By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

Al-Qaida chief Ayman al-Zawahiri The Coordinator 2015 Part 19-122-Caliphate-al-Zawahiri-10-10-Russia

Russia is top threat to national security, US general says. During his confirmation hearing to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen Joseph Dunford called Russia's recent actions "nothing short of alarming"."So if you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I'd have to point to Russia." Gen Dunford told senators on Thursday.Some US lawmakers have pushed for the military to provide lethal weapons to Ukraine's government, a move Gen Dunford called "reasonable"."Frankly, without that kind of support, they are not going to be able to defend themselves against Russian aggression," Gen Dunford said, Jul 9.

Moscow still fails to properly calibrate the relationship between threat assessment and modeling a military to match, with complementary defense industry support.

On the issue of threat assessment, despite issuing a “new” Military Doctrine in December 2014, largely unchanged since its previous iteration in February 2010, there is clear evidence that the Ukraine crisis has triggered some level of reassessing Russia’s threat environment

The focal point for this, given Moscow’s negative interpretation of the events on the Maidan in Kyiv and the decision to intervene that ensued, predictably flows from the issue of “color revolutions” and how Russia will combat this hypothetical threat in the future

To begin with, the General Staff Academy has been engaged during the past six months in examining the methodology of color revolutions as part of its preparations to conduct defense ministry–requested research on how to combat the threat of a color revolution to the Russian state.\

On the face of it, they may seem unlikely partners - the so-called BRICS nations comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and more recently South Africa.

The nations are still considered to be emerging economies, but are increasingly challenging Western dominance of global financial institutions.

Russia is hosting the seventh BRICS summit in the remote western city of Ufa, looking to send a message of strength and unity.

C: Yes or NO Russia is biggest threat to American national security, Just in one administration they have a hard time to agree, so what about the other threats?

(MENAFN - Jordan News Agency) U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry does not agree with Marine General Joseph Dunford that Russia poses an existential threat to the United States, U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said. Toner told a news briefing last night that the secretary doesn't agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United States, nor China. "You know, these are major powers with whom we engage and cooperate on a number of issues, despite any disagreements we may have with them," he said.  On Thursday, Marine General Joseph Dunford told lawmakers weighing his nomination to be chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Russia presented the greatest threat to U.S. national security.   "If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I'd have to point to Russia," Dunford said. "And if you look at their behaviour, it's nothing short of alarming." U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Kerry did not share the assessment, even though Russia's actions in Ukraine posed regional security challenges.  Toner said Kerry did consider the rapid growth of groups like Daesh, particularly in ungoverned spaces, an existential threat.

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 1 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

Washington, July 9 (Petra)-- The U.S. Air Force Secretary, Deborah James, said that Russia is the biggest threat to U.S. national security and that America must boost its military presence throughout Europe even as NATO allies face budget challenges and scale back spending.  "I do consider Russia to be the biggest threat," James told Reuters after a series of meetings and visits with European allies, including Poland.  Given the tensions, the air force is continuing its effort to reduce U.S. reliance on Russian RD-180 rocket engines for military and intelligence satellite launches, James said.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) criticized President Obama's comments at the Pentagon on Monday citing recent progress against ISIS as delusional, and he ripped Carter over the Pentagon's slowness in training Syrian rebels. Well, that's of small comfort to those people you're recruiting now, that that decision will be made later on," McCain said pointedly. "Is that fair to these young men to say we are sending you in to fight ISIS only, and by the way, we will decide on the policy whether to defend you if you are barrel bombed?" Carter, who revealed earlier that only 60 rebels were being trained so far, said the rebels "know that we will provide support to them," but added, "we have not told them that yet."  He said ISIS overall is gaining territory in Iraq and Syria and that there is "no compelling reason" to believe the administration's strategy is going to succeed in limiting the group.

“We didn’t perfect the process of sharing information and sharing intelligence until this emergency really exploded in our faces,” said retired Marine Gen. John Allen

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John McCain (R., Ariz.) saying, “We have no strategy”--a criticism he repeated four times

But this week, U.S. officials offered no timeline for defeating the group or even a concise strategy for its ouster.

