7 New Messages
Digest #4599
Messages
Wed Jan 9, 2013 7:17 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.rian.ru/military_new
Russian Information Agency Novosti
January 9, 2013
Russia, China Plan to Boost Cooperation on Missile Defense
BEIJING: Russia and China are planning to intensify their cooperation on missile defense in response to America’s growing missile defense potential around the globe, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said on Wednesday.
“We are concerned about US plans to build a global missile defense system, including in the Asia-Pacific region,” Patrushev said during the 8th round of Russian-Chinese consultations on strategic security in Beijing.
“Our Chinese partners share our concerns and we have agreed to coordinate our actions in that respect,” he said, adding that it would help both countries to develop a “constructive” approach toward missile defense issue.
Russia and China have been keeping a close eye on US moves to deploy missile defenses around the arc of the South China Sea in addition to the planned European missile shield.
Washington and Tokyo agreed last September to construct an advanced X-band missile early-warning radar in southern Japan to join an existing AN/TPY-2 radar in Japan’s northern Aomori Prefecture.
Some reports suggest that US Missile Defense Agency and the US Pacific Command are considering a third such radar somewhere else in Southeast Asia, possibly in the Philippines.
Washington is also planning to expand the grouping of Aegis-equipped US warships that patrol international waters in the region.
Moscow and Beijing are objecting US missile defense initiatives saying they are worsening the global and regional security environment, especially military and nonproliferation processes, to the detriment of Russian and Chinese nuclear deterrents.
Russia and China have held regular bilateral consultations on strategic issues since 2005.
==============================
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
==============================
Russian Information Agency Novosti
January 9, 2013
Russia, China Plan to Boost Cooperation on Missile Defense
BEIJING: Russia and China are planning to intensify their cooperation on missile defense in response to America’s growing missile defense potential around the globe, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said on Wednesday.
“We are concerned about US plans to build a global missile defense system, including in the Asia-Pacific region,” Patrushev said during the 8th round of Russian-Chinese consultations on strategic security in Beijing.
“Our Chinese partners share our concerns and we have agreed to coordinate our actions in that respect,” he said, adding that it would help both countries to develop a “constructive” approach toward missile defense issue.
Russia and China have been keeping a close eye on US moves to deploy missile defenses around the arc of the South China Sea in addition to the planned European missile shield.
Washington and Tokyo agreed last September to construct an advanced X-band missile early-warning radar in southern Japan to join an existing AN/TPY-2 radar in Japan’s northern Aomori Prefecture.
Some reports suggest that US Missile Defense Agency and the US Pacific Command are considering a third such radar somewhere else in Southeast Asia, possibly in the Philippines.
Washington is also planning to expand the grouping of Aegis-equipped US warships that patrol international waters in the region.
Moscow and Beijing are objecting US missile defense initiatives saying they are worsening the global and regional security environment, especially military and nonproliferation processes, to the detriment of Russian and Chinese nuclear deterrents.
Russia and China have held regular bilateral consultations on strategic issues since 2005.
==============================
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
==============================
Wed Jan 9, 2013 7:17 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01
Voice of Russia
January 9, 2013
NATO casts missile noose on Syria
====
“NATO is casting a missile noose on Syria. What’s the point? To enclose the Syrian air force and missiles in a NATO ring and build an anti-missile wall...NATO is ready with its plan of a military invasion. And the air defence system being deployed in Turkey will prevent al-Assad’s aircraft and missiles from resisting the forces that could invade Syria with a large degree of probability.”
"NATO troops are likely to be pulled into the region and Syria is not the main reason. It looks like a new repartition of the world is looming in the Middle East. Significant, serious positions are being assumed. This is an in-between move before a big game."
====
The NATO operation of the deployment of Patriot surface-to-air missiles in Turkey has entered an active phase. The missiles are being shipped from Germany and the Netherlands to be deployed along the Syrian border. NATO alleges that the Patriot systems are to defend Turkey from Syrian aircraft and missiles.
It is planned to station six systems. Germany, the Netherlands and the US will send two systems each. According to the US European Command, US Patriot systems are already being installed in the south of Turkey.
Units of the Czech, Slovak and Polish armed forces are expected to take part in this NATO operation. They will mostly be used to provide communication and coordination of activities between the missile systems.
Turkey appealed to its NATO allies for aid in November last year, after five Turkish citizens were killed by random shells that came from Syrian territory. Patriot systems are capable of hitting targets within the range of 70 kilometres and at an altitude of 20 kilometres. Experts say that using these systems for intercepting artillery or mortar shells is the same as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Consequently, experts believe that the aim is not so much to defend Turkey as to prepare for an imminent military operation in Syria.
Military expert Viktor Baranets shares this opinion.
