Monthly Archives: August 2015

European Union, Iran, NATO, Russia, United Nations, United States

Moscow says the United States should drop its European Missile Shield…

EUROPEAN MISSILE SHIELD

Russia has urged the United States to scrap plans to station parts of its European missile shield system now that Iran has reached agreement with world powers to limit its nuclear program.

Moscow has long opposed the plan, which it sees as a threat to its nuclear deterrence, and has pledged to retaliate if the missile shield in Europe goes ahead. Washington has previously assured Moscow the shield was meant as a protection from ‘rogue’ states like Iran, and not directed against Russia.

Since the agreement in July was made, under which Tehran has agreed to curb its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of UN, US and EU sanctions, Moscow has stepped up its rhetoric against the missile shield.

The latest diplomatic spat threatens to further worsen relations between Moscow and Washington, now at their lowest point since the cold war because of the conflict in Ukraine.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said in the last few days that Barack Obama ‘was not telling the truth’ in comments he made in 2009 linking the need for a missile shield to what the president called the ‘real threat’ from Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile activity.

At the time of making those comments, Mr Obama said: ‘As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defence system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defence construction in Europe will be removed.’

Moscow insists those comments mean that with the resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue, Washington should now walk away from the missile shield plan.

However, sceptics in America (and elsewhere) will argue that even if the agreement was fully implemented it did not annul the threat from Iranian ballistic missiles that Mr Obama referred to back in 2009. Under the July deal, UN sanctions on Iran’s ballistic missiles program will stay in place for eight years.

A spokesperson for the U.S. Government, said: ‘As long as Iran goes on developing and deploying ballistic missiles, the U.S. together with its allies and partners will be working to ensure protection from this threat, including through deploying the NATO missile shield system.’

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov has ruled out the possibility of using mid-range ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads to target Europe. Mr Ryabkov said: ‘So I conclude that the U.S. administration is artificially stitching arguments together behind a decision to continue and increase the pace of creating the European missile shield that was in fact taken for different reasons.’

If the shield goes ahead, Russia has said it would retaliate, including by deploying short-range Iskander ballistic missiles in its enclave of Kaliningrad, on the border with NATO members Poland and Lithuania.

Mr Ryabkov also said Russia and Iran had agreed on two bilateral deals as part of implementing the wider nuclear agreement, and were now discussing the details.

He said Russia would take in some 8 tonnes of low-enriched uranium from Iran in exchange for supplies of natural uranium. Moscow and Tehran would also produce medical isotopes at Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment facility.

NATO is constructing a missile defence system in the Mediterranean Sea and in the territories of several European member states.

NATO is constructing a missile defence system in the Mediterranean Sea and in the territories of several European member states.

Standard
Iraq, Islamic State, Syria, Terrorism, United States

The U.S. believes Islamic State has used Chemical Weapons in Iraq…

ISLAMIC STATE/CHEMICAL WEAPONS USE

The White House has said it is likely that Islamic State militants have used mustard gas in an attack on Kurdish forces in Iraq earlier this week. America believes this is the first indication the militant group has obtained a banned chemical weapon.

Islamic State could have obtained the mustard agent in Syria, whose government of Bashar al-Assad admitted to having large quantities of the blistering agent in 2013. Then, Syria agreed to give up its chemical weapons arsenal.

It is also possible Islamic State could have obtained the mustard agent in Iraq, as vast quantities of chemicals have been shunted around in a possible attempt to subterfuge the 2013 agreement. Pro-Assad forces have gathered throughout Syria and Iraq in attempt to defeat Islamic State. The United States has not specified where or when exactly the attack took place, or whether the mustard gas attack caused casualties. The White House’s National Security Council has said it is seeking more information.

Recently, U.S. intelligence agencies have said they believed Islamic State has used chlorine gas in attacks in Iraq. Chlorine is not a banned chemical agent and is normally dropped in barrel bombs from helicopters.

Standard
Government, Military, NATO, Russia

A policy brief warns that NATO and Russia are preparing for conflict…

NATO/RUSSIA

A London-based global security think tank has published a policy brief warning that NATO and Russia appear to be preparing to go to war with one another. The European Leadership Network (ELN) warns that military exercises by Russia and NATO have become part of a dangerous ‘action-reaction cycle’ that could accidentally elevate the chance of war.

The report argues, that: ‘Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia… Both the NATO and Russian exercises show that each side is training with the other side’s capabilities and most likely (have) war plans in mind. Whilst spokespeople may maintain that these operations are targeted against hypothetical opponents, the nature and scale of them indicate otherwise.’

The policy brief says that while each side insists their exercises are defensive, the political fallout between Russia and the West over the Ukraine crisis has triggered a reactive cycle on either side in terms of military exercises. It suggests that each side is aiming to strengthen deterrence by ‘flexing their military might’, causing the other side to interpret this as provocation and responding with yet more military manoeuvres.

The brief uses two cases to illustrate its point. One is Russia’s snap exercise in March involving some 80,000 military personnel and the other is NATO’s Allied Shield exercise in June in which 15,000 personnel from 19 member states and three partner states took part. The report reads:

‘The focus of the exercises is on what each side sees as its most exposed areas, with NATO concentrating on the Baltic States and Poland whilst Russia is focusing primarily on the Arctic and High North, Kaliningrad, occupied Crimea, and its border areas with NATO members Estonia and Latvia.’

Russia has become increasingly proactive of late and has started calling all branches of its military to take part in active drills, with a strong focus on its Arctic territories and on the Baltic region. In February Baltic defence officials and experts expressed concern that Russia may be deliberately raising the alert level in Europe with its snap drills – by paving the way for an eventual attack on a Baltic capital.

The ELN report highlights repeatedly that NATO’s exercises are significantly smaller than Russia’s, although it points out  that this may be largely due to limited capability rather than a decision not to match Russia, whose entire force is permanently under one command (as opposed to the armed forces of NATO). The report also notes that Russia’s use of conscription allows it to quickly summon greater numbers of troops which ‘the predominantly professional armed forces of NATO countries simply cannot match.’

The authors do not suggest that the leadership of either side has made a decision to go to war or that a military conflict is inevitable, but says the changed profile of exercises is a fact and does play a role in sustaining the current climate of tensions in Europe.

Russia will have conducted more than 4000 exercises for 2015, which is over 10-times more than what NATO has planned for over the year. Indicative, too, is that Russia has incorporated nuclear and nuclear capable forces in its recent exercises.

Currently, Russia is hosting a series of international military games. This involves servicemen using its training courses to compete in tank and jet manoeuvres. Earlier this week, the Russian Defence Ministry called on 500 of its servicemen to practice amphibious assault in the Baltic.

NATO, meanwhile, is currently preparing for its Trident Juncture exercise which is set to engage over 36,000 troops in Spain, Portugal and Italy between October and November. NATO has been keen to highlight that it had announced this exercise ‘one year in advance’ and has invited international monitors to observe it through the OSCE.

Standard