As the Arctic warms, Russia is positioning itself to become the dominant player in a resource-rich and strategically positioned region.  In order to capitalize on the oil and gas under the Arctic seabed and exploit new shipping routes as ice cover recedes, Moscow is undertaking a major military upgrade of its northern coast and outlying archipelagos. Its new bases — which include search-and-rescue stations, ports and airstrips, and military headquarters — are meant to project Russian hard power into an emerging strategic frontier. The map shows exactly where Russia is building its bases, and reveals the continent-wide scope of Russia's militarization of its northern coast. And it shows how intense Russia's Arctic focus is compared to that of its neighbors and rivals. To support the new military bases, many of which are old Soviet bases that are being reopened or modernized, the Kremlin is upgrading its Northern Fleet. The fleet will undergo a substantial upgrade starting in 2015 that will last through the end of the decade. The fleet is in the process of being reorganized as an entirely new unit called the Russian Joint Strategic Command North (JSCN), a military division that won't just be an ordinary naval force, according to a report from the Polish Institute of International Affairs.To support this undertaking, a number of Soviet-era installations are being upgraded while new bases are being built throughout the Russian Arctic. The JSCN headquarters will be located at Severomorsk, in the Murmansk region near Russia's borders with Norway and Finland. This headquarters will be further supported by a newly reopened former Soviet base in Alakurtti, Murmansk, which will house over 3,000 ground troops just 31 miles from the Finnish border. In total, Moscow's plans involve the opening of ten Arctic search-and-rescue stations, 16 deep-water ports, 13 airfields, and 10 air-defense radar stations across its Arctic periphery. Once completed, this construction will "permit the use of larger and more modern bombers" in the region, Mark Galeotti, a Russia expert at New York University, writes for

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 2 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

The Moscow Times. "By 2025, the Arctic waters are to be patrolled by a squadron of next-generation stealthy PAK DA bombers." The Arctic is set to become a geopolitical battleground in the future. The warming of the polar ice cap will likely reveal large untapped natural resources. The US estimates that about 15% of the world's remaining oil, up to 30% of its natural gas deposits, and about 20% of its liquefied natural gas are stored in the Arctic seabed.

Additionally, receding Arctic ice would enable faster global shipping routes. By 2030, the WSJ notes, the Northern Sea Route will be passable to shipping for nine months a year. The route could cut down travel time between Europe and East Asia by as much as 60% compared to current routes through the Panama or Suez Canals. Russia, Denmark, Norway, Canada, and the US all have partial claims to the Arctic Circle.

Russia's Middle East gamble Author: Vitaly NaumkinPosted July 9, 2015 The dynamic changes in the Middle East have been a source of new challenges and threats to Russia, but they are also offering new opportunities. The challenges and threats include the ongoing buildup of jihadist groups; the greatly increased erosion of an established system of nation-states — especially, but not exclusively, in the Mashreq countries; and growing tensions between the Sunni and Shiite regimes and movements, as well as among various Sunni factions, against the backdrop of intensified competition for leadership among the key Sunni states. The possibility that the traditional definition of statehood that emerged in the 20th

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 3 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

century may collapse is a cause of particular concern for Russia, which values stability. But Russia's approach to any potential changes in the configuration of the region’s nations essentially assumes that it is up to the people living there to decide, on the basis of an inclusive dialogue and without any outside interference, in what countries, within what borders and under what government they want to live, and that such decisions are going to be implemented with due regard for the rules of international law. However, any potentially negative implications of the break-up of the existing system of nation-states for Russia likely will be mitigated by the fact that it has managed — largely through its effective and creative diplomatic efforts — to maintain good diversified relations (whether equally distant or equally close as the case may be) with the infighting regional players in an environment that has been anything but easy for Russia. In this regard, of note are recent statements by certain leaders of the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) of Iraqi Kurdistan who have plainly said that Iraq’s statehood is unviable and an independent Kurdish state should be established in the north of Iraq. True, some analysts in Moscow argue that such bold pronouncements are to an extent the product of a desire to curry favor with the electorate in the run-up to the elections in Iraqi Kurdistan scheduled for Aug. 20. Notably, Masrour Barzani, avoiding even the slightest hint at some kind of shared Kurdish prospects, refers to future independence only within the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan. Understandably, the Kurdish politician even hypothetically cannot see Syria’s northeast as part of the future state for the following three reasons:

