7 New Messages
Digest #4619
Messages
Fri Feb 1, 2013 6:20 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://euobserver.com/defence/
EUobserver
January 31, 2013
Nato chief: EU must spend more on military
Andrew Rettman
====
[Rasmussen said] Nato is still "the most important military power in the world."
He also said "the rise of emerging powers could create a growing gap between their capacity to act and exert influence on the international stage and our ability to do so."
====
BRUSSELS: Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen has urged EU countries to spend more on defence despite the economic crisis or risk losing US solidarity.
He said in a foreword to the alliance's report on 2012, out on Thursday (31 January), that: "If current defence spending trends were to continue, that would limit the practical ability of Nato's European nations to work together with their North American allies. But it would also risk weakening the political support for our alliance in the United States."
He added Nato is still "the most important military power in the world."
But he warned: "The security challenges of the 21st century - terrorism, proliferation, piracy, cyber warfare, unstable states - will not go away as we focus on fixing our economies."
He also said "the rise of emerging powers could create a growing gap between their capacity to act and exert influence on the international stage and our ability to do so."
The Nato report says the US accounted for 72 percent of Nato countries' defence spending in 2012 compared to 68 percent in 2007. France, Germany, Italy and the UK made up the bulk of the rest, but the French contribution fell steeply.
"This has the potential to undermine alliance solidarity and puts at risk the ability of the European allies to act without the involvement of the United States," the report notes.
It adds that Nato spending as a proportion of world military expenditure fell to 60 percent in 2011 from 69 percent in 2003 and is to hit 56 percent in 2014.
'EU like Vatican'
The angst over EU defence capabilities is not new.
Former US defence chief Robert Gates in a speech in Brussels in 2011 also voiced alarm.
"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress - and in the American body politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence," he said at the time.
Gates and Fogh Rasmussen's anxiety is not confined to Nato.
Speaking in Brussels also on Thursday on the margins of an EU foreign ministers' meeting, Poland's Radek Sikorski said the Union needs a real defence force of its own.
"I think the Mali crisis shows this is necessary because the next crisis could unfold even more quickly and we need to be able to react instantly," he told press.
"Let's recall that events in Mali unfolded very fast...But we know that in the EU, as in the Vatican, the wheels of state turn very slowly," he added.
EU arms licences
The latest EU figures appear to show that some of the worst crisis-hit EU countries are still ploughing money into new weapons despite Nato's concerns.
The report says that fellow EU countries in 2011 granted significant amounts of export licences to Greece (€783mn), Portugal (€397mn) and Spain (€1.6bn).
The numbers do not tell the whole story, however.
France, which makes up most of the Greek figure, granted licences to negotiate future arms sales rather than export licences as such.
A large chunk of the Spanish number relates to cross-border movements of spare parts in defence projects, such as Eurofighter or Typhoon, managed by the European defence consortium Eads.
...
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
EUobserver
January 31, 2013
Nato chief: EU must spend more on military
Andrew Rettman
====
[Rasmussen said] Nato is still "the most important military power in the world."
He also said "the rise of emerging powers could create a growing gap between their capacity to act and exert influence on the international stage and our ability to do so."
====
BRUSSELS: Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen has urged EU countries to spend more on defence despite the economic crisis or risk losing US solidarity.
He said in a foreword to the alliance's report on 2012, out on Thursday (31 January), that: "If current defence spending trends were to continue, that would limit the practical ability of Nato's European nations to work together with their North American allies. But it would also risk weakening the political support for our alliance in the United States."
He added Nato is still "the most important military power in the world."
But he warned: "The security challenges of the 21st century - terrorism, proliferation, piracy, cyber warfare, unstable states - will not go away as we focus on fixing our economies."
He also said "the rise of emerging powers could create a growing gap between their capacity to act and exert influence on the international stage and our ability to do so."
The Nato report says the US accounted for 72 percent of Nato countries' defence spending in 2012 compared to 68 percent in 2007. France, Germany, Italy and the UK made up the bulk of the rest, but the French contribution fell steeply.
"This has the potential to undermine alliance solidarity and puts at risk the ability of the European allies to act without the involvement of the United States," the report notes.
It adds that Nato spending as a proportion of world military expenditure fell to 60 percent in 2011 from 69 percent in 2003 and is to hit 56 percent in 2014.
'EU like Vatican'
The angst over EU defence capabilities is not new.
Former US defence chief Robert Gates in a speech in Brussels in 2011 also voiced alarm.
"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress - and in the American body politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence," he said at the time.
Gates and Fogh Rasmussen's anxiety is not confined to Nato.
Speaking in Brussels also on Thursday on the margins of an EU foreign ministers' meeting, Poland's Radek Sikorski said the Union needs a real defence force of its own.
"I think the Mali crisis shows this is necessary because the next crisis could unfold even more quickly and we need to be able to react instantly," he told press.
"Let's recall that events in Mali unfolded very fast...But we know that in the EU, as in the Vatican, the wheels of state turn very slowly," he added.
EU arms licences
The latest EU figures appear to show that some of the worst crisis-hit EU countries are still ploughing money into new weapons despite Nato's concerns.
The report says that fellow EU countries in 2011 granted significant amounts of export licences to Greece (€783mn), Portugal (€397mn) and Spain (€1.6bn).
The numbers do not tell the whole story, however.
France, which makes up most of the Greek figure, granted licences to negotiate future arms sales rather than export licences as such.
A large chunk of the Spanish number relates to cross-border movements of spare parts in defence projects, such as Eurofighter or Typhoon, managed by the European defence consortium Eads.
...
