Category Archives: NATO

Britain, Military, NATO, Russia, United States

Putin says Russia’s new nuclear weapons are invincible

VLADIMIR PUTIN

Putin

Vladimir Putin delivers his state of the nation address and says Russia has a new arsenal of invincible nuclear weapons.

RUSSIA has boasted that it has developed an arsenal of invincible nuclear weapons that are immune to enemy detection.

Vladimir Putin used his state of the nation speech this week to warn of his country’s resurgent military might, saying Russia was not listened to before, and declaring: ‘Listen to us now.’

The Russian president said his deadly weaponry included a nuclear-powered cruise missile that could reach anywhere in the world and an underwater drone with nuclear weapons that can obliterate an aircraft carrier.

Mr Putin also revealed details of an ‘invulnerable’ hypersonic missile and insisted it was not a bluff as he showed chilling test footage of the new kit. ‘No one else in the world has anything like that,’ he said.

He warned that any attempt to use nuclear weapons against Russia and its allies would bring instant retaliation. But Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson accused him of choosing a path of ‘escalation and provocation’ and added: ‘We are facing intensifying threats to our way of life and this development is another reminder to not let down our guard.’

Mr Putin made his hot-blooded claims as he laid out his key policies for another term in office, ahead of an election he is expected to win in 15 days.

The 65-year old president, who has led Russia for almost two decades, usually delivers the annual speech in the Kremlin but this year delivered his address from a nearby exhibition centre. This allowed him to show a series of slick video montages of missiles manoeuvring across mountains and oceans and heading over the Atlantic.

He quoted a 2004 speech in which he vowed Russia would develop a new generation of weaponry. ‘No one wanted to talk to us,’ Mr Putin said. ‘No one listened to us then. Listen to us now.’ It brought a standing ovation from the audience of lawmakers and celebrities.

He presented Russia’s military efforts as a response to recent actions by the US which last month unveiled plans to revamp its nuclear arsenal and develop new low-yield atomic weapons.

In a speech that ran to almost two hours, Mr Putin described several different capabilities which he said would render NATO defences completely useless.

One new weapon, called Avangard, is an intercontinental hypersonic missile that would fly at 20 times the speed of sound and strike its targets ‘like a meteorite, like a fireball’, he said.

The weapon is capable of performing sharp manoeuvres on its way to targets, making it ‘absolutely invulnerable for any missile defence system,’ Mr Putin added.

He said neither the nuclear-powered cruise missile nor the underwater drone had names yet, suggesting with dark humour that a public competition be held for ideas.

He also said that another new weapons system, called Kinzhal, is already operational and is a hypersonic missile carried by an aircraft that flies at ten times the speed of sound with a range of 1,250 miles.

Defence minister Sergei Shoigu later said Russian arms would be able to ‘overcome all existing anti-missile systems’ such as those the US intends to deploy in eastern Europe and South Korea.

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

Standard
Military, NATO, Russia, United States

NATO chief says the world is now at its most dangerous

THE WORLD is more dangerous now than it has been for a generation, the head of NATO has said.

Jens Stoltenberg said terrorism, the crisis in North Korea and a newly-belligerent Russia under Vladimir Putin meant the political situation was more unpredictable than at any time in the past 30 years.

He said: “It is a more dangerous world… We have proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in North Korea, we have terrorists, instability, and we have a more assertive Russia.”

The secretary-general’s intervention, during a break from visiting British troops in Estonia, comes before the mobilisation of an estimated 100,000 Russian troops on the EU’s eastern borders.

Asked whether he had known a more perilous time in his 30-year career, Stoltenberg said: “It is more unpredictable, and it’s more difficult because we have so many challenges at the same time.”

From next Thursday, 14 September, over six days, Russian and Belarusian troops will take part in what is likely to be Moscow’s largest military exercises since the Cold War. An estimated 100,000 personnel will be active around the Baltic Sea, western Russia and Belarus without the supervision required under international agreement.

Meanwhile, North Korea has launched a ballistic missile over Japan, threatened the US Pacific territory of Guam and has tested a possible thermonuclear device, incurring the wrath of President Donald Trump.

Mr Stoltenberg, the former prime minister of Norway, would not comment on whether the US President’s bellicose threats to Pyongyang had exacerbated the current situation in south-east Asia.

He said: “I think the important thing now is to look into how we can create a situation where we can find a political solution to the crisis.

“At the same time, I fully understand and support the military message that has been implemented in the region… as they have the right to defend themselves.

“They have a right to respond when they see these very aggressive actions. I also support the presence of US troops and capabilities in Korea.”