Given Ankara’s loathing of the Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military arm, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), linked to the Kurdistan Workers Party, such prospect would radically poison relations between Turkey and the leaders of the KRG.

There are quite a few problems that mar relations between the authorities of the Kurdish autonomy and Syria's Kurds.

Much is still to be done by the autonomy itself to quell the differences among various rival social and political forces, something that is even hindering the consolidation of the peshmerga forces.

Notably, the potential for redrawing the map of the Middle East is increasingly discussed even in those countries in the region whose leaders strongly support preserving the territorial integrity of such states as Iraq and Syria that have been challenged primarily by the transnational Islamic State (IS) led by self-proclaimed Caliph Ibrahim (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi). According to Jordanian analyst Maher Abu Tair, “The Syrian regime is about to fall, and its fragments will reach us; the Iraqi state is on the verge of collapse; and what is left of the West Bank and Jerusalem is struggling to survive." On the one hand, the need to counter the threat facing all the states in the region unites them; on the other, it prompts them to come up with unilateral initiatives. Some of those initiatives point to a growing rivalry among the region’s principal Sunni regimes — Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan. (There is no one in the Shiite world who could compete with Iran for leadership.) It is in this context that one should view, for instance, Amman’s recent attempts to substantiate its claims for the role of a regional power, simultaneously appealing to the legacy of Sunni caliphatism and Arab nationalism. On June 9, King Abdullah solemnly presented the dark red flag of the Hashemites to Jordan’s Arab Army. In the king’s words, “The Hashemite flag’s colors and motifs combine elements of history, legitimacy, religion and Arabism found in the Hashemite family and the Great Arab Revolt." I believe that the intentionally demonstrative move by the Jordanian monarch that brings back to life the concept of the Great Arab State and the historical Arab Caliphate is meant to achieve several objectives, including delegitimatization of the transnational IS and its caliph, thereby reminding everyone that the Arabs and Muslims have a far more worthy and legitimate — ethnically and religiously — candidate who could

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 4 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

play the role of a unifier of Arab Levant and the Muslims. In addition, this is an implicit challenge to Saudi Arabia (the Hashemites have not forgotten the times when they ruled Hijaz) and Turkey (it was Turkey that was targeted by the Great Arab Revolt), which claim the role of the main advocate of the Sunni interests. Sharif Hussein bin Ali initiated that revolt against the Ottoman Empire on June 5, 1916, in the ill-advised belief that London would honor the promise given by Henry McMahon in his correspondence with Sharif Hussein and establish a pan-Arab state in Mashreq under his aegis. (Sharif Hussein proclaimed himself king of the Arab nation in Mecca on Nov. 2.) Incidentally, Russia believed at the time that the Arab forces were also fighting for its interests since it was waging a war on the Ottoman Empire in the Caucasus.

The developments in that part of the region pose a challenge to the Sykes-Picot system that was established at the time and whose crisis is frequently mentioned these days. However, the crisis of statehood has also engulfed countries that were outside the arrangement that defined the region’s territorial and state boundaries (Libya and Yemen). The Russian Empire, on the one hand, took part in the division of the Ottoman legacy as one of the conquerors of the Ottoman Empire, but, on the other hand, it was Russia, or rather its Soviet government, that published the secret pact in November 1917 making it known to the whole world, and then went on to offer a hand of friendship to the new Turkey, Ataturk's secular state.  The processes under discussion are in many respects closely intertwined with Russia's historical links with the region. Any Russian who cares to watch a video on YouTube of the ceremony of the Hashemite flag being presented to the Jordanian army command will see behind the monarch a person wearing a chokha with silver pectoral bandoliers, a distinct dress that is very well known to all residents of Russia. This is a commanding officer in the personal Circassian guard of King Abdullah. Since the 19th century, Jordan has been home to a large community of Circassians as well as their ethnic kin, Kabardinians and Adyghes (roughly 170,000 people), some of whom have served faithfully as royal guards for several generations. Members of a smaller Chechen community of about 20,000 people also have had distinguishing military careers, such as Gen. Ahmad Alauddin Arslan, the only person with the distinction of being twice named Hero of Jordan.