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Feb 1, 2013 6:20 am (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02
Voice of Russia
February 1, 2013
The US was killing Russians defending their homeland - Rozoff
John Robles
Audio at URL above
The story of the Polar Bear Expedition or what was also called the American North Russia Expeditionary Force is told by Voice of Russia regular contributor Rick Rozoff. The operation took place between 1918 and 1919 and saw at least 5,000 US troops sent into Russian territory to kill Bolsheviks in the north of Russia. The goals were to secure weapons cached in the north, assist Czech forces who were fighting the Bolsheviks and overthrow the Communist government.
Robles: Soon we are coming upon the 95th anniversary of an event that very few people know about. Would you like to tell our listeners a little bit about what that event is?
Rozoff: Sure I would. And that’s something that first came to my attention through a...in a very personal way which I’ll describe in a moment. But the event, or the operation we are talking about, is something that is proverbially known as the Polar Bear Expedition. The formal designation for it was the Northern Russia Expedition or the American North Russia Expeditionary Force. And what that was the deployment of somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 US troops starting in September of 1918 and continuing into at least July of 1919 in northern Russia, fighting armed forces of the Russian government of that time, which was after the October Revolution in Russia, so it was the government of Lenin.
But that American troops were sent, in some instances, after the armistice was signed, from the trenches in France and in some cases directly from the state of Michigan, to fight near the Arctic Circle in Russia.
In 1972 the last time I saw my maternal grandfather, my mother’s father, shortly before he died, I knew that he had been in Pershing’s Allied [American] Expeditionary Force, that he had been with the US forces in France in World War I. And I happened to ask him, I was a very young man at the time, and I happened to ask him what happened after the armistice was signed and the troops were demobilized in France. And his colorful characterization of it was, and I quote him, he said: “They sent us to fight the Bolsheviks”. That’s a quote I can recall, you know, 41 years ago almost.
And in fact I knew that his unit had received basic training at what was called at that time Camp Custer, after George Custer, General Custer, later became Fort Custer and it is outside the Battle Creek, Michigan.
My grandfather was born in Michigan, though spent most of his life in the Canadian province of Ontario. But when the US entered World War I in 1917, he enlisted in the US Army and was trained in Camp Custer. And it is from there, from the 85th division trained at Camp Custer, that regiments were selected to fight in Russia in 1918-1919: that’s the Polar Bear Expedition or operation.
Over a hundred US troops were killed in fighting, scores of others died because of disease and other ailments, probably hundreds wounded. There is no telling how many Russian citizens were killed by the American troops during that period.
And what happened, almost four years ago now, a documentary film was made and shown in the state of Michigan where Camp Custer is. And amongst other people attending the show and praising the so-called Polar Bear Expedition was the senior senator from the state of Michigan, Carl Levin, who at the occasion of the unveiling of the film, stated, and I’m quoting from a Michigan newspaper at the time in 2009: “It is a perfect time for us to meet, a perfect place. There are lessons to be learned in history, there are lessons here.”
I’m not sure which lessons Senator Levin was referring to but the fact that for the last four years the United States has renewed its claim to the Arctic Ocean, at the expense of other nations, Canada in the first instance, but Russia most directly, one would guess. The fact that the US is celebrating its first effort in the Arctic region, the first combat operation against Russia in 1918 and 1919, I think is something worth noting.
Robles: So, this was on Russian territory, it was on Russian soil and this involved...
Rozoff: Yes, I remember my grandfather telling me, again I have to go back a number of years, I tend to recall him saying he was deployed in Murmansk. But what I’ve read on the subject subsequently suggests that it’s not terribly far from there, Archangel (Arkhangelsk), and that the US troops were sent there, the traditional understanding of it evidently is that the British war minister at the time, who was Winston Churchill, prevailed upon the American president, Woodrow Wilson, to deploy the troops, supposedly for a number of objectives, one of which was to secure armaments that had been stored there during the war before the Russian Revolution and the withdrawal of Russia from the war.
The second of all was really to fight the newly founded government in Russia, the Bolshevik government. And thirdly to support Czech Legion, which were Czechoslovak, for the most part Czech, soldiers, who had served in the Russian Army during World War I and then became anti-government fighters against the government after the Revolution of November 1917.
So, I think the third factor, that is supporting the Czech Legion, is a more plausible explanation for the involvement of the US troops and suggests that nothing less than countering the Russian government at that time and ultimately overthrowing it was the intent of the deployment of the American soldiers.
Robles: I see. Can you tell us any details about the operation that people might not have ever heard about?
Rozoff: With what reading I’ve done on the subject, it wasn’t of course the entire division that was sent. It was, I believe, two or perhaps three, regiments from the 85th Division that were deployed.
They arrived in Archangel at the very beginning of September of 1918 and at least according to one account I’ve read they were placed under British command, There were evidently British armed forces in the area as well.
The British supposedly had arrived in Archangel a month earlier, early August of 1918, and apparently the Russian forces had already moved the armaments or the materiel that the British intended to seize or secure, and that led to an expedition up river evidently, the Dvina River, with active fighting between indigenous Russian forces and American troops.
And by most accounts, early on, this was wintertime of course, it was maybe in October or so, the American campaign clearly had come to a dead end; it wasn’t successful. Their attempts to link up with the Czech troops fighting the government of Moscow were unsuccessful. And it was prolonged into the summer of 1919, but ultimately abandoned.
The casualties again that I...actually I’ve seen by one account an estimated 110 American soldiers were killed in fighting with Russian forces.
Robles: And this was actually US troops on Russian territory killing Russians.
Rozoff: People defending their soil, their territory.
Robles: Why were they placed under UK Command?