“NATO is casting a missile noose on Syria. What’s the point? To enclose the Syrian air force and missiles in a NATO ring and build an anti-missile wall. All this is a follow-up of the same intention to stifle Bashar al-Assad’s regime. If al-Assad fails to come to an agreement with the opposition, NATO is ready with its plan of a military invasion. And the air defence system being deployed in Turkey will prevent al-Assad’s aircraft and missiles from resisting the forces that could invade Syria with a large degree of probability.”
The NATO missile systems are expected to stay in Turkey for at least two years and this term is planned without taking into consideration the development of the situation in Syria.
Political analyst Stanislav Tarasov takes notice of this:
“Syria does not intend to attack any country, least of all Turkey. NATO troops are likely to be pulled into the region and Syria is not the main reason. It looks like a new repartition of the world is looming in the Middle East. Significant, serious positions are being assumed. This is an in-between move before a big game.”
At the same time the expert pointed out that building a Turkish springboard gives NATO an opportunity to exert a direct military and political influence on Iran, as well as on Iraqi Kurdistan bordering on Turkey whose relations with Iraq have deteriorated lately.
==============================
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
January 9, 2013
NATO casts missile noose on Syria
====
“NATO is casting a missile noose on Syria. What’s the point? To enclose the Syrian air force and missiles in a NATO ring and build an anti-missile wall...NATO is ready with its plan of a military invasion. And the air defence system being deployed in Turkey will prevent al-Assad’s aircraft and missiles from resisting the forces that could invade Syria with a large degree of probability.”
"NATO troops are likely to be pulled into the region and Syria is not the main reason. It looks like a new repartition of the world is looming in the Middle East. Significant, serious positions are being assumed. This is an in-between move before a big game."
====
The NATO operation of the deployment of Patriot surface-to-air missiles in Turkey has entered an active phase. The missiles are being shipped from Germany and the Netherlands to be deployed along the Syrian border. NATO alleges that the Patriot systems are to defend Turkey from Syrian aircraft and missiles.
It is planned to station six systems. Germany, the Netherlands and the US will send two systems each. According to the US European Command, US Patriot systems are already being installed in the south of Turkey.
Units of the Czech, Slovak and Polish armed forces are expected to take part in this NATO operation. They will mostly be used to provide communication and coordination of activities between the missile systems.
Turkey appealed to its NATO allies for aid in November last year, after five Turkish citizens were killed by random shells that came from Syrian territory. Patriot systems are capable of hitting targets within the range of 70 kilometres and at an altitude of 20 kilometres. Experts say that using these systems for intercepting artillery or mortar shells is the same as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Consequently, experts believe that the aim is not so much to defend Turkey as to prepare for an imminent military operation in Syria.
Military expert Viktor Baranets shares this opinion.
“NATO is casting a missile noose on Syria. What’s the point? To enclose the Syrian air force and missiles in a NATO ring and build an anti-missile wall. All this is a follow-up of the same intention to stifle Bashar al-Assad’s regime. If al-Assad fails to come to an agreement with the opposition, NATO is ready with its plan of a military invasion. And the air defence system being deployed in Turkey will prevent al-Assad’s aircraft and missiles from resisting the forces that could invade Syria with a large degree of probability.”
The NATO missile systems are expected to stay in Turkey for at least two years and this term is planned without taking into consideration the development of the situation in Syria.
Political analyst Stanislav Tarasov takes notice of this:
“Syria does not intend to attack any country, least of all Turkey. NATO troops are likely to be pulled into the region and Syria is not the main reason. It looks like a new repartition of the world is looming in the Middle East. Significant, serious positions are being assumed. This is an in-between move before a big game.”
At the same time the expert pointed out that building a Turkish springboard gives NATO an opportunity to exert a direct military and political influence on Iran, as well as on Iraqi Kurdistan bordering on Turkey whose relations with Iraq have deteriorated lately.
==============================
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
==============================
Wed Jan 9, 2013 7:17 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01
Voice of Russia
January 9, 2013
Recorded late last year
‘NATO is in phase 3 of its global expansion’ – Rozoff
John Robles
Audio at URL above
NATO is engaged in completing phase 3 of its post-Cold War global expansion, and the global nature of what once was the "North Atlantic" alliance is now official, says the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website Rick Rozoff in part one of a 2012 year-end summary interview on the activities of NATO. He also talks about NATO’s military activity in regards to “partners across the globe”, a bilateral organization of cooperation which initially consisted of 8 countries, all in the Asia-Pacific region: Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand and Japan.
Part 1 of a 2012 NATO review
Hello, this is John Robles, I’m speaking with Rick Rozoff. He’s the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list.
Robles: Could we do a quick review of the events that have been taking place with NATO and where do you think they’re going?