While there are individuals with roots in Russia’s Northern Caucasus among those fighting IS, there are also several thousand individuals with similar ethnic backgrounds fighting on the side of IS. Such polarization is not surprising; in fact, there are also many Jordanian nationals among IS militants who oppose their fellow countrymen (Jordanians and Palestinians) fighting against the jihadists, while all of them belong to the same Sunni branch of Islam.

This directly affects Russian interests as even those whose ancestors left the Caucasus many decades ago have maintained strong ties with their ancestral land. Financial interests also tie Russia to the region, one example being the recent entry into force of an unprecedented partnership agreement between the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) and the Public Investment Fund of Saudi Arabia, a sovereign wealth fund the Saudis use to invest $10 billion in projects in Russia. The RDIF has also partnered with another of the kingdom’s sovereign funds, the Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority. Against the backdrop of a worsening regional crisis, the leading regional players have been trying to diversify their system of international relations with global powers as best they can, presenting Russia with new opportunities. 

Russia Faces Mismatch in Threat Assessment and Defense Capacity 

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 5 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

Eurasia Daily Monitor -- Volume 12, Issue 126 Moscow still fails to properly calibrate the relationship between threat assessment and modeling a military to match, with complementary defense industry support. Recent statements from the top brass suggest that a reassessment of Russia’s perceived threat environment is well underway, while the idea of promoting military modernization—especially naval rehabilitation—reveals the problem in closing such gaps. Paradoxically, the condition of the Russian Navy, and the capacity of the domestic defense industry to meet the demands placed upon it by the Kremlin, is elaborated most sharply by the nationalist Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin. As these processes advance over the next decade and beyond, with adjustments in the national threat assessment, the Russian leadership will face the same conundrum: how to establish a realistic threat assessment concerning the most likely threats facing the state in the future and redesigning the Armed Forces and security forces to meet such challenges (Fontanka.ru, July 2).

On the issue of threat assessment, despite issuing a “new” Military Doctrine in December 2014, largely unchanged since its previous iteration in February 2010, there is clear evidence that the Ukraine crisis has triggered some level of reassessing Russia’s threat environment. The focal point for this, given Moscow’s negative interpretation of the events on the Maidan in Kyiv and the decision to intervene that ensued, predictably flows from the issue of “color revolutions” and how Russia will combat this hypothetical threat in the future. Defense Minister Army-General Sergei Shoigu has promised defense ministry-led research and assessment in precisely this area, and recent media reports indicate the Academy of the General Staff has already initiated overseeing such a study. Some of the details concerning this research are important in order to better understand how the Kremlin may come to see the threat environment over the next few years. It also offers evidence that the Kremlin expects to “weather the storm” of the current crisis, since it is driving such detailed strategic-level and long-term state security projects focused on 2020 and beyond (Kommersant, June 24). To begin with, the General Staff Academy has been engaged during the past six months in examining the methodology of color revolutions as part of its preparations to conduct defense ministry–requested research on how to combat the threat of a color revolution to the Russian state. The purpose of this study, according to Academy sources, is to provide insight into the probable threats facing Moscow to 2020, develop approaches to identify, prevent and combat the techniques used during such exposure to “soft power,” and develop policy recommendations (Kommersant, June 24). However, in a sign of the level of importance attached to such studies, senior sources in the General Staff Academy have disclosed that there will be genuine military-civilian expert cooperation in the process of examining these issues. Moreover, the deputy chief for research of the Academy, Major-General Sergei Chvarkov, said that the Kremlin is awaiting “suggestions and recommendations.” This is unusual for two reasons: the final reporting to the Russian government avoids the approach of being “pre-ordered,” and also implies that there is real anxiety in the Kremlin concerning a color revolution threat to the Russian state. Finally, since security figures close to President Vladimir Putin link this threat to the United States, there is every reason to believe the current chasm in US-Russia relations will continue long term. The level of civilian expertise input in such defense ministry–led studies carries across most leading universities and think tanks. Conceptually, it will try to connect studies of how terrorists use social networks with the methods used during color revolutions (Kommersant, June 24).  In this context, and with Western sanctions on Russia linked to the Ukraine crisis biting into the Russian economy, speculation has been rife that the defense modernization program to 2020 will inevitably be slashed. Among the arms and branches of services perhaps standing