Rozoff: I suspect because the fact that British soldiers have been sent to the same area, the Archangel-Murmansk region, a month earlier to prepare, it was easier for them to get there I guess. But we know that Britain had played a role in the interim period between the February Revolution in 1917 in Russia and the October one, that is during the Provisional Government of the Kerensky period, in trying to secure the continued involvement of the Russian Government, whatever it was, whatever it turned out to be, in the war.
And the Kerensky government indeed, I’m sure under the pressure and perhaps no little bribery from Britain, France and the United States, did continue Russian involvement in the war, one which cost several million Russian lives.
Mr. Rick Rozoff is the manager and the owner of the stop NATO website and mailing list, and a regular contributor to the Voice of Russia.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Voice of Russia
February 1, 2013
The US was killing Russians defending their homeland - Rozoff
John Robles
Audio at URL above
The story of the Polar Bear Expedition or what was also called the American North Russia Expeditionary Force is told by Voice of Russia regular contributor Rick Rozoff. The operation took place between 1918 and 1919 and saw at least 5,000 US troops sent into Russian territory to kill Bolsheviks in the north of Russia. The goals were to secure weapons cached in the north, assist Czech forces who were fighting the Bolsheviks and overthrow the Communist government.
Robles: Soon we are coming upon the 95th anniversary of an event that very few people know about. Would you like to tell our listeners a little bit about what that event is?
Rozoff: Sure I would. And that’s something that first came to my attention through a...in a very personal way which I’ll describe in a moment. But the event, or the operation we are talking about, is something that is proverbially known as the Polar Bear Expedition. The formal designation for it was the Northern Russia Expedition or the American North Russia Expeditionary Force. And what that was the deployment of somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 US troops starting in September of 1918 and continuing into at least July of 1919 in northern Russia, fighting armed forces of the Russian government of that time, which was after the October Revolution in Russia, so it was the government of Lenin.
But that American troops were sent, in some instances, after the armistice was signed, from the trenches in France and in some cases directly from the state of Michigan, to fight near the Arctic Circle in Russia.
In 1972 the last time I saw my maternal grandfather, my mother’s father, shortly before he died, I knew that he had been in Pershing’s Allied [American] Expeditionary Force, that he had been with the US forces in France in World War I. And I happened to ask him, I was a very young man at the time, and I happened to ask him what happened after the armistice was signed and the troops were demobilized in France. And his colorful characterization of it was, and I quote him, he said: “They sent us to fight the Bolsheviks”. That’s a quote I can recall, you know, 41 years ago almost.
And in fact I knew that his unit had received basic training at what was called at that time Camp Custer, after George Custer, General Custer, later became Fort Custer and it is outside the Battle Creek, Michigan.
My grandfather was born in Michigan, though spent most of his life in the Canadian province of Ontario. But when the US entered World War I in 1917, he enlisted in the US Army and was trained in Camp Custer. And it is from there, from the 85th division trained at Camp Custer, that regiments were selected to fight in Russia in 1918-1919: that’s the Polar Bear Expedition or operation.
Over a hundred US troops were killed in fighting, scores of others died because of disease and other ailments, probably hundreds wounded. There is no telling how many Russian citizens were killed by the American troops during that period.
And what happened, almost four years ago now, a documentary film was made and shown in the state of Michigan where Camp Custer is. And amongst other people attending the show and praising the so-called Polar Bear Expedition was the senior senator from the state of Michigan, Carl Levin, who at the occasion of the unveiling of the film, stated, and I’m quoting from a Michigan newspaper at the time in 2009: “It is a perfect time for us to meet, a perfect place. There are lessons to be learned in history, there are lessons here.”
I’m not sure which lessons Senator Levin was referring to but the fact that for the last four years the United States has renewed its claim to the Arctic Ocean, at the expense of other nations, Canada in the first instance, but Russia most directly, one would guess. The fact that the US is celebrating its first effort in the Arctic region, the first combat operation against Russia in 1918 and 1919, I think is something worth noting.
Robles: So, this was on Russian territory, it was on Russian soil and this involved...
Rozoff: Yes, I remember my grandfather telling me, again I have to go back a number of years, I tend to recall him saying he was deployed in Murmansk. But what I’ve read on the subject subsequently suggests that it’s not terribly far from there, Archangel (Arkhangelsk), and that the US troops were sent there, the traditional understanding of it evidently is that the British war minister at the time, who was Winston Churchill, prevailed upon the American president, Woodrow Wilson, to deploy the troops, supposedly for a number of objectives, one of which was to secure armaments that had been stored there during the war before the Russian Revolution and the withdrawal of Russia from the war.
The second of all was really to fight the newly founded government in Russia, the Bolshevik government. And thirdly to support Czech Legion, which were Czechoslovak, for the most part Czech, soldiers, who had served in the Russian Army during World War I and then became anti-government fighters against the government after the Revolution of November 1917.
So, I think the third factor, that is supporting the Czech Legion, is a more plausible explanation for the involvement of the US troops and suggests that nothing less than countering the Russian government at that time and ultimately overthrowing it was the intent of the deployment of the American soldiers.
Robles: I see. Can you tell us any details about the operation that people might not have ever heard about?
Rozoff: With what reading I’ve done on the subject, it wasn’t of course the entire division that was sent. It was, I believe, two or perhaps three, regiments from the 85th Division that were deployed.
They arrived in Archangel at the very beginning of September of 1918 and at least according to one account I’ve read they were placed under British command, There were evidently British armed forces in the area as well.