Rozoff: It’s been another year of the expansion of the U.S.-dominated military bloc. That was highlighted, I suppose, by the summit that was held here, in Chicago, in May of this year, where amongst other things NATO announced the fact that it retains its status as a nuclear alliance, meaning it maintains offensive nuclear weapons in Europe for use in the European theater and perhaps in the Middle East.
NATO also announced in May at the summit that it had achieved initial operational capability of the so-called European Phased Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system, with the now permanent deployment of interceptor missile warships in the Mediterranean and a command and control center in Germany. And that’s preparatory, of course, to placing 48 or more land-based interceptor missiles in Poland and Romania in the upcoming years.
What we see most alarmingly this year, and it’s a theme that needs to be dwelled on somewhat, is the active expansion of NATO military hardware into what the secretary general of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, repeatedly refers to as the alliance’s southeastern border, meaning Turkey, and southeastern Turkey at that, where Turkey meets with not only Syria, but with Iran and Iraq.
At the beginning of this year the U.S., under NATO auspices, moved in an X-Band transportable interceptor missile radar facility to Turkey, and after the placement of the interceptor missile radar the U.S. and NATO consolidated two what are called Allied Land Command Centers in Europe and had moved them into Turkey into one command.
And, as we know, that within the next week or so we’re to see the deployment of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor missile batteries in southeastern Turkey along with several hundred U.S., Dutch and German troops to accompany those.
So what we’re seeing is that NATO is shifting its emphasis towards the southernmost and easternmost member of the alliance, Turkey, and is making a bid to expand its influence and perhaps to engage in active military operations in the Middle East. So that I think is the most significant aspect of NATO’s expansion so far this year.
That, in addition to another development that occurred immediately prior to and then was officially enshrined during the summit in May, which was the creation of a new non-geographically specific partnership format called Partners Across the Globe. This is the official designation that NATO knows it by, and it initially consists of eight countries, all in the broader Asia-Pacific region, the Middle-East to East Asia: they are Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand and Japan. So we’re seeing the open manifestation of NATO now as an international military force.
Robles: What about the expansion into Central and Eastern Asia?
Rozoff: That as you know has been under way since 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan, and currently the United States and NATO still maintain military facilities, not only in Afghanistan, but in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
The talk is for the U.S. and its NATO allies to eventually withdraw from those nations, but I wouldn’t expect to see that happen in the imminent future and I think their long-term plans are to maintain Pentagon and NATO military capacities in Central and South Asia, with Afghanistan being the hub of those operations, but, as mentioned with NATO Partnership for Peace allies like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan maintaining some sort of U.S. and NATO presence in the countries. However there was an intriguing article in China’s People’s Daily that suggested that what we’re seeing right now with the U.S. pivot or shift to the Asia-Pacific region is basically Phase 3 of U.S. global military expansion in the post-Cold War era.
The first phase was, of course, the expansion of NATO into Central and Eastern Europe, where it has now absorbed as full members every single former Warsaw Pact country outside of the Soviet Union, in addition to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and two former Yugoslav republics and Albania. That was the first phase.
The second phase was what was referred to from 2001 onwards as being the Greater or the Broader Middle East project: that is, where the U.S. in conjunction with its NATO allies expanded influence from Northern Africa all the way to the Chinese border, in nations like Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.
And the third phase, then, being the only part of the world that really hasn’t come under the boot of the Pentagon, is the Asia-Pacific region. I think that’s a pretty astute analysis and I think that three-phase model is a very accurate one.
Robles: So, Rick in your opinion, what were the main events of NATO during the past year?
Rozoff: As mentioned, the fact that they announced that they have initial capability for their European- and Mediterranean-based interceptor missile system, which is really the opening salvo in creating a global missile shield. Initially, it will be in Eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean, but it’s expanding already throughout most of the world. That is probably the most single significant fact with NATO expansion, is that they’re on a new plane of battle if you will.
It’s no longer simply positioning themselves, ground forces and even air forces, but now they quite openly have proclaimed that they’re setting up what is potentially a first strike, son of Star Wars as it's colloquially known, an interceptor missile system that could potentially impede the ability of a nation that has been either targeted or attacked to launch effective retaliation because of a series of sea-based and land-based interceptor missiles. That would have to be the most significant and most dangerous initiative by NATO this past year.
Robles: What about the summit in Chicago and all the events related to that?
Rozoff: By holding a NATO summit for only the second time in the United States, the only preceding one was in 1999 in Washington D.C., which marked the 50th anniversary of the founding of NATO, but to have held that only for the second time in the United States and then in the very heartland of the country, in Chicago, rather than in the administrative capital of the country, Washington, drew a lot of attention to an alliance that many Americans had either neglected to inform themselves about or had downplayed the significance of, but when it came to Chicago it forced a lot of people to take notice of it and as a result there was a coalescence of peace forces and others, anti-war and anti-intervention forces, that gathered in a series of actions in Chicago but culminating in the large, by some accounts 15-20 thousand people, the large anti-NATO protest on the second day of the summit in Chicago.