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 6 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

most to lose is the Navy, desperately in need of asset modernization. Therefore, unsurprisingly, the defense ministry leadership is keen to send a placatory message to the naval command (Rg.ru, June 29). Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov chose the best possible platform to deliver a “business as usual” message to the Navy, during his visit to the International Maritime Defense Show, in St. Petersburg, on July 1. Borisov stressed there will be no cuts to existing plans to modernize the Russian Navy (Mil.ru, July 2).Nonetheless, this message of hope for Russian military modernization and specifically for naval rearmament was largely undermined by Dmitry Rogozin in his typically bullish style. If some of his statistical statements prove to be accurate, the long-term future for the Russian Navy remains somewhat bleak. On July 2, Rogozin addressed the biannual Maritime Board of the Russian Federation and delivered a damning indictment of financial waste and low capacity in the defense industry to meet modernization targets. His central message was that the whole idea of import substitution in the shipbuilding industry has failed, resulting in wasting billions of rubles. Rogozin said maritime engineering lags behind acceptable technological levels required to meet anything resembling modern standards. According the deputy prime minister, the active part of fixed assets in this area has depreciated by 70 percent; the shipbuilding industry is consequently “three to five times” more expensive than abroad. Rogozin added, “The degree of capacity utilization is not more than 25 percent to 30 percent. Clearly, in such circumstances, customers of ships and marine equipment in recent years have traditionally preferred imported components, leaving the Russian producers, at best, [to house and assemble] the equipment purchased abroad” (Fontanka.ru, July 2). On this highly sensitive issue of importing foreign components, industry and trade officials were equally robust. Up to 95 percent of the electronic parts required by the Russian shipbuilding industry are foreign. Sanctions have worsened and exposed this deep vulnerability in shipbuilding plans (Fontanka.ru, July 2). Speakers during the board meeting indicated that the issue of foreign electronic parts is now damaging even attempts to procure parts for ice breakers.  Of course, the Russian Navy cannot be tasked with a role in preventing a color revolution in Moscow, but the discussion shows the level of disconnect within the system, which is still struggling to define the likely threats facing the state and construct defense planning accordingly. But for the foreseeable future, the main focus in revamping national threat assessment is on color revolutions. --Roger McDermott

Blackjacks, Hypersonic Aerial Vehicles and the Defense of Crimea: Russia’s Futuristic Challenge to the West?Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 12 Issue: 141July 28, 2015 02:36 PM Age: 1 dayBy: Roger McDermott Russian military media coverage across a range of modernization and strategic-level issues inadvertently reveals planning weaknesses within the defense establishment. Plans to modernize part of the strategic bomber fleet, develop high-tech hypersonic strike capabilities, and consolidate Crimea’s defense conceal Moscow’s deeper uncertainty about the nature of countering future threats to the Russian state, stressing missile defense as a threat, and building a defense of Crimea that currently seems potentially inadequate; such initiatives are taking place in the context of the domestic defense industry failing to meet modernization targets (RIA Novosti, July 16).

