Charles Drew November 13, 2018. Picture taken November 13, 2018. Courtesy Nick Bauer/U.S. Navy/Handout via REUTERS ATTENTION
More
Daniel R. DePetris
Security, Asia
Here are some helpful steps both Washington and Beijing should take.
What America Can Do to Avoid War in the South China Sea
Is the world at a point of no return in the South China Sea? Judging by the comments coming from the mouths of senior U.S. and Chinese officials, that would certainly seem like the reality. Both sides have dug into their maximalist positions, with Beijing viewing the expansive blue waters off the coast of East Asia as sovereign territory and Washington regarding China’s militarization of the area as a transparent rewriting of the international rules.
Neither side is backing down—nor does either country seem interested in a compromise. During an interview on November 13, Vice President Mike Pence was asked about China’s failure to meet American demands over unfair trade practices, political interference, and military maneuvers in the South China Sea. Pence’s response was “Then so be it… We [the U.S.] are here to stay.” The People’s Liberation Army-Navy, it seems, can try to bully its Southeast Asian neighbors and construct artificial islands with anti-ship missile batteries all it wants. But, as far as Washington is concerned, America will continue flying and sailing in the open seas whether Chinese President Xi Jinping likes it or not.
It’s all fun and games, of course, until someone gets hurt. It was less than two months ago when a Chinese destroyer came dangerously close (forty-five yards) to the USS Decatur, a brazen challenge from the Chinese Navy that could have resulted in a disaster at sea if U.S. sailors didn’t avoid a collision. An incident was fortunately prevented, but the fact American and Chinese warships and aircraft are increasingly coming into close proximity in the waters and airspace of the South China Sea means that it’s possible the two largest economies and military spenders could succumb to what Harvard University’s Graham Allison calls the “Thucydides’s Trap.” That Trap is a scenario whereby a rising power and an established power seeking to stay on top go down the rabbit hole of a full-blown confrontation. Moreover, as Allison has written, conflict can even occur when business-as-usual prevails, often through miscalculation, fear, paranoia, and competition.
As unbelievable as a war between the United States and China may seem at present, history shows that the unbelievable can happen.
The South China Sea is not at all ripe for a final settlement. But the least Washington and Beijing can do is brainstorm about procedures and techniques that aim to promote more predictability and ensure another incident at sea doesn’t trigger a shooting war.
The United States has made it abundantly clear through meetings with Chinese officials and public comments that freedom of navigation exercises in the South China Sea will continue. For better or worse, Chinese officials have made it equally clear that they see these same exercises as a hostile attempt by an aggressive superpower to limit China’s flexibility in what it claims as Chinese territory.
Communication in such a situation is crucial. Washington and Beijing should establish a hotline at the working level between their respective military officers responsible for overseeing operations in the South China Sea region. This is hardly a novel concept. In 2008, the United States and China set up a direct line between their defense ministers, an operational link that has rarely been used in the ensuing decade. In August 2017, U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Joe Dunford and Gen. Fang Fenghui, the chief of China’s Joint Staff, did the same with a channel of their own. Such dialogue mechanisms are common-sense measures designed to solidly a constructive professional relationship among the top civilian and military defense leaders, enhance understanding between both sides, and form a reliable contact point that can be used quickly to de-escalate an incident before it turns into a crisis. China and Japan both saw the wisdom in such a channel for possible friction in the East China Sea; there is no reason why America and China can’t do the same in waters that are even more congested.
While the United States and China may have vastly different positions on the status of the islands and reefs located in the South China Sea, both countries nevertheless have a mutual interest in averting a conflict—one whose cost would reverberate far outside the region. The Trump administration would be within its rights to continue to conduct freedom of navigation exercises, but the missions may be less objectionable to the Chinese if the Pentagon provides Beijing with advanced warning. Such an arrangement would be a win-win for both; indirectly granting China a degree of respect about its paramount place in East Asia while giving the United States continuity of the freedom of navigation principle.
When Presidents Trump and Xi meet in Buenos Aires at the G20 Summit for what is widely expected to be a combative discussion about trade, both leaders could explore the feasibility of a joint American and Chinese military exercise in the South China Sea. In 2016, U.S. and Chinese troops conducted a small, multi-day joint drill on disaster relief scenarios in China’s Yunnan province. Although a similar exercise in disputed waters would be inherently more difficult regarding politics, military-to-military collaboration could alleviate some of the tension that has built over the previous two years.
A grand resolution to the South China Sea problem is currently beyond either country’s ability. It may take new leaders in Washington and Beijing before a settlement is finalized—and even then, the clash of ideologies and the geopolitical rivalry encompassing the relationship may be too tall of an obstacle to overcome. In the interim, America and China have a responsibility to ensure that one of the world’s most critical waterways doesn’t become the epicenter of a catastrophic world war that neither state has an interest in fighting.
Daniel R. DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
Image: Wikimedia
Geraldo Rivera Calls Out Fox News for Its Heartless and Demeaning Coverage of Immigrants
Conservative media has been practically gleeful over Sunday’s incident at the U.S.-Mexico border, both because it gives them fodder to claim that immigrants are lawless fence-jumpers and because launching tear gas at families is something that merits praise. But Fox News accidentally aired an unscheduled moment of clarity on Monday, when Jesse Watters tried to set up Geraldo Rivera for another round of bashing other media outlets’ coverage of the migrant caravan on The Five.
