MUNICH — French President Emmanuel Macron on Friday called out Vladimir Putin for telling him last year that the paramilitary Wagner Group had nothing to do with Russia.
“A year ago I spoke to Putin and he assured me Russia had nothing to do with the Wagner Group,” he told an audience at the Munich Security Conference. “I accepted that,” he said.
The Wagner Group has since provided military services supporting Russia’s war effort. It means Moscow “formalized the fact that Wagner was an explicit, direct, diplomatic-military, neo-mafia medium of Russia around the world,” Macron said.
Macron’s speech comes as country leaders and security officials gathered for a three-day event in the Bavarian capital, a conference dominated by the West’s efforts to allign on how to support Kyiv in its conflict with Russia.
The French president said the time isn’t right for dialogue with Russia and called on Western states to “intensify” their backing of a Ukrainian counter-offensive. But he suggested that — when negotiations would end the war on terms acceptable to Kyiv — Europe and Russia should “create an imperfect balance” on the Continent.
“It’s time for a transition,” he said, suggesting Russia and its adversaries will need to agree on a new regional security architecture, calling it an “imperfect balance.”
But he emphasized the time isn’t right for negotiations, noting it’s “too early” to formulate such a Europe-Russia understanding.
The comments reflect Macron’s long-held view that security guarantees for Russia are an “essential” component of any peace talks. Moscow has to be satisfied with how the war ends, or else any deal would be no more than a ceasefire and not a treaty, he argues.
Laura Kayali contributed reporting.
CORRECTION: This article was updated to correctly reflect Macron compared the Wagner group to the mafia.
[ad_2]
#Macron #calls #Russia #work #neomafia #Wagner #group
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
MUNICH — Wake up, Europe. We must face the China challenge.
That was NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg’s message on Saturday for the global security elite gathered at the Munich Security Conference.
The military alliance chief directly linked Russia’s war in Ukraine to China, hinting at concerns about Beijing launching a war on Taiwan, the self-governed island Beijing still claims.
“What is happening in Europe today,” he cautioned, “could happen in east Asia tomorrow.”
Moscow, Stoltenberg underscored, “wants a different Europe” while Beijing “is watching closely to see the price Russia pays — or the reward it receives for its aggression.”
“Even if the war ends tomorrow,” he added, “our security environment is changed for the long term.”
Stoltenberg’s remarks come against the backdrop of a broader conversation among Western allies about how to approach China as it makes revanchist military threats toward Taiwan and pumps up its own industries with government help.
While countries like the U.S. have pushed allies to keep a closer eye on Beijing and distance themselves from China’s economy, others have expressed caution about turning China into such an unequivocal enemy.
The NATO chief warned that Western allies must act united on both the military and economic fronts.
“The war in Ukraine has made clear the danger of over-reliance on authoritarian regimes,” he noted.
“We should not make the same mistake with China and other authoritarian regimes,” he said, calling on the West to eschew its dependence on China for the raw materials powering society. He also warned against exporting key technologies to the country.
And while focusing on external adversaries, Stoltenberg also implored NATO allies to avoid internal squabbling.
“We must not create new barriers between free and open economies,” he said.
“The most important lesson from the war in Ukraine,” he added, “is that North America and Europe must stand together.”
[ad_2]
#NATO #chief #Europe #Time #talk #China
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
MUNICH, Germany — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy opened the annual Munich Security Conference on Friday, calling on his Western partners to keep supporting his country against Russia in a battle he compared to the biblical story of David and Goliath.
“The Russian Goliath has already begun to lose,” Zelenskyy said, sitting in his trademark olive green sweatshirt behind a desk in Kyiv. “There’s no alternative to our victory.”
Zelenskyy thanked the U.S. and European countries for the military support they’ve sent his nation, while also urging them to do more, saying that Ukraine’s “sling” needed to be stronger. (In the biblical account, young Israelite shepherd David took down the Philistine giant Goliath with a sling and a small stone.) Zelenskyy warned that Russian President Vladimir Putin was trying to drag out the conflict, betting that the world would lose interest in the war.
“We need speed,” Zelenskyy said. “Speed is crucial.”
Zelenskyy also dismissed recent saber-rattling by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, who said Thursday that his country was prepared to join Russia’s war against Ukraine, if attacked.
“The probability that Belarus is going get involved in the war is low,” he said. “The people in Belarus are not willing to fight against Ukraine. It won’t be easy to convince them.”
He predicted that if Belarusian troops did become involved, they would suffer considerable losses.
Zelenskyy, whose remarks received enthusiastic applause from the audience of policymakers and military officials gathered in Munich, closed his speech by calling for the acceleration of his country’s integration into the Western fold.
“There’s no alternative to Ukraine in the EU, there’s no alternative to Ukraine in NATO, there’s no alternative to our unity,” he said.
[ad_2]
#Zelenskyy #predicts #Russian #loss #warns #Belarus #attack
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
MUNICH — China is trying to drive a fresh wedge between Europe and the United States as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine trudges past its one-year mark.
Such was the motif of China’s newly promoted foreign policy chief Wang Yi when he broke the news at the Munich Security Conference on Saturday that President Xi Jinping would soon present a “peace proposal” to resolve what Beijing calls a conflict — not a war — between Moscow and Kyiv. And he pointedly urged his European audience to get on board and shun the Americans.