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 7 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

Moscow has thus played its “Blackjack” card—the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) classification for the Tu-160 strategic bomber. In the spring of this year, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced that serial production of this platform would resume, repackaged as a new aircraft with modern equipment—with an old-style airframe. On July 16, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov, who oversees arms procurement, said an industry and trade and defense ministry working group will draft such work and enlist partners to modernize and produce Tu-160 M2s. Borisov explained that the fuselage and aircraft performance will be maintained, though the avionics and armament system will change, promising a “150 percent” increase in combat efficiency. The initiative itself appears almost symbolic. The Tu-160 went into production in 1984 and was suspended in 1992—the same year that strategic bomber flights to remote regions were also abandoned. In August 2007, President Vladimir Putin ordered the resumption of these flights, which have, among other Russian Air Force activity, intensified around NATO’s airspace during the past 18 months (Rossiyskaya Gazeta, July 17).The strategic bomber motif resurfaced in the guise of “protecting” Crimea, after much defense ministry–fueled speculation concerning deploying strategic assets to defend the peninsula culminated in an official announcement on July 22. As expected, a squadron of Tu-22M3 strategic bombers will deploy to protect Crimea “in the nearest future.” However, this is sold as a response to the United States’ deployment of missile defense components in Romania. A Russian Ministry of Defense source stated, “At this stage, it is seen as sufficient to deploy a squadron of Tu-22M3s on an aerodrome in Crimea. Its combat capabilities sufficiently strengthen aviation cover in the waters of the Black Sea,” adding, “It cannot be ruled out that in the future, the Tu-22M3 group in Crimea could be increased to a regiment.” The move is justified as a countermeasure against the US move in Romania. On July 21, the defense ministry said that the US missile defense base in Romania would become a high-level target for Russian strikes in an escalating future crisis (Interfax, July 21-22).Indeed Russia’s strategic bombers in general and the Tu-22M3 especially have been the subject of lavish domestic praise, with Russian articles reminding readers of achievements in the late Cold War period, including penetrating NATO airspace and gathering as yet unreleased aerial photographs (Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, July 24). Despite this, quite apart from the costs of renovating runways in Crimea, the move to locate strategic bombers there makes little military sense; in theory, it actually renders such assets vulnerable to enemy attack and would make more sense to base them deeper inside Russian territory.It seems the defense ministry information machinery wants to emphasize the modernization narrative, even if against all economic odds, while attacking missile defense and demonizing the United States. A remarkable illustration of this came on July 22, with official comment on the secretive “Object 4202” project, which reportedly seeks to develop a hypersonic aerial vehicle capable of overcoming missile defense. According to a defense industry source cited by Interfax, successful completion of the project in the future will see Russia possessing a hypersonic aerial vehicle capable of overcoming any antimissile defense system. Russia has test-launched this experimental asset from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in February 2015, and the platform will reportedly be nuclear capable (Interfax, July 22; EngineeringRussia, June 30).The narrative is interrupted by two disturbing factors: the grand-scale military modernization is failing to yield its targets, and the aging bomber forces show severe signs of deterioration under the strain of upping the tempo of testing NATO responses. On July 16, Deputy Defense Minister Borisov told President Putin during a video conference that the modernization targets are not being achieved. He said defense contracts fell behind schedule, including in the areas of producing navy guard vessels, amphibious aircraft, components for surface-to-air missiles (SAM), as well as weapon launch systems for the Tu-160 strategic bomber. Borisov attributed

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 8 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