The British supposedly had arrived in Archangel a month earlier, early August of 1918, and apparently the Russian forces had already moved the armaments or the materiel that the British intended to seize or secure, and that led to an expedition up river evidently, the Dvina River, with active fighting between indigenous Russian forces and American troops.
And by most accounts, early on, this was wintertime of course, it was maybe in October or so, the American campaign clearly had come to a dead end; it wasn’t successful. Their attempts to link up with the Czech troops fighting the government of Moscow were unsuccessful. And it was prolonged into the summer of 1919, but ultimately abandoned.
The casualties again that I...actually I’ve seen by one account an estimated 110 American soldiers were killed in fighting with Russian forces.
Robles: And this was actually US troops on Russian territory killing Russians.
Rozoff: People defending their soil, their territory.
Robles: Why were they placed under UK Command?
Rozoff: I suspect because the fact that British soldiers have been sent to the same area, the Archangel-Murmansk region, a month earlier to prepare, it was easier for them to get there I guess. But we know that Britain had played a role in the interim period between the February Revolution in 1917 in Russia and the October one, that is during the Provisional Government of the Kerensky period, in trying to secure the continued involvement of the Russian Government, whatever it was, whatever it turned out to be, in the war.
And the Kerensky government indeed, I’m sure under the pressure and perhaps no little bribery from Britain, France and the United States, did continue Russian involvement in the war, one which cost several million Russian lives.
Mr. Rick Rozoff is the manager and the owner of the stop NATO website and mailing list, and a regular contributor to the Voice of Russia.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Feb 1, 2013 7:36 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.interfax.com/
Interfax
February 1, 2013
Lithuanian premier promises eventual enlargement of defense budget to 2% of GDP
====
Eleven Lithuanian parties signed an agreement last May, shortly before the NATO Chicago summit, to undertake the annual enlargement of the defense budget to 2% of GDP...
====
VILNIUS: Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevicius promised to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Vilnius that Lithuanian parties would honor the agreement on the eventual enlargement of the national defense budget to 2% of GDP.
The prime minister told a press briefing after the meeting with Rasmussen they had discussed last year's agreement of political parties and pledged to keep it.
Rasmussen urged Lithuania to observe its commitment of the defense budget enlargement after meeting with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite on Friday.
Rasmussen said that Lithuania had admitted the need for larger defense expenditures and he asked Vilnius to keep that important promise.
He said he was aware of difficulties experienced by Lithuania and other partners but said they needed to maintain strong defense and the strong North Atlantic Alliance.
In the opinion of Rasmussen, it would be beneficial for NATO member countries to make joint defense procurements if they were unable to do that on their own.
Lithuanian Defense Minister Juozas Olekas said in an interview with the lrytas.ltportal this week that the defense budget had shrunk to 1%, which made it difficult to discuss joint projects or assistance with NATO partners.
The Lithuanian defense budget is supposed to grow to 923.9 million litai in 2013. The allocations to the Defense Ministry stood at 870.2 million litai or only 0.79% of GDP in 2012.
Eleven Lithuanian parties signed an agreement last May, shortly before the NATO Chicago summit, to undertake the annual enlargement of the defense budget to 2% of GDP at some point. The agreement did not set any deadlines.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Interfax
February 1, 2013
Lithuanian premier promises eventual enlargement of defense budget to 2% of GDP
====
Eleven Lithuanian parties signed an agreement last May, shortly before the NATO Chicago summit, to undertake the annual enlargement of the defense budget to 2% of GDP...
====
VILNIUS: Lithuanian Prime Minister Algirdas Butkevicius promised to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen in Vilnius that Lithuanian parties would honor the agreement on the eventual enlargement of the national defense budget to 2% of GDP.
The prime minister told a press briefing after the meeting with Rasmussen they had discussed last year's agreement of political parties and pledged to keep it.
Rasmussen urged Lithuania to observe its commitment of the defense budget enlargement after meeting with Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite on Friday.
Rasmussen said that Lithuania had admitted the need for larger defense expenditures and he asked Vilnius to keep that important promise.
He said he was aware of difficulties experienced by Lithuania and other partners but said they needed to maintain strong defense and the strong North Atlantic Alliance.
In the opinion of Rasmussen, it would be beneficial for NATO member countries to make joint defense procurements if they were unable to do that on their own.
Lithuanian Defense Minister Juozas Olekas said in an interview with the lrytas.ltportal this week that the defense budget had shrunk to 1%, which made it difficult to discuss joint projects or assistance with NATO partners.
The Lithuanian defense budget is supposed to grow to 923.9 million litai in 2013. The allocations to the Defense Ministry stood at 870.2 million litai or only 0.79% of GDP in 2012.
Eleven Lithuanian parties signed an agreement last May, shortly before the NATO Chicago summit, to undertake the annual enlargement of the defense budget to 2% of GDP at some point. The agreement did not set any deadlines.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Feb 1, 2013 7:36 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/s
U.S. Air Forces in Europe
February 1, 2013
KC-135s support French mission in Mali
By Capt. Jason Smith
100th Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs
FORWARD OPERATING LOCATION EUROPE: A detachment from the 100th Air Refueling Wing, RAF Mildenhall, England, operating from a forward deployed location, has completed aerial refueling mission in support of French Operations in Mali.
The first roughly 10-hour mission, during the daytime, gave the aircrew the opportunity to see the land area they will be potentially flying over on future missions.
"If you know distinguishing landmarks, it always helps," said Capt. Tim Gerne, aircraft commander for this mission...
A detachment from the 100th ARW deployed on short notice on Jan. 26 and launched the first support refueling mission on Jan. 27.
"It's good to see things coming together," said 1st Lt. John Lachiewicz, the co-pilot of the mission and Chapel Hill, N.C. native. "We hope to make a positive difference in helping our NATO ally."