In a major speech, Wang appealed specifically to the European leaders gathered in the room.
“We need to think calmly, especially our friends in Europe, about what efforts should be made to stop the warfare; what framework should there be to bring lasting peace to Europe; what role should Europe play to manifest its strategic autonomy,” said Wang, who will continue his Europe tour with a stop in Moscow.
In contrast, Wang launched a vociferous attack on “weak” Washington’s “near-hysterical” reaction to Chinese balloons over U.S. airspace, portraying the country as warmongering.
“Some forces might not want to see peace talks to materialize,” he said, widely interpreted as a reference to the U.S. “They don’t care about the life and death of Ukrainians, [nor] the harms on Europe. They might have strategic goals larger than Ukraine itself. This warfare must not continue.”
Yet at the conference, Europe showed no signs of distancing itself from the U.S. nor pulling back on military support for Ukraine. The once-hesitant German Chancellor Olaf Scholz urged Europe to give Ukraine even more modern tanks. And French President Emmanuel Macron shot down the idea of immediate peace talks with the Kremlin.
And, predictably, there was widespread skepticism that China’s idea of “peace” will match that of Europe.
“China has not been able to condemn the invasion,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told a group of reporters. Beijing’s peace plan, he added, “is quite vague.” Peace, the NATO chief emphasized, is only possible if Russia respects Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Europe watches with caution
Wang’s overtures illustrate the delicate dance China has been trying to pull off since the war began.
Keen to ensure Russia is not weakened in the long run, Beijing has offered Vladimir Putin much-needed diplomatic support, while steering clear of any direct military assistance that would attract Western sanctions against its economic and trade relations with the world.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitro Kuleba is expected to hold a bilateral meeting with Wang while in Munich | Johannes Simon/Getty Images
“We will put forward China’s position on the political settlement on the Ukraine crisis, and stay firm on the side of peace and dialogue,” Wang said. “We do not add fuel to the fire, and we are against reaping benefit from this crisis.”
According to Italy’s Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, who met Wang earlier this week, Xi will make his “peace proposal” on the first anniversary of the war, which is Friday.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitro Kuleba is expected to hold a bilateral meeting with Wang while in Munich. He said he hoped to have a “frank” conversation with the Beijing envoy.
“We believe that compliance with the principle of territorial integrity is China’s fundamental interest in the international arena,” Kuleba told journalists in Munich. “And that commitment to the observance and protection of this principle is a driving force for China, greater than other arguments offered by Ukraine, the United States, or any other country.”
EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell is also expected to meet Wang later on Saturday.
Many in Munich were wary of the upcoming Chinese plan.
German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock welcomed China’s effort to use its influence to foster peace but told reporters she had “talked intensively” with Wang during a bilateral meeting on Friday about “what a just peace means: not rewarding the attacker, the aggressor, but standing up for international law and for those who have been attacked.”
“A just peace,” she added, “presupposes that the party that has violated territorial integrity — meaning Russia — withdraws its troops from the occupied country.”
One reason for Europe’s concerns is the Chinese peace plan could undermine an effort at the United Nations to rally support for a resolution condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which will be on the U.N.’s General Assembly agenda next week, according to three European officials and diplomats.
Taiwan issue stokes up US-China tension
If China was keen to talk about peace in Ukraine, it’s more reluctant to do so in a case closer to home.
When Wolfgang Ischinger, the veteran German diplomat behind the conference, asked Wang if he could reassure the audience Beijing was not planning an imminent military escalation against Taiwan, the Chinese envoy was non-committal.
Nato Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said “what is happening in Europe today could happen in east Asia tomorrow” | Johannes Simon/Getty Images
“Let me assure the audience that Taiwan is part of Chinese territory. It has never been a country and it will never be a country in the future,” Wang said.
The worry over Taiwan resonated in a speech from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who said “what is happening in Europe today could happen in east Asia tomorrow.” Reminding the audience of the painful experience of relying on Russia’s energy supply, he said: “We should not make the same mistakes with China and other authoritarian regimes.”
But China’s most forceful attack was reserved for the U.S. Calling its decision to shoot down Chinese and other balloons “absurd” and “near-hysterical,” Wang said: “It does not show the U.S. is strong; on the contrary, it shows it is weak.
Wang also amplified the message in other bilateral meetings, including one with Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. “U.S. bias and ignorance against China has reached a ridiculous level,” he said. “The U.S. … has to stop this kind of absurd nonsense out of domestic political needs.”
It remains unclear if Wang will hold a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken while in Germany, as has been discussed.
Hans von der Burchard and Lili Bayer reported from Munich, and Stuart Lau reported from Brussels.
[ad_2]
#China #talks #peace #woos #Europe #trashes #Biden #Munich
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
MUNICH — NATO’s eastern flank has found its voice — but Joe Biden’s visit is a reminder that Western capitals still have the weight.
After Russia bombed its way into Ukraine, the military alliance’s eastern members won praise for their prescient warnings (not to mention a few apologies). They garnered respect for quickly emptying their weapons stockpiles for Kyiv and boosting defense spending to new heights. Now, they’re driving the conversation on how to deal with Russia.