this to Western sanctions and the poor condition of the domestic defense industry; the government response to create an overseeing committee to investigate the issues fails to address underlying problems of corruption and lack of pricing transparency (The Moscow Times, July 19). By July 24, Shoigu ordered an investigation into a wave of Russian Air Force crashes involving seven assets in as many weeks, including strategic bombers.As far as defense planning for the illegally annexed Crimean peninsula is concerned, the official line is that the creation of a number of “force groupings” is sufficient to ensure the protection of this newly acquired part of Russian territory. Yet, the need for Tu-22M3s seems inconsistent with this message. Although the top brass remains largely silent on the sensitive issue of creating long-term defense plans for Crimea, other Russian military specialists question whether the forces on the ground could withstand a modern enemy attack. Lieutenant-General (retired) Alexander G. Luzan, a former deputy chief of the Soviet Army Air Defense and a doctor of technical sciences, strongly advocates an integrated air-naval defense that would facilitate a C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) defense of the peninsula, even against a network-centric adversary (Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, July 24). Luzan has in mind the eventual creation of a complex automated system of air-naval defense (Kompleksnaya Avtomatizirovannaya Sistema Vozdushno-Morskoy Oborony—KAS VMO). The KAS VMO would unite all forces and resources into a single information space. The objective of the KAS VMO would be to repel a high-tech enemy. Luzan’s thinking relates to how to repel assaults (like the ones over Kosovo in 1999 or against Libya in 2011) on Russian forces, and it raises questions on Moscow’s evaluation of its future potential enemy (Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye, July 24). In the absence of this system, Moscow will utilize strategic messaging to convey to other actors that Crimea is considered part of sovereign Russian territory. Meanwhile, the high-tech aspirations of military modernization will need an eventual easing of Western sanctions.

Who poses the biggest threat to America? For the last few weeks, the nation’s top security chiefs were pressed to answer that existential security question.And as luck would have it, the experts don’t seem to fully agree on the identity of America’s No. 1 enemy.

Russia: For a while, it seemed, Russia was the front-runner. The new chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, made a splash at his confirmation hearing last month by saying: “Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security.” Why? Because it’s a nuclear power. As such it “could pose an existential threat to the United States.” And Russia’s behavior in recent years is “nothing short of alarming,” in Dunford’s estimation.Dunford’s comments briefly sparked a trend among the military brass who succeeded him at their confirmation hearings. “I would put the threats to this nation in the following order: Russia, China, Iran and North Korea,” Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, nominated to be Dunford’s vice chairman, told the Senate Armed Services Committee a few days later.And a week after that, the Army’s prospective head, Gen. Mark Milley, echoed the same warning about the Kremlin. “I would put Russia, right now, from a military perspective, as the number-one threat,” Milley said. But then two days later, another official opened the matter to some discussion. “If you are asking me about a country,” Lt. Gen. Robert Neller, nominee to be Marine commandant said at his confirmation hearing, “I would agree with General Dunford that Russia has the most increasing capable force, and their actions and the fact that they have strategic forces make them the greatest potential threat.”

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 9 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

“Although I don’t think they want to fight us. Right now, I don’t think they want to kill Americans,” Neller continued. “I think violent extremists want to kill us. And their capacity is not that great but their intent is high…they concern me equally.”

The Islamic State: In fact, Neller was not the first prominent national security figure to shift focus away from acknowledged nation-states and towards the rising dangers posed by terrorist organizations claiming ownership or sovereignty over large swaths of particularly unstable parts of the globe. Out in Colorado, Federal Bureau of Investigations Director James Comey said that the Islamic State, by recruiting Americans at home via social media, had in fact become a greater threat to the United States than al-Qaeda, and was — in the eyes of the homeland security-focused agency — the No. 1 threat of our time. “ISIL is not your parents’ al-Qaeda – it’s a very different model,” Comey told the audience at the Aspen Security Forum. “By virtue of that model it’s currently the threat that we’re worrying about in the homeland most of all.”To be sure, Comey wasn’t asked to directly compare Russia with al-Qaeda, or with the Islamic State. Russia isn’t wooing misanthropic Americans online to engage in acts of violent extremism on American soil  (Russia’s online campaign against the United States is of an entirely different character). So it’s a fair assumption to take Comey at his word that he believes the Islamic State, the new formidable terrorist kid on the Middle Eastern block, is the most fearsome threat of all.If it’s terror we’re worried about, does that mean U.S. security chiefs can at least agree that the Islamic State poses the biggest threat?Not exactly.