...
The KC-135 is capable of refueling a variety of U.S. and NATO aircraft. It can off-load a maximum of 200,000 pounds of fuel.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
U.S. Air Forces in Europe
February 1, 2013
KC-135s support French mission in Mali
By Capt. Jason Smith
100th Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs
FORWARD OPERATING LOCATION EUROPE: A detachment from the 100th Air Refueling Wing, RAF Mildenhall, England, operating from a forward deployed location, has completed aerial refueling mission in support of French Operations in Mali.
The first roughly 10-hour mission, during the daytime, gave the aircrew the opportunity to see the land area they will be potentially flying over on future missions.
"If you know distinguishing landmarks, it always helps," said Capt. Tim Gerne, aircraft commander for this mission...
A detachment from the 100th ARW deployed on short notice on Jan. 26 and launched the first support refueling mission on Jan. 27.
"It's good to see things coming together," said 1st Lt. John Lachiewicz, the co-pilot of the mission and Chapel Hill, N.C. native. "We hope to make a positive difference in helping our NATO ally."
...
The KC-135 is capable of refueling a variety of U.S. and NATO aircraft. It can off-load a maximum of 200,000 pounds of fuel.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Feb 1, 2013 7:36 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02
Voice of Russia
February 1, 2013
The politics of aggressive war
John Robles
When is it acceptable for a country to engage in an act of aggressive war? Can it be justified to engage in an act that has been recognized by the world community and laid down in international law as a crime against humanity? Not just my humanity but all humanity?
These are questions the world community should have been asking itself every day for approximately the past two decades, but it has not. For it was approximately that long ago that one of the world’s superpowers began engaging in acts of aggression wherever it saw fit in order to show its strength and military might and terrorize the world into bending to its will.
Suppose for a minute you and I are that power. We are righteous, rich and powerful and control much of the planet through our economic manipulations and massive media and political know-how. We also have bombs and weapons all over the planet ready to wipe out any adversary and the adversaries of our friends. We are righteous, our God is the proper god and our people are beautiful, fairly well educated and created in our God’s image.
We have more of a right to exist on earth and consume the world’s resources than any of the other nations, because we are the chosen, the beautiful and the strong. They are weak, poor, envious of our power, and worth almost nothing compared to us. What is more, their god is the wrong god and they are not as beautiful and tall and proud as we are. The world is ours, we own it and everyone else has to bow down before us. We take what we want, from where we want, when we want.
Above all else is our moral superiority; we have been victimized in the past and the world must side with us and allow us to seek revenge on our enemies who want to destroy us because we are powerful, beautiful, free and our God is better and more righteous than their god. Our word must be good enough for everyone. If we say someone wants to destroy us, that is the way it is. We do not need to provide proof or receive permission from anyone to destroy whoever we decide is our enemy.
We know that one of us is worth thousands of them because we are the chosen and live in God’s land, a land given to us by our God. A land we cleansed of the savages and animals that had claimed it was theirs. We also know we are worth more than them because we were persecuted for our God and our God has chosen us over other, false, gods.
Since we are the chosen, if we have the idea that you are not worthy of life and are a useless eater, we can kill you, we can bomb you and we can take your lands. After all you are less worthy than us, we are the beautiful and strong and we were created in our God’s image.
So if we have “intelligence” that your country is arming our enemies we can, at our discretion and when we please, enter any country’s territory, including yours, and murder the people and destroy their facilities. Sure we can. After all we are the righteous and you are a bad guy in the eyes of me and my friends. And what is more we control the international courts and all of the international bodies that you could use to complain against us.
What is more, if we decide we don’t like your ruler we will replace him, assassinate him or publically execute him before your eyes.
But you will never complain or do anything against us because what is more we control you, and if we decide you are a threat we will come to you and destroy you. Or cripple you, or torture you, or take you to a secret prison and make you disappear forever. We can even kill you without leaving our own bunker on the other side of the world.
Do you doubt our power? We have satellites, the Internet, cameras and even tracking devices set up in your cell phone. We know where you are every minute. We record your every move, we know what you watch and what you buy at the shop and we know where your children are and we can kill them if you get out of line. For you are nothing. You are the mud people and we are your masters.
Did you imagine you and I were that powerful? Did you feel the righteousness and superiority? Do you understand who we are dealing with? If you feel a little uneasy, queasy or even nauseous that is okay. It means you are still human and there is still hope; if you feel rage and feel you are being mocked it is time you took off your blinders and imagined you were the “lesser” people and your lands were being taken and your women and children were being murdered before your eyes and there was nothing you could do about it.
Wake up!
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Voice of Russia
February 1, 2013
The politics of aggressive war
John Robles
When is it acceptable for a country to engage in an act of aggressive war? Can it be justified to engage in an act that has been recognized by the world community and laid down in international law as a crime against humanity? Not just my humanity but all humanity?
These are questions the world community should have been asking itself every day for approximately the past two decades, but it has not. For it was approximately that long ago that one of the world’s superpowers began engaging in acts of aggression wherever it saw fit in order to show its strength and military might and terrorize the world into bending to its will.
Suppose for a minute you and I are that power. We are righteous, rich and powerful and control much of the planet through our economic manipulations and massive media and political know-how. We also have bombs and weapons all over the planet ready to wipe out any adversary and the adversaries of our friends. We are righteous, our God is the proper god and our people are beautiful, fairly well educated and created in our God’s image.