In short, eastern countries suddenly have the ear of traditional Western powers — and they are trying to move the needle.
“We draw the red line, then we waste the time, then we cross this red line,” Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda said over the weekend at the Munich Security Conference, describing a now-familiar cycle of debates among Ukraine’s partners as eastern capitals push others to move faster.
The region’s sudden prominence will be on full display as U.S. President Joe Biden travels to Poland this week, where he will sit down with leaders of the so-called Bucharest Nine — Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.
The choice is both symbolic and practical. Washington is keen to show its eastern partners it wants their input — and to remind Vladimir Putin of the consequences should the Kremlin leader spread his war into NATO territory.
Yet when it comes to allies’ most contentious decisions, like what arms to place where, the eastern leaders ultimately still have to defer to leaders like Biden — and his colleagues in Western powers like Germany. They are the ones holding the largest quantities of modern tanks, fighter jets and long-range missiles, after all.
“My job,” Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said in Munich, is “to move the pendulum of imagination of my partners in western Europe.”
“Our region has risen in relevance,” added Czech Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský in an interview. But Western countries are still “much stronger” on the economic and military front, he added. “They are still the backbone.”
They’re listening … now
When Latvian Defense Minister Ināra Mūrniece entered politics over a decade ago, she recalled the skepticism that greeted her and like-minded countries when they discussed Russia on the global stage.
“They didn’t understand us,” she said in an interview earlier this month. People saw the region as “escalating the picture,” she added.
Latvian Defense Minister Ināra Mūrniece | Gints Ivuskans/AFP via Getty Images
February 24, 2022, changed things. The images of Russia rolling tanks and troops into Ukraine shocked many Westerners — and started changing minds. The Russian atrocities that came shortly after in places like Bucha and Irpin were “another turning point,” Mūrniece said.
Now, the eastern flank plays a key role in defining the alliance’s narrative — and its understanding of Russia.
“Our voice is now louder and more heard,” said Romanian Foreign Minister Bogdan Aurescu.
The Bucharest Nine — an informal format that brings together the region for dialogue with the U.S. and occasionally other partners — is one of the vehicles regional governments are using to showcase their interests.
“It has become an authoritative voice in terms of assessment of the security situation, in terms of assessment of needs,” Aurescu said in an interview in Munich. NATO is listening to the group for a simple reason, he noted: “The security threats are coming from this part of our neighborhood.”
Power shifts … slowly
While the eastern flank has prodded its western partners to send once-unthinkable weapons to Ukraine, the power balance has not completely flipped. Far from it.
Washington officials retain the most sway in the Western alliance. Behind them, several western European capitals take the lead.
“Without the Germans things don’t move — without the Americans things don’t move for sure,” said one senior western European diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly.
And at this stage of the war, as Ukraine pushes for donations of the most modern weapons — fighter jets, advanced tanks, longer-range missile systems — it’s the alliance’s largest economies and populations that are in focus.
“It’s very easy for me to say that, ‘Of course, give fighter jets’ — I don’t have them,” Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas told reporters earlier this month.
Asked if his country would supply Kyiv with F-16 fighter jets, Morawiecki conceded in Munich, “we have not too many of them.” | Omar Marques/Getty Images
“So it’s up to those countries to say who have,” she said. “If I would have, I would give — but I don’t.”
And even some eastern countries who have jets don’t want to move without their Western counterparts.
Asked if his country would supply Kyiv with F-16 fighter jets, Morawiecki conceded in Munich, “we have not too many of them.” He did say, however, that Poland could offer older jets — if the allies could pull together a coalition, that is.
Another challenge for advocates of a powerful eastern voice within NATO is that the eastern flank itself is diverse.
Priorities vary even among like-minded countries based on their geographies. And, notably, there are some Russia-friendly outliers.
Hungary, for example, does not provide any weapons assistance to Ukraine and continues to maintain a relationship with the Kremlin. In fact, Budapest has become so isolated in Western policy circles that no Hungarian government officials attended the Munich Security Conference.
“I think the biggest problem in Hungary is the rhetoric of leadership, which sometimes really crosses the red line,” said the Czech Republic’s Lipavský, who was cautious to add that Budapest does fulfill NATO obligations, participating in alliance defense efforts.
Just for now?
There are also questions about whether the east’s moment in the limelight is a permanent fixture or product of the moment. After all, China, not Russia, may be seizing western attention in the future.
“It’s obvious that their voice is becoming louder, but that’s also a consequence of the geopolitical situation we’re in,” said the senior western European diplomat. “I’m not sure if it’s sustainable in the long run.”
A second senior western European diplomat, who also spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal alliance dynamics, said that the eastern flank countries sometimes take a tough tone “because of the fear of the pivot to China.”
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has also reiterated that western alliance members play a role in defending the eastern flank | Johannes Simon/Getty Images
Asked if the war has changed the balance of influence within the alliance, French Foreign Minister Catherine Colonna said: “Yes and no.”
“We have to defend our territories, it is as simple as that,” she told POLITICO in Munich. “In order to do so we had to reinforce the eastern flank — Russia is on that part of the continent.”
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has also reiterated that western alliance members play a role in defending the eastern flank.