Iran: A week after Comey’s comments, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was up on Capitol Hill, facing a grilling before the Senate Armed Services Committee about the Iran deal. That’s when Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tossed him this question: “Do you believe that Iran represents the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism?”Carter hemmed and hawed a little. “Let’s see. State sponsor, probably so. I — there are — unfortunately, it’s such a kaleidoscope these days, there are lots of courses of terror,” Carter said, “but I think for state sponsorship, that’s probably accurate.” Eagle-eyed readers will note that Carter didn’t refute Comey’s position that the Islamic State was the worst threat, since no countries actually recognize the Islamic State as, well, a state. The Islamic State and Iran really don’t like each other, incidentally. Islamic State fighters consider Shia Muslims — and the vast majority of Iranians are Shia — an enemy, and have attacked Shia mosques with as much deadly abandon as they have Arab Christians and other religious groups they oppose. Meanwhile, Iran is funding some of the most powerful militias fighting the Islamic State on the ground (though in Syria, Iran also backs President Bashar al-Assad).Carter’s answer at least puts Iran in the mix as a possible No. 1 threat, which could move it closer to the top spot on Washington’s unofficial list as lawmakers dive deeper into the Iran deal over the next several weeks.

China: No one has straight-up named China as the No. 1 threat, either. But like Iran, the Asian economic and naval giant has been getting special attention lately from the security brass, particularly at a recent hearing to consider the nomination of Adm. John Richardson as chief of naval operations.“Is China an adversary?” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked Richardson, point-blank.“Many of the things that they do sort of have an adversarial nature to them,” Richardson offered, not really taking the bait. “They’ve got a vastly growing nation, their activity in the South China Sea and land reclamation certainly has potential to destabilize that region.”Nobody asked him which country, or unaligned actor, was the No. 1 threat.

Verdict?

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 10 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

With the field somewhat divided, we turn to the American people to weigh in — in the form of a Pew poll from last month.To be certain, the country’s security brass doesn’t usually consult the public when compiling their threat assessments. But since there seems to be some discord between the military and the homeland security chiefs as to whether our old Cold War enemy or the latest generation of terrorists poses a greater threat to American security, it’s worth noting that Americans seem to be siding with…the FBI director.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” ― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Spectacular Army Games: Tanks traverse river, armored vehicles push their limits 8 Aug, 2015 Military engineers have been competing in taking hardware across a river and crews on armored personnel carriers (APCs) have been holding breath-taking competitions as part of the ongoing International Army Games. The contest for the APCs, called the “Suvorov

Onslaught” (after the famous Russian 18th century commander Aleksandr Suvorov), has seen teams from China, Russia and Venezuela taking part. Like the Russian Tank Biathlon, it is being held at the Alabino military training grounds, a huge territory with simulated rugged terrain in the Moscow region. Simultaneously, sappers from Belarus, China and Russia took part in the Open Water contest. They were doing various types of

ferrying exercises, from constructing a pontoon bridge to transporting military hardware using special amphibious vehicles. Organized by the Russian Defense Ministry, the International Military Games include the Tank Biathlon, AviaDarts air force competition, the Caspian Cup naval contest and the Suvorov Onslaught, where military personnel test their land and aerial skills.

The International Tank Biathlon Championship has kicked off at the Alabino firing range near Moscow with tank crews from 13 countries competing in precision and speed.The Tank Biathlon is the first event in the International Military Games held August 1-15. Tank crews from Russia, China, Angola, Armenia, Venezuela, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Serbia and Tajikistan are taking part in the tank biathlon championship held for the third time in history. The tank contest follows the rules of a classic biathlon, with each vehicle aiming to cover around 20 kilometers in the shortest time possible while shooting at various targets.

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 11 of 12 15/04/2023

By Capt (Ret) C de Waart, feel free to share: in Confidence

All teams but one are using Russian-made T-72B3 tanks. The Chinese are competing with their own tanks, the TYPE 96A. The first International Tank Biathlon Championship – a competition invented by the Russian military – was held in 2013.  This year the obstacles have been made more complex with some new elements added, including  new types of gunnery exercises.

Cees: Intel to Rent Page 12 of 12 15/04/2023