We have more of a right to exist on earth and consume the world’s resources than any of the other nations, because we are the chosen, the beautiful and the strong. They are weak, poor, envious of our power, and worth almost nothing compared to us. What is more, their god is the wrong god and they are not as beautiful and tall and proud as we are. The world is ours, we own it and everyone else has to bow down before us. We take what we want, from where we want, when we want.
Above all else is our moral superiority; we have been victimized in the past and the world must side with us and allow us to seek revenge on our enemies who want to destroy us because we are powerful, beautiful, free and our God is better and more righteous than their god. Our word must be good enough for everyone. If we say someone wants to destroy us, that is the way it is. We do not need to provide proof or receive permission from anyone to destroy whoever we decide is our enemy.
We know that one of us is worth thousands of them because we are the chosen and live in God’s land, a land given to us by our God. A land we cleansed of the savages and animals that had claimed it was theirs. We also know we are worth more than them because we were persecuted for our God and our God has chosen us over other, false, gods.
Since we are the chosen, if we have the idea that you are not worthy of life and are a useless eater, we can kill you, we can bomb you and we can take your lands. After all you are less worthy than us, we are the beautiful and strong and we were created in our God’s image.
So if we have “intelligence” that your country is arming our enemies we can, at our discretion and when we please, enter any country’s territory, including yours, and murder the people and destroy their facilities. Sure we can. After all we are the righteous and you are a bad guy in the eyes of me and my friends. And what is more we control the international courts and all of the international bodies that you could use to complain against us.
What is more, if we decide we don’t like your ruler we will replace him, assassinate him or publically execute him before your eyes.
But you will never complain or do anything against us because what is more we control you, and if we decide you are a threat we will come to you and destroy you. Or cripple you, or torture you, or take you to a secret prison and make you disappear forever. We can even kill you without leaving our own bunker on the other side of the world.
Do you doubt our power? We have satellites, the Internet, cameras and even tracking devices set up in your cell phone. We know where you are every minute. We record your every move, we know what you watch and what you buy at the shop and we know where your children are and we can kill them if you get out of line. For you are nothing. You are the mud people and we are your masters.
Did you imagine you and I were that powerful? Did you feel the righteousness and superiority? Do you understand who we are dealing with? If you feel a little uneasy, queasy or even nauseous that is okay. It means you are still human and there is still hope; if you feel rage and feel you are being mocked it is time you took off your blinders and imagined you were the “lesser” people and your lands were being taken and your women and children were being murdered before your eyes and there was nothing you could do about it.
Wake up!
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Feb 1, 2013 7:36 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_02
Voice of Russia
February 1, 2013
Israel preemptively strikes Syria, why can’t Syria do the same? - interview
John Robles
Audio at URL above
Voice of Russia regulars Rick Rozoff and Alon Ben-Meir, NATO and Middle East experts respectively, both gave their views on the air strike by Israel on the sovereign territory of Syria near the capitol Damascus. Their views on the matter are almost diametrically opposed, with both giving solid arguments.
Hello! I’m John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff. He is the manager and the owner of the stop NATO website and mailing list.
John Robles: Can you give us your views on the strike by Israel inside of Syria, supposedly on a convoy, supposedly supplying Hezbollah, with supposed weapons?
Mr. Rick Rozoff: Yes, those "supposeds" are all warranted. The fact of the matter is what we know from Syrian government sources is that an Israeli warplane launched an attack against a military research center within Syria, on the outskirts of the capital city of Damascus, so this marks a dramatic escalation of the conflict not so much in Syria, but against Syria.
And what it does is confirm the suspicions and the statements made, not only by governmental officials in Iran, but by a lot of us throughout the world, that part of what is going on inside Syria right now is a warm-up exercise, if you will, a miniature version or a preview of what is intended for Iran. So, the fact that an Israeli warplane could strike near the capital city of Syria is clearly I think an indication that Israel might harbor both the intent and the means to try something similar within Iran. That’s the first thing.
Second of all, the brazen, unprovoked attack within the borders of a sovereign nation, is, as I believe Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned over the last 24 hours since the Israeli attack, a crude and flagrant violation of international law and should be condemned as such. And what is necessary is for there to be an international investigation to substantiate the Syrian government’s claim of the Israeli attack and it needs to be taken up in the United Nations Security Council.
If the situation were reversed I can promise you that the United States and its allies would not hesitate a second to take the case up, to demand that a hearing be held in the United Nations. And this is what has to happen now, because what this is, is more than just a blatant, criminal violation of the national sovereignty of Syria, but it is clearly an escalation of the conflict to the point where if you are sitting in Tehran, as well as Damascus, you are wondering what the next move is going to be and this is why it think it is so dangerous.
Robles: What would you say to people on the Israeli side, who were claiming and who will claim that Israel was defending itself?
Rick Rozoff: To believe for a moment that the Syrian government was arming Hezbollah fighters with weaponry for use against Israel when the government of Syria itself is under siege from foreign-supported insurgents, including terrorists, defies one’s credibility. It is very difficult to believe that could have been the case.
And again the Syrian government’s case is that Israel bombed well inside Syrian borders. This is comparable to, for example, the deployment by Turkey of a warplane inside Syrian air space in the summer of last year. But I think also what needs to be seen here is the fact that Israel has now exposed itself as being on the very same side as extremist elements, that is Wahhabi and Salafi elements, backed by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Persian Gulf monarchies in their attack against the government in Damascus, against the Syrian government.
So, you have this interesting motley medley of forces arrayed against Syria at the moment, you have the US and its NATO allies, you have Israel, you have the most backwards and benighted governments on the face of the earth in the Persian Gulf all operating in tandem.