Asked whether NATO’s center of gravity is shifting east, he said on a panel in Munich that “what has shifted east is NATO’s presence.”
But, he added, “of course many of those troops come from the western part of the alliance — so this demonstrates how NATO is together and how we support each other.”
And in western Europe, there is a sense that the east does deserve attention at the moment.
“They might not have all the might,” said the second senior western European diplomat. “But they deserve solidarity.”
[ad_2]
#Biden #Polands #opinion #power
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
For decades, Ken Brock and Gary Enos largely toiled in the same hangars at New Hampshire’s Pease national air base. The career US national guard members were responsible for giving fuel planes tail-to-nose inspections that prevented crashes.
“We were like general practitioners for planes,” Enos said.
Like hundreds of others who served at Pease, both developed cancer, which they and their families believe was probably from exposure to staggering levels of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” in the base’s drinking water.
Brock died in 2017, and Enos has survived two bouts of cancer. Yet despite the similar career paths and illness, the military paid for Enos’s care and disability benefits – but not for Brock and his surviving wife.
Since then, the military has been fighting efforts by Brock’s widow, Doris Brock, to get benefits for her and service members who worked for decades at the base. It denies PFAS is behind Pease’s high cancer rates, and helped kill legislation to fund a cancer study that could have proved it wrong.
Doris Brock is now leading the charge in a two-pronged David-versus-Goliath battle: she and a group of veterans’ advocates aim to prove Pease’s toxic water is behind the base’s cancer levels, and, on her own, she is pushing to change federal law so career national guard members who do not have sufficient active duty time can still get veterans’ benefits.
Though her husband died in 2017, Brock says she is “still angry”.
“He has been gone for five and a half years, but it’s gone from a personal nature to a ‘This isn’t right for everyone else still out there,’” she added. “So many people who worked on this base are hurting.”
Pease is home to the 157th Air Refueling Wing, and the base also holds 13 superfund sites, which is a designation for the nation’s most contaminated land. Among the pollutants are PFAS, a class of chemicals typically used to make thousands of consumer products resist water, stains and heat. They are linked to serious health issues such as cancer, kidney disease, fetal complications, liver disease and autoimmune disorders.
For decades beginning in the 1970s, Pease’s service members drank contaminated water. The Environmental Protection Agency last year issued new advisory health guidelines that found virtually no level of exposure to two different kinds of PFAS is safe – Pease’s levels were tens of thousands of times above those thresholds.
The situation is nearly identical to that at Camp LeJeune in North Carolina, where the military has agreed to pay benefits for those who served at the base and drank contaminated water. But at Pease, the military is using what veterans advocates say are unfair rules or seemingly arbitrary application of rules to deny care and disability payments for many of them.
When denying Brock’s benefits, the military has said it cannot be proven that Brock’s and others’ cancers stem from PFAS exposure, Doris Brock said. And though Ken Brock worked full-time for 35 years and deployed around the world to serve during combat, the military initially claimed he did not have the 90 days of consecutive active duty time required for benefits.
The New Hampshire air national guard did not answer specific questions about the situation. But Brig Gen John Pogorek noted the national guard was working on the issue as part of the Pease health working group, which was established to find answers about the cancers after pressure from Doris Brock.
‘That’s when I got mad’
Ken Brock retired from Pease in 2005 and in 2015 tests revealed a bladder cancer that had nearly advanced to stage four, and doctors gave him up to five years to live.
In 2016, Brock applied for Veterans Affairs benefits that would have paid for his care, given him access to VA hospitals, and qualified him for disability payments, and Doris Brock for survivor payments after he died.
But Brock was rejected, and after trying experimental chemotherapy treatments, he died in June 2017 aged 67.
Enos had a different experience: he developed bladder cancer in 2007 and received health care and disability payments. When the cancer returned in his prostate in 2017, he used private insurance, but still continued to receive disability payments.
Though he and Brock proved they had adequate active duty time, only Brock was denied benefits. And still others who served for decades next to them aren’t receiving benefits because they do not have adequate active duty time. The situation is “not right”, said Enos, who is part of the working group.
“I want my friends and comrades to live, to get the services they need to live and to be compensated for what they have done for their country,” he added.
Doris Brock said she was told by Veterans Affairs in 2016 “it costs too much” to pay for all veterans to receive benefits.
“They said, ‘That’s why we have these rules,’” she added. “That’s when I got mad enough to say, ‘OK, fine, I’m going to fight to change the rules.’”
She set out on a “research quest” in 2016 to learn more about the link between Ken Brock’s cancer and Pease’s contamination and quickly found dozens of service members around his age also had cancer, and learned about the high PFAS levels in the drinking water.
‘There’s a problem’
After Brock pulled together a coalition of veterans and advocates in 2018, the group seemed to score a major victory when the military agreed to do a cancer mortality study, which Congress funded in that year’s defense bill.
But the military probably only agreed to it because they know mortality studies are of limited use, said Mindi Messmer, a scientific adviser for the Pease health working group. It only looked at death rates, and fewer people are dying from cancer because of advancements in medicine and early detection.
“If a bunch of people are getting sick from their service but not dying then there’s less of a case for the military to have to pay benefits,” Messmer said.