So it has brought to people’s attention both within the United States and I think globally the scope and the potential danger of the world’s only military alliance.
End of Part 1
==============================
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
January 9, 2013
Recorded late last year
‘NATO is in phase 3 of its global expansion’ – Rozoff
John Robles
Audio at URL above
NATO is engaged in completing phase 3 of its post-Cold War global expansion, and the global nature of what once was the "North Atlantic" alliance is now official, says the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website Rick Rozoff in part one of a 2012 year-end summary interview on the activities of NATO. He also talks about NATO’s military activity in regards to “partners across the globe”, a bilateral organization of cooperation which initially consisted of 8 countries, all in the Asia-Pacific region: Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand and Japan.
Part 1 of a 2012 NATO review
Hello, this is John Robles, I’m speaking with Rick Rozoff. He’s the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and international mailing list.
Robles: Could we do a quick review of the events that have been taking place with NATO and where do you think they’re going?
Rozoff: It’s been another year of the expansion of the U.S.-dominated military bloc. That was highlighted, I suppose, by the summit that was held here, in Chicago, in May of this year, where amongst other things NATO announced the fact that it retains its status as a nuclear alliance, meaning it maintains offensive nuclear weapons in Europe for use in the European theater and perhaps in the Middle East.
NATO also announced in May at the summit that it had achieved initial operational capability of the so-called European Phased Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system, with the now permanent deployment of interceptor missile warships in the Mediterranean and a command and control center in Germany. And that’s preparatory, of course, to placing 48 or more land-based interceptor missiles in Poland and Romania in the upcoming years.
What we see most alarmingly this year, and it’s a theme that needs to be dwelled on somewhat, is the active expansion of NATO military hardware into what the secretary general of NATO, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, repeatedly refers to as the alliance’s southeastern border, meaning Turkey, and southeastern Turkey at that, where Turkey meets with not only Syria, but with Iran and Iraq.
At the beginning of this year the U.S., under NATO auspices, moved in an X-Band transportable interceptor missile radar facility to Turkey, and after the placement of the interceptor missile radar the U.S. and NATO consolidated two what are called Allied Land Command Centers in Europe and had moved them into Turkey into one command.
And, as we know, that within the next week or so we’re to see the deployment of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor missile batteries in southeastern Turkey along with several hundred U.S., Dutch and German troops to accompany those.
So what we’re seeing is that NATO is shifting its emphasis towards the southernmost and easternmost member of the alliance, Turkey, and is making a bid to expand its influence and perhaps to engage in active military operations in the Middle East. So that I think is the most significant aspect of NATO’s expansion so far this year.
That, in addition to another development that occurred immediately prior to and then was officially enshrined during the summit in May, which was the creation of a new non-geographically specific partnership format called Partners Across the Globe. This is the official designation that NATO knows it by, and it initially consists of eight countries, all in the broader Asia-Pacific region, the Middle-East to East Asia: they are Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Australia, South Korea, New Zealand and Japan. So we’re seeing the open manifestation of NATO now as an international military force.
Robles: What about the expansion into Central and Eastern Asia?
Rozoff: That as you know has been under way since 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan, and currently the United States and NATO still maintain military facilities, not only in Afghanistan, but in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
The talk is for the U.S. and its NATO allies to eventually withdraw from those nations, but I wouldn’t expect to see that happen in the imminent future and I think their long-term plans are to maintain Pentagon and NATO military capacities in Central and South Asia, with Afghanistan being the hub of those operations, but, as mentioned with NATO Partnership for Peace allies like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan maintaining some sort of U.S. and NATO presence in the countries. However there was an intriguing article in China’s People’s Daily that suggested that what we’re seeing right now with the U.S. pivot or shift to the Asia-Pacific region is basically Phase 3 of U.S. global military expansion in the post-Cold War era.
The first phase was, of course, the expansion of NATO into Central and Eastern Europe, where it has now absorbed as full members every single former Warsaw Pact country outside of the Soviet Union, in addition to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and two former Yugoslav republics and Albania. That was the first phase.
The second phase was what was referred to from 2001 onwards as being the Greater or the Broader Middle East project: that is, where the U.S. in conjunction with its NATO allies expanded influence from Northern Africa all the way to the Chinese border, in nations like Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.
And the third phase, then, being the only part of the world that really hasn’t come under the boot of the Pentagon, is the Asia-Pacific region. I think that’s a pretty astute analysis and I think that three-phase model