So, when the United States talks about democracy or praises Israel as being the only democracy in the Middle East and so forth, we have to understand with the military attack of yesterday that it is aiding and abetting, it is supporting, it is complementing other efforts by the likes of governments in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir
Robles: Dr. Alon Ben-Meir he is a professor in international relations and affairs at NY University. Could you give us your views and your comments on the Israeli airstrike and of the supposed convoy?
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir: Israel has stated all along that if it detects anything that may constitute a threat to its national security, it will act.
In this particular case the Israelis have detected two things. One, there was a convoy moving from Syria towards the Lebanese border, apparently a shipment carrying the SA-17, which is a very accurate anti-aircraft missile. Several trucks actually.
As well there was also a military research center near Damascus and I think the Israelis have concluded that the first convoy has to be destroyed because they do not want these kinds of weapons to fall into the hands of Hezbollah and hence constitute a serious threat to Israel.
And the other one is the concern over the chemical weapons. I’m not sure it was an attack on one or the other, I believe it was the two simultaneously.
Robles: Do you believe they have the right to attack within another country if they say that the threat is to their own security?
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir: It is not what they say. I think every country, including Russia, the United States, all European, anyone, if they feel there is a credible threat, and I repeat the word “credible”, it is not an excuse to attack, but if there is a credible threat, and I think Israel shared that with the United States before it took action, then the country has the right to do whatever it takes in order to protect national security interests. And I have no doubt, any country, irregardless of where it is and where the threat is coming from, is going to take similar actions.
Robles: Using that logic, I mean, then. We know that Patriot missiles have been deployed in Turkey, so then if we follow the same line of logic, then I guess Syria has the right to strike these Patriot missiles in Turkey. Why not?
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir: The Patriot missiles in Turkey is a different story. These Patriot missiles are there in a defensive posture. Every country has many, many such weapons in a defensive posture.
Robles: Mr. Rozoff, if you follow that logic, then wouldn’t that give Syria, for example, the right to strike inside of Turkey which is basing Patriot missiles and NATO armaments aimed at Syria?
Mr. Rick Rozoff: It is an extremely vital point you raise. Not that the two of us believe in pre-emptive or preventive attacks or wars. This is a notoriously criminal concept that was really practiced, to its furthest degree, by the Third Reich in the late 1930s and the early 1940s, so-called preventive war.
That’s correct! If Israel can claim that Syria, under a siege as it is, is capable in any way of threatening the internal security of Israel, then with a thousand times, a million times more justification Syria can claim that it is being threatened by its neighbor Turkey, that it is being threatened by other governments in the area, including those I’ve mentioned in the Persian Gulf, by the United States, by its European NATO allies, who are providing material sustenance as well as diplomatic coverage to terrorist groups within Syria which are implicated in the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of civilians in that country.
And the fact that Israel has now struck Syria makes it the aggressor and not the other way around of course.
Robles: China is being surrounded by NATO, Russia is being surrounded by NATO, I mean there are weapons all around both countries that pose a threat to their national security. So, if we followed that same logic Russia and China could launch first strikes on the United States and all NATO countries I believe.
Mr. Rick Rozoff: With far more justification, again, than anything that Israel has the right to claim in regard to the attack of yesterday or the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq or murderous drone Hellfire missile attacks inside nations like Yemen and Libya and Somalia and all the way down the line.
Yes, it is in fact a nations like Russia, China and Iran which are being militarily encircled by the United States and its regional and global allies. And it is the aggressor who is claiming they are being threatened and have to launch so-called preventive attacks. Its a complete inversion of the truth.
Robles: Thanks for listening.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Voice of Russia
February 1, 2013
Israel preemptively strikes Syria, why can’t Syria do the same? - interview
John Robles
Audio at URL above
Voice of Russia regulars Rick Rozoff and Alon Ben-Meir, NATO and Middle East experts respectively, both gave their views on the air strike by Israel on the sovereign territory of Syria near the capitol Damascus. Their views on the matter are almost diametrically opposed, with both giving solid arguments.
Hello! I’m John Robles, I’m speaking with Mr. Rick Rozoff. He is the manager and the owner of the stop NATO website and mailing list.
John Robles: Can you give us your views on the strike by Israel inside of Syria, supposedly on a convoy, supposedly supplying Hezbollah, with supposed weapons?
Mr. Rick Rozoff: Yes, those "supposeds" are all warranted. The fact of the matter is what we know from Syrian government sources is that an Israeli warplane launched an attack against a military research center within Syria, on the outskirts of the capital city of Damascus, so this marks a dramatic escalation of the conflict not so much in Syria, but against Syria.
And what it does is confirm the suspicions and the statements made, not only by governmental officials in Iran, but by a lot of us throughout the world, that part of what is going on inside Syria right now is a warm-up exercise, if you will, a miniature version or a preview of what is intended for Iran. So, the fact that an Israeli warplane could strike near the capital city of Syria is clearly I think an indication that Israel might harbor both the intent and the means to try something similar within Iran. That’s the first thing.
Second of all, the brazen, unprovoked attack within the borders of a sovereign nation, is, as I believe Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov mentioned over the last 24 hours since the Israeli attack, a crude and flagrant violation of international law and should be condemned as such. And what is necessary is for there to be an international investigation to substantiate the Syrian government’s claim of the Israeli attack and it needs to be taken up in the United Nations Security Council.
If the situation were reversed I can promise you that the United States and its allies would not hesitate a second to take the case up, to demand that a hearing be held in the United Nations. And this is what has to happen now, because what this is, is more than just a blatant, criminal violation of the national sovereignty of Syria, but it is clearly an escalation of the conflict to the point where if you are sitting in Tehran, as well as Damascus, you are wondering what the next move is going to be and this is why it think it is so dangerous.