Still, the death rates at Pease are so high that the 2021 results revealed statistically elevated levels of prostate, breast and lung cancers.
“Sometimes, as much as they try not to show it, they can’t bend things that much and they have to admit there’s a problem,” Messmer said.
A mortality study also does not prove the water at the base is behind the elevated cancer levels. Proof requires a cancer incidence study. Funding for an incidence study was included in the version of last year’s defense bill that passed the House, but it was stripped from the final Senate bill.
Advocates said they were told by their congressional delegation that the military did not want the study, so it was left out.
“I can’t even begin to tell you how angry I was when I heard that it was cut,” Brock said.
Gen Pogorek said the New Hampshire air guard supports a cancer incidence study and “can’t speak for why it was dropped”.
Hope also came and went when Congress passed in August the Honoring our Pact Act, which significantly expanded benefits for veterans exposed to toxins, but still excluded most at Pease.
The group is now exploring how to chart a new path forward. Separately, Doris Brock continues pushing for a bill to scrap the active duty requirements for career national guard members, and the issue is now being studied.
Though both prongs of her David-and-Goliath battle face uncertain futures after years of twisting the military’s arm, Brock remains steadfast.
“I’m not going away,” she said.
[ad_2]
#military #accused #obstruction #cancer #linked #chemicals
( With inputs from : www.theguardian.com )
National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said Friday the object was flying at 40,000 feet “and posed a reasonable threat to the safety of the civilian flight.” President Joe Biden, following the Pentagon’s recommendation, ordered that the object be shot down.
Kirby said the object was much smaller than the Chinese spy balloon — about the “size of a small car” as opposed to the “two or three buses size” Chinese balloon.
The object was spotted Thursday night and the president was briefed shortly after. According to a senior military official, the military picked up the object using a ground-based radar and F-35 fighter jets to observe it.
On Friday, U.S. Northern Command on Friday scrambled two F-22 fighter jets to intercept the object over northeastern part of Alaska, near Canada. It was shot down around 1:45 p.m. Eastern time. Efforts are underway to attempt to recover the debris where it fell onto a frozen region of territorial waters.
Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, spokesperson Brig. Gen. Patrick Ryder said after the military determined the object was not manned, one of the two F-22 jets fired a Sidewinder missile to take it down. It was the same type of jet and missile that took down the spy balloon last Saturday.
One senior administration official, who also asked to remain anonymous, said that once the military finds whatever is left of the object, a better identification might be possible. “They need to see it up close, it’s so small. We will get more clarity.”
Neither Kirby nor Ryder would venture to guess what the object was, or who launched it. “We don’t have any information that would confirm a stated purpose for this object,” Kirby said.
Kirby said Biden’s primary reason for ordering the military to shoot the object down “was the safety of flight issue.” The Chinese spy balloon last week flew much higher, around 60,000 feet, well above the altitude for commercial air traffic.
Kirby emphasized the differences between this object and the Chinese balloon, noting repeatedly the smaller size of the new object and that it was over water when Biden ordered to shoot it down. The president faced criticism from both Republicans and Democrats for the delay in shooting down the Chinese balloon, which flew over Canada and the U.S. for a week before the fighter jet shot it down over water.
“As I’ve been doing for the past week, including in a classified briefing with senior Pentagon officials yesterday, I strongly encouraged the NORTHCOM Cmdr this morning to shoot down this latest unidentified intrusion into Alaska air space. I commend them for doing so today.”
On Friday, the Biden administration unveiled its first official retaliation against Beijing for sending a spy balloon over U.S. territory, adding six Chinese aerospace companies to a commercial blacklist for their support of government surveillance programs.
The Commerce Department announced that U.S. companies would be barred from doing business with the six listed companies unless they receive special licenses.
The Chinese companies were slapped with the designation “for their support to China’s military modernization efforts, specifically the People’s Liberation Army’s aerospace programs including airships and balloons and related materials and components,” the Commerce Department said in a statement. The agency noted that the People’s Liberation Army is using high-altitude balloons “for intelligence and reconnaissance activities.”
Kirby on Friday defended that decision to wait to shoot down the Chinese spy balloon, saying the Pentagon knew the airship’s basic flight path and was able “significantly curtail any intelligence ability that the Chinese could get from the balloon.”
He said the information gleaned from surveilling the balloon did not provide insights for the detection and track of the new object on Friday.
“At this time, all I can tell you is it did not appear to have the ability to independently maneuver,” Kirby said. “We’ll attempt recovery and see what we can learn more from.”
Alexander Ward, Lara Seligman and Gavin Bade contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Military #shoots #high #altitude #object #Alaska
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
“I am wicked and scary with claws and teeth,” Vladimir Putin reportedly warned David Cameron when the then-British prime minister pressed him about the use of chemical weapons by Russia’s ally in Syria, Bashar al-Assad, and discussed how far Russia was prepared to go.
According to Cameron’s top foreign policy adviser John Casson — cited in a BBC documentary — Putin went on to explain that to succeed in Syria, one would have to use barbaric methods, as the U.S. did in Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. “I am an ex-KGB man,” he expounded.
The remarks were meant, apparently, half in jest but, as ever with Russia’s leader, the menace was clear.