Standard
Afghanistan, Britain, NATO, United States

Return to Afghanistan? Britain may help Trump beat Taliban

AFGHANISTAN

afghanistan-2014-600

President Donald Trump has declared that thousands of US soldiers will be deployed again to Afghanistan in reducing the threat of terrorism to the West. He has called on his NATO allies to provide resources and funding.

BRITISH warplanes and drones could be sent back to Afghanistan after Donald Trump announced a major policy U-turn and declared he is expanding the US military there.

A new strategy to defeat the Taliban and Islamic State could also see British personnel being sent back to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan – in a significant expansion of the UK’s current training operation.

US Secretary of Defence, General Jim Mattis, called his UK counterpart, Sir Michael Fallon, to discuss the plans prior to the speech given by the President earlier this week vowing to ‘kill terrorists’.

Mr Trump said that he would beef up the US military presence and others must do the same, adding that a withdrawal would create a vacuum for jihadis. The most senior American commander for the Middle East said the first deployment of new US forces would arrive in Afghanistan ‘pretty quickly’.

Mr Trump said: ‘The men and women who serve our nation in combat deserve the tools they need, and the trust they have earned, to fight and to win.’

It marks an abrupt turnaround from his election campaign, in which he regularly demanded an end to the 16-year conflict.

But since then, Taliban insurgents have recaptured swathes of the country, IS militants have waged terror, and US generals have publicly admitted the war is failing. The Taliban in Afghanistan responded by saying Mr Trump’s plans would make the country a ‘graveyard for the American empire’.

It is understood that during Sir Michael’s discussion with defence secretary General Mattis, the prospect of the UK sending ‘specific capabilities’ such as fighter jets and drones was raised. One option could be re-deploying air assets from Iraq where IS is on the back foot after being pounded by RAF warplanes.

Defence chiefs may also send RAF troops back to southern Afghanistan if they are asked to do so. They would be stationed in Kandahar, previously NATO’s regional HQ, and would form part of a plan to build an Afghan air force training academy.

A senior RAF officer said: ‘Kandahar will be one of the training locations. We are doing an awful lot of work in Kandahar right now to make sure the facilities are right … If the demand signal is to send people to Kandahar we will.’

A further 85 UK troops will be sent to the country in the coming weeks after requests by NATO. The Ministry of Defence commented by saying it is ruling out further increases.

The Defence Secretary welcomed President Trump’s pledge. Sir Michael said he had agreed with General Mattis that ‘we have to stay the course in Afghanistan to help build its fragile democracy and reduce the terrorist threat to the West. It’s in all our interests that Afghanistan becomes more prosperous and safer.’

Mr Trump made repeated calls ahead of his election for US troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan, where they have been involved in military operations since 2001. But in an address at Fort Myer near Washington DC, he said he had decided to go against his ‘original instinct’.

US policy would now focus not on nation-building but on ‘killing terrorists’, he said, adding: ‘From now on, victory will have a clear definition – attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge. We will ask our NATO allies and global partners to support our new strategy with additional troop and funding increases in line with our own – we are confident they will.’

General Joseph Votel, top US commander for the Middle East, estimated the first new deployments would arrive in a few weeks or even days.

COMMENT

AFTER the horror of 9/11, there were clear and persuasive arguments for sending British forces to Afghanistan to join our American allies in attacking Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps.

But more than 15 years on – and three years after we withdrew our combat troops, leaving only some 500 behind to train the local military – shouldn’t we be thinking very carefully before answering Donald Trump’s call to rejoin the war?

During his election campaign, the President pledged to withdraw the 8,400 American soldiers who have remained in Afghanistan since combat operations officially ended in 2014.

But now, under pressure from his generals, he has changed his mind. And though he won’t specify numbers, he is widely expected to send some 4,000 extra troops – and says he expects his NATO allies to beef up their commitment too.

The President declared: ‘From now on, victory will have a clear definition – attacking our enemies, obliterating ISIS, crushing Al-Qaeda, preventing the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan and stopping mass terror attacks against America before they emerge.’

These are laudable objectives. But at the height of its deployment in 2010-11, the US had 100,000 personnel in Afghanistan (with similar aims). If they failed to beat the terrorists and the Taliban, why should Mr Trump believe the smaller force he envisages will enjoy more success?

In the course of a conflict that has already lasted more than twice as long as the Second World War, 456 British personnel have been killed, with thousands more wounded – many on battlefields now back under Taliban control.

Indeed, though it will grieve many to say so, it is very far from clear how much their heroic sacrifice achieved. Is there any reason to believe putting more troops in danger will accomplish anything beyond making more families torn by the futility of returning to fight in Afghanistan?

Standard