Rivera, however, did not take the bait. Talking through Watters’ attempts to interrupt him, Rivera made a passionate plea, presumably to Fox News itself, to cover these immigrants as though they were actually human beings. The show continued to run footage of the chaos that unfolded at the border as families ran from the Border Patrol’s tear gas as Rivera delivered a monologue that’s worth quoting in full.
J.D. Durkin
✔@jiveDurkey
wow — Geraldo Rivera’s commentary tonight on Fox about the treatment and depiction of migrants is pretty powerful. a must-watch for some against-the-grain perspective
I refuse to deal with this as a media issue, because it’s far too important, with all due respect, Jesse. This is something that goes to the very quick. This goes to my soul. Fulfilling my role as the designated pinata on Fox News, I am ashamed. This tear gas choked me. We treat these people, these economic refugees as if they’re zombies from The Walking Dead. I think—we arrested 42 people, eight of them were women. With children. We have to deal with this problem humanely and with compassion. These are not „invaders!” Stop using these military analogies. This is absolutely painful to watch. This is—we are a nation of immigrants. These are desperate people, they walked 2000 miles—why? Because they want to rape your daughter or steal your lunch? No! Because they want a job. They want to fill the millions of unfilled jobs we have in the agricultural sector. They want to wash dishes in restaurants, they want to deliver the pizzas. For goodness´ sake, we suspend our humanity when it comes to this issue and I fear that it is because they look different than we do.
This extremely off-brand appeal to common decency on Fox News came just as the network faces accusations of doing extremely on-brand collaborations with the Trump administration. According to The Daily Beast, a FOIA request by the Sierra Club revealed emails between Fox & Friends producers and the communications team for Scott Pruitt during his disastrous run as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Fox & Friends provided the EPA with questions and topics for Pruitt beforehand, and on at least one occasion even submitted the script introducing Pruitt’s segment for the agency’s approval. Per The Daily Beast:
“Would this be okay as the setup to his segment?” producer Diana Aloi asked. She wrote: “There’s a new direction at the Environmental Protection Agency under President Trump—and it includes a back-to-basics approach. This after the Obama administration left behind a huge mess more than 1,300 super-fund sites which are heavily contaminated—still require clean-ups. So why was President Obama touted as an environmental savior if all these problems still exist?”
The EPA comms shop was pleased. “Yes—perfect,” [then-EPA press secretary Amy] Graham replied.
This shouldn’t come as a surprise to any objective viewer: Fox News behaves more like a propaganda arm for the Republican Party than an actual news outlet, even while it accuses other networks of journalistic malpractice. This would be an embarrassing day for the network if anyone in charge there were capable of feeling shame.
Real Christmas trees are better for the environment, experts say
For many, the passing of Thanksgiving marks the official start of the Christmas season. Lights are hung from houses, holiday decorations start to appear practically everywhere, and many homeowners set out to find that perfect Christmas tree for the holiday season.
Fake trees have increased in popularity in recent years in the United States. In 1989, about 40 percent of homes displaying Christmas trees used an artificial tree. That number increased to 58 percent in a 2004 ABC News/Washington Postpoll.
And in 2016, that number was up to 81 percent, according to a survey conducted by Nielsen on behalf of the American Christmas Tree Association, (ACTA).
Consumers are leaning toward artificial trees for numerous reasons. Some suffer from allergies, others hope to save money and many opt for a fake tree for convenience.
Doug Hundley, seasonal spokesperson with the National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA), highly recommends real over fake Christmas trees.
„The scent and the meaningful impact of a real Christmas tree for children and adults cannot be replaced by a manufactured tree. Sometimes the convenience of using plastic isn’t worth it,” Hundley said.
Shop assistant Sven Helmich prepares a Christmas tree for selling on the market of a tree dealer in Dresden, Germany, Tuesday, Dec. 2, 2008. (AP Photo/Matthias Rietschel)
There are several advantages and disadvantages for both real and fake trees.
However, real Christmas trees are better for the environment and often for your health than artificial Christmas trees, according to Mr. Green at the Sierra Club.
„A real tree is a renewable resource, whereas a fake tree is usually made from plastic, which is derived from oil, a nonrenewable resource. The real tree can be recycled as mulch, compost, or wildlife shelter, whereas the fake tree can’t,” according to Mr. Green.
Real trees absorb carbon dioxide while they grow, which helps to reduce the impacts of climate change.
The belief that real trees cause deforestation is false. Real trees are farmed, often on marginal land that can’t be used for other purposes, according to Mr. Green.
Real trees also do not contain harmful chemicals, but fake trees are often made with plastic polyvinyl chloride (PCP) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), whose manufacture releases highly toxic material. Plus, lead may have been added to stabilize the plastic.
VOCs can pose numerous short- and long-term adverse health effects, according to an EPA spokesperson.
There are a few environmental disadvantages of real Christmas trees. However, these potential harms may be reduced through research.
Real trees require a lot more shipping energy than the one-time shipment of a fake tree that will be used for an average of nine years before being dispatched to the landfill.
While about 85 percent of fake trees are made in China and are shipped farther than real trees, they require considerably less energy to ship.
Real trees are also often grown with pesticides. However, it is unlikely that these cause more environmental problems than the petrochemical stew from which fake trees are produced, according to Mr. Green.
There are still a lot of real Christmas trees going into landfills. That is very bad for the environment because they decompose very slowly and create methane, which is a greenhouse gas, Sophie Neuberg, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth, told CNN.
Methane has 25 times the potency of carbon dioxide, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
These problems can be ameliorated by either buying a tree from a local source or by buying an organic tree. Find trees closest to home through the NCTA Real Christmas Tree Locator.
Quiz Maker – powered by Riddle