And certainly, Putin has proven he is ready to deploy fear as a weapon in his attempt to subjugate a defiant Ukraine. His troops have targeted civilians and have resorted to torture and rape. But victory has eluded him.
In the next few weeks, he looks set to try to reverse his military failures with a late-winter offensive: very possibly by being even scarier, and fighting tooth and claw, to save Russia — and himself — from further humiliation.
Can the ex-KGB man succeed, however? Can Russia still win the war of Putin’s choice against Ukraine in the face of heroic and united resistance from the Ukrainians?
Catalog of errors
From the start, the war was marked by misjudgments and erroneous calculations. Putin and his generals underestimated Ukrainian resistance, overrated the abilities of their own forces, and failed to foresee the scale of military and economic support Ukraine would receive from the United States and European nations.
Kyiv didn’t fall in a matter of days — as planned by the Kremlin — and Putin’s forces in the summer and autumn were pushed back, with Ukraine reclaiming by November more than half the territory the Russians captured in the first few weeks of the invasion. Russia has now been forced into a costly and protracted conventional war, one that’s sparked rare dissent within the country’s political-military establishment and led Kremlin infighting to spill into the open.
The only victory Russian forces have recorded in months came in January when the Ukrainians withdrew from the salt-mining town of Soledar in the Donetsk region of eastern Ukraine. And the signs are that the Russians are on the brink of another win with Bakhmut, just six miles southwest of Soledar, which is likely to fall into their hands shortly.
But neither of these blood-drenched victories amounts to much more than a symbolic success despite the high casualties likely suffered by both sides. Tactically neither win is significant — and some Western officials privately say Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy may have been better advised to have withdrawn earlier from Soledar and from Bakhmut now, in much the same way the Russians in November beat a retreat from their militarily hopeless position at Kherson.
For a real reversal of Russia’s military fortunes Putin will be banking in the coming weeks on his forces, replenished by mobilized reservists and conscripts, pulling off a major new offensive. Ukrainian officials expect the offensive to come in earnest sooner than spring. Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov warned in press conferences in the past few days that Russia may well have as many as 500,000 troops amassed in occupied Ukraine and along the borders in reserve ready for an attack. He says it may start in earnest around this month’s first anniversary of the war on February 24.
Other Ukrainian officials think the offensive, when it comes, will be in March — but at least before the arrival of Leopard 2 and other Western main battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. Zelenskyy warned Ukrainians Saturday that the country is entering a “time when the occupier throws more and more of its forces to break our defenses.”
All eyes on Donbas
The likely focus of the Russians will be on the Donbas region of the East. Andriy Chernyak, an official in Ukraine’s military intelligence, told the Kyiv Post that Putin had ordered his armed forces to capture all of Donetsk and Luhansk by the end of March. “We’ve observed that the Russian occupation forces are redeploying additional assault groups, units, weapons and military equipment to the east,” Chernyak said. “According to the military intelligence of Ukraine, Putin gave the order to seize all of the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk regions.”
Other Ukrainian officials and western military analysts suspect Russia might throw some wildcards to distract and confuse. They have their eyes on a feint coming from Belarus mimicking the northern thrust last February on Kyiv and west of the capital toward Vinnytsia. But Ukrainian defense officials estimate there are only 12,000 Russian soldiers in Belarus currently, ostensibly holding joint training exercises with the Belarusian military, hardly enough to mount a diversion.
“A repeat assault on Kyiv makes little sense,” Michael Kofman, an American expert on the Russian Armed Forces and a fellow of the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank. “An operation to sever supply lines in the west, or to seize the nuclear powerplant by Rivne, may be more feasible, but this would require a much larger force than what Russia currently has deployed in Belarus,” he said in an analysis.
But exactly where Russia’s main thrusts will come along the 600-kilometer-long front line in Ukraine’s Donbas region is still unclear. Western military analysts don’t expect Russia to mount a push along the whole snaking front — more likely launching a two or three-pronged assault focusing on some key villages and towns in southern Donetsk, on Kreminna and Lyman in Luhansk, and in the south in Zaporizhzhia, where there have been reports of increased buildup of troops and equipment across the border in Russia.
In the Luhansk region, Russian forces have been removing residents near the Russian-held parts of the front line. And the region’s governor, Serhiy Haidai, believes the expulsions are aimed at clearing out possible Ukrainian spies and locals spotting for the Ukrainian artillery. “There is an active transfer of (Russian troops) to the region and they are definitely preparing for something on the eastern front,” Haidai told reporters.
Reznikov has said he expects the Russian offensive will come from the east and the south simultaneously — from Zaporizhzhia in the south and in Donetsk and Luhansk. In the run-up to the main offensives, Russian forces have been testing five points along the front, according to Ukraine’s General Staff in a press briefing Tuesday. They said Russian troops have been regrouping on different parts of the front line and conducting attacks near Kupiansk in the Kharkiv region and Lyman, Bakhmut, Avdiivka, and Novopavlivka in eastern Donetsk.
Combined arms warfare
Breakthroughs, however, will likely elude the Russians if they can’t correct two major failings that have dogged their military operations so far — poor logistics and a failure to coordinate infantry, armor, artillery and air support to achieve mutually complementary effects, otherwise known as combined arms warfare.