Robles: What would you say to people on the Israeli side, who were claiming and who will claim that Israel was defending itself?
Rick Rozoff: To believe for a moment that the Syrian government was arming Hezbollah fighters with weaponry for use against Israel when the government of Syria itself is under siege from foreign-supported insurgents, including terrorists, defies one’s credibility. It is very difficult to believe that could have been the case.
And again the Syrian government’s case is that Israel bombed well inside Syrian borders. This is comparable to, for example, the deployment by Turkey of a warplane inside Syrian air space in the summer of last year. But I think also what needs to be seen here is the fact that Israel has now exposed itself as being on the very same side as extremist elements, that is Wahhabi and Salafi elements, backed by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Persian Gulf monarchies in their attack against the government in Damascus, against the Syrian government.
So, you have this interesting motley medley of forces arrayed against Syria at the moment, you have the US and its NATO allies, you have Israel, you have the most backwards and benighted governments on the face of the earth in the Persian Gulf all operating in tandem.
So, when the United States talks about democracy or praises Israel as being the only democracy in the Middle East and so forth, we have to understand with the military attack of yesterday that it is aiding and abetting, it is supporting, it is complementing other efforts by the likes of governments in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir
Robles: Dr. Alon Ben-Meir he is a professor in international relations and affairs at NY University. Could you give us your views and your comments on the Israeli airstrike and of the supposed convoy?
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir: Israel has stated all along that if it detects anything that may constitute a threat to its national security, it will act.
In this particular case the Israelis have detected two things. One, there was a convoy moving from Syria towards the Lebanese border, apparently a shipment carrying the SA-17, which is a very accurate anti-aircraft missile. Several trucks actually.
As well there was also a military research center near Damascus and I think the Israelis have concluded that the first convoy has to be destroyed because they do not want these kinds of weapons to fall into the hands of Hezbollah and hence constitute a serious threat to Israel.
And the other one is the concern over the chemical weapons. I’m not sure it was an attack on one or the other, I believe it was the two simultaneously.
Robles: Do you believe they have the right to attack within another country if they say that the threat is to their own security?
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir: It is not what they say. I think every country, including Russia, the United States, all European, anyone, if they feel there is a credible threat, and I repeat the word “credible”, it is not an excuse to attack, but if there is a credible threat, and I think Israel shared that with the United States before it took action, then the country has the right to do whatever it takes in order to protect national security interests. And I have no doubt, any country, irregardless of where it is and where the threat is coming from, is going to take similar actions.
Robles: Using that logic, I mean, then. We know that Patriot missiles have been deployed in Turkey, so then if we follow the same line of logic, then I guess Syria has the right to strike these Patriot missiles in Turkey. Why not?
Dr. Alon Ben-Meir: The Patriot missiles in Turkey is a different story. These Patriot missiles are there in a defensive posture. Every country has many, many such weapons in a defensive posture.
Robles: Mr. Rozoff, if you follow that logic, then wouldn’t that give Syria, for example, the right to strike inside of Turkey which is basing Patriot missiles and NATO armaments aimed at Syria?
Mr. Rick Rozoff: It is an extremely vital point you raise. Not that the two of us believe in pre-emptive or preventive attacks or wars. This is a notoriously criminal concept that was really practiced, to its furthest degree, by the Third Reich in the late 1930s and the early 1940s, so-called preventive war.
That’s correct! If Israel can claim that Syria, under a siege as it is, is capable in any way of threatening the internal security of Israel, then with a thousand times, a million times more justification Syria can claim that it is being threatened by its neighbor Turkey, that it is being threatened by other governments in the area, including those I’ve mentioned in the Persian Gulf, by the United States, by its European NATO allies, who are providing material sustenance as well as diplomatic coverage to terrorist groups within Syria which are implicated in the deaths of thousands, if not tens of thousands, of civilians in that country.
And the fact that Israel has now struck Syria makes it the aggressor and not the other way around of course.
Robles: China is being surrounded by NATO, Russia is being surrounded by NATO, I mean there are weapons all around both countries that pose a threat to their national security. So, if we followed that same logic Russia and China could launch first strikes on the United States and all NATO countries I believe.
Mr. Rick Rozoff: With far more justification, again, than anything that Israel has the right to claim in regard to the attack of yesterday or the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq or murderous drone Hellfire missile attacks inside nations like Yemen and Libya and Somalia and all the way down the line.
Yes, it is in fact a nations like Russia, China and Iran which are being militarily encircled by the United States and its regional and global allies. And it is the aggressor who is claiming they are being threatened and have to launch so-called preventive attacks. Its a complete inversion of the truth.
Robles: Thanks for listening.
==============================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.co
To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups
==============================
Fri Feb 1, 2013 7:55 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://prn.fm/2013/02/01/progr
Progressive Radio News Hour
February 1, 2013
Stephen Lendman interviews Rick Rozoff
Audio at URL above
Rozoff’s an activist, anti-war supporter, and editor of the web site Stop NATO.
It “document(s) and oppose(s) global militarist trends and an expanding theater of war that began” by balkanizing Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
It then expanded to South Asia, and now ravages the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia.
Major world and national issues will be discussed.
Progressive Radio News Hour
February 1, 2013
Stephen Lendman interviews Rick Rozoff
Audio at URL above
Rozoff’s an activist, anti-war supporter, and editor of the web site Stop NATO.
It “document(s) and oppose(s) global militarist trends and an expanding theater of war that began” by balkanizing Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
It then expanded to South Asia, and now ravages the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia.
Major world and national issues will be discussed.