When announcing the appointment in January of General Valery Gerasimov — the former chief of the defense staff — as the overall commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, Russia’s defense ministry highlighted “the need to organize closer interaction between the types and arms of the troops,” in other words to improve combined arms warfare.
Kofman assesses that Russia’s logistics problems may have largely been overcome. “There’s been a fair amount of reorganization in Russian logistics, and adaptation. I think the conversation on Russian logistical problems in general suffers from too much anecdotalism and received wisdom,” he said.
Failing that, much will depend for Russia on how much Gerasimov has managed to train his replenished forces in combined arms warfare and on that there are huge doubts he had enough time. Kofman believes Ukrainian forces “would be better served absorbing the Russian attack and exhausting the Russian offensive potential, then taking the initiative later this spring. Having expended ammunition, better troops, and equipment it could leave Russian defense overall weaker.” He suspects the offensive “may prove underwhelming.”
Pro-war Russian military bloggers agree. They have been clamoring for another mobilization, saying it will be necessary to power the breakouts needed to reverse Russia’s military fortunes. Former Russian intelligence officer and paramilitary commander Igor Girkin, who played a key role in Crimea’s annexation and later in the Donbas, has argued waves of call-ups will be needed to overcome Ukraine’s defenses by sheer numbers.
And Western military analysts suspect that Ukraine and Russia are currently fielding about the same number of combat soldiers. This means General Gerasimov will need many more if he’s to achieve the three-to-one ratio military doctrines suggest necessary for an attacking force to succeed.
Ukrainian officials think Russia’s offensive will be in March, before the arrival of Leopard 2 and other Western tanks | Sascha Schuermann/Getty Images
But others fear that Russia has sufficient forces, if they are concentrated, to make some “shock gains.” Richard Kemp, a former British army infantry commander, is predicting “significant Russian gains in the coming weeks. We need to be realistic about how bad things could be — otherwise the shock risks dislodging Western resolve,” he wrote. The fear being that if the Russians can make significant territorial gains in the Donbas, then it is more likely pressure from some Western allies will grow for negotiations.
But Gerasimov’s manpower deficiencies have prompted other analysts to say that if Western resolve holds, Putin’s own caution will hamper Russia’s chances to win the war.
“Putin’s hesitant wartime decision-making demonstrates his desire to avoid risky decisions that could threaten his rule or international escalation — despite the fact his maximalist and unrealistic objective, the full conquest of Ukraine, likely requires the assumption of further risk to have any hope of success,” said the Institute for the Study of War in an analysis this week.
Wicked and scary Putin may be but, as far as ISW sees it, he “has remained reluctant to order the difficult changes to the Russian military and society that are likely necessary to salvage his war.”
[ad_2]
#Putin #win
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
Poland’s President Andrzej Duda signaled his country may not be able to deliver Western fighter jets to Ukraine to help it fend off Russia’s invasion.
“A decision today to donate any kind of jets, any F-16, to donate them outside Poland is a very serious decision and it’s not an easy one for us to take,” Duda told the BBC in an interview on Sunday.
Duda’s comments came after Ukrainian President Volodymir Zelenskyy traveled around Europe last week to lobby for additional military aid, including long-range artillery and ammunition, air defense systems, missiles and fighter jets.
Poland is one of Ukraine’s closest allies, and it is acutely aware of its own weapon stock. Noting that Poland currently has fewer than 50 jets, Duda said “this poses serious problems if we donate even a small part of them anywhere, because I don’t hesitate to say we have not enough of these jets.”
In any case, Duda said that any decision to send fighter jets “requires a decision by the Allies anyway, which means that we have to make a joint decision.”
[ad_2]
#Polands #Duda #Sending #fighter #jets #Ukraine #decision
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
BRUSSELS — With Ukraine’s partners racing to send more weapons to Kyiv amid an emerging Russian offensive, fulfilling Ukrainian requests is becoming trickier.
Ukraine is still waiting for promised deliveries of modern tanks. Combat jets, though much discussed, are mired in the throes of government hesitation.
On top of that, Kyiv is using thousands of rounds of ammunition per day — and Western production simply can’t keep up.
As members of the U.S.-led Ukraine Defense Contact Group gather in Brussels on Tuesday to coordinate arms assistance to Ukraine, they face pressure to expedite delivery and provide even more advanced capabilities to Ukrainian forces.
“We have received good signals,” Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a video address following visits to London, Paris and Brussels.
“This applies both to long-range missiles and tanks, and to the next level of our cooperation — combat aircraft,” he said, however adding, “We still need to work on this.”
And while most of Ukraine’s partners are committed to responding to Zelenskyy’s stump tour with expanded support as the conflict threatens to escalate, Western governments will have to overcome political and practical hurdles.
“It is clear that we are in a race of logistics,” NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg told reporters on Monday. “Key capabilities like ammunition, fuel, and spare parts must reach Ukraine before Russia can seize the initiative on the battlefield.”
Existing and future supply of weapons to Ukraine will both be on the table when the defense group — made up of about 50 countries and popularly known at the Ramstein format — meets at NATO headquarters.
NATO allies will also hold a meeting of defense ministers directly afterward to hear the latest assessment from Ukrainian counterparts and discuss the alliance’s future defense challenges.
Ukrainian officials will use the session, which would typically be held at the U.S. base in Ramstein, Germany, to share their latest needs with Western officials — from air defense to ground logistics — while it will also be a venue for Kyiv’s supporters to check in on implementation of earlier pledges and availabilities in the near future.
The aim of the session, said a senior European diplomat, is “to step up military support as much as needed — not only commitments, but actual speedy deliverables is of particular significance.”
“Tanks are needed not on paper but in the battlefield,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of discussions.
Ammo, ammo, ammo
One of the most pressing issues on the table in Brussels this week is how to keep the weapons already sent to Ukraine firing.
“Of course it is important to discuss new systems, but the most urgent need is to ensure that all the systems which are already there, or have been pledged, are delivered and work as they should,” Stoltenberg said.
During meetings with EU heads on Thursday, Zelenskyy and his team provided each leader with an individualized list requesting weapons and equipment based on the country’s known stocks and capabilities.
But there was one common theme.
“The first thing on the list was, everywhere, the ammunition,” Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas said.
“If you have the equipment and you don’t have the ammunition, then it’s no use,” the Estonian leader told reporters on Friday.
And while Ukraine is in dire need of vast amounts of ammo to keep fighting, Western countries’ own stocks are running low.
“It’s a very real concern,” said Ben Hodges, a former commander of U.S. Army Europe. “None of us, including the United States, is producing enough ammunition right now,” he said in a phone interview on Sunday.
Munitions will also be top of mind at the session of NATO defense ministers on Wednesday, who will discuss boosting production of weapons, ammunition and equipment, along with future defense spending targets for alliance members.
Boosting stockpiles and production, Stoltenberg emphasized on Monday, “requires more defense expenditure by NATO allies.”
Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty images
And while the NATO chief said some progress has been made on work with industry on plans to boost stockpile targets, some current and former officials have expressed frustration about the pace of work.
Kallas last week raised the idea of joint EU purchases to help spur production and hasten deliveries of weapons and ammunition to Ukraine, although it’s not clear whether this plan would enjoy sufficient support within the bloc — and how fast it could have an impact.
Hodges thinks companies need a clearer demand signal from governments. “We need industry to do more,” he said.
But he noted, “These are not charities … they are commercial businesses, and so you have to have an order with money before they start making it.”
Jets fight fails to take off (for now)
Fighter jets are a priority ask for Ukrainian officials, although Western governments seem not yet ready to make concrete commitments.
Numerous countries have expressed openness to eventually providing Ukraine with jets, indicating that the matter is no longer a red line. Regardless, hesitation remains.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg | Valeria Mongelli/AFP via Getty Images
The U.K. has gone the furthest so far, announcing that it will train Ukrainian pilots on fighter jets. But when it comes to actually providing aircraft, British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace cautioned that “this is not a simple case of towing an aircraft to the border.”
Polish President Andrzej Duda, meanwhile, said sending F-16 aircraft would be a “very serious decision” which is “not easy to take,” arguing that his country does not have enough jets itself.
For some potential donors, the jets debate revolves around both timing and utility.
“The essential question is: What do they want to do with planes? It’s not clear,” said one French diplomat, who was unauthorized to speak publicly. “Do they think that with 50 or 100 fighter jets, they can retake the Donbas?” the diplomat said.
The diplomat said there is no point in training Ukrainians on Western jets now. “It’ll take over six months to train them, so it doesn’t respond to their immediate imperatives.”
But, the diplomat added, “maybe some countries should give them MiGs, planes that they can actually fly.”
Slovakia is in fact moving closer to sending MiG-29 jets to Ukraine.
“We want to do it,” said a Slovak official who was not at liberty to disclose their identity. “But we must work out the details on how,” the official said, adding that a domestic process and talks with Ukraine still need to take place.
No big jet announcements are expected at the Tuesday meeting, though the issue is likely to be discussed.
Where are the tanks?
And while Western governments have already — with great fanfare — struck a deal to provide Ukraine with modern tanks, questions over actual deliveries will also likely come up at Tuesday’s meeting.
Germany’s leadership in particular has stressed it’s time for countries that supported the idea of sending tanks to live up to their rhetoric.
“Germany is making a very central contribution to ensuring that we provide rapid support, as we have done in the past,” German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said last week.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is shown an anti-aircraft gun tank Gepard | Morris MacMatzen/Getty Images
“We are striving to ensure that many others who have come forward in the past now follow up on this finger-pointing with practical action,” he went on. Germany’s goal is for Ukraine to receive tanks by the end of March, and training has already begun.
Along with tanks, another pending request that Ukrainian officials will likely bring up this week is long-range missiles.
Hodges, who has been advocating for the West to give Ukraine the weapons it would need to retake Crimea, said he believes long-range precision weapons are the key. “That’s how you defeat mass with precision.”
Any such weapon, he argued, “has got to be at the top of the list.”
Clea Caulcutt contributed reporting from Paris and Hans von der Buchard contributed from Berlin.
[ad_2]
#West #struggles #deliver #Zelenskyys #defense #list
( With inputs from : www.politico.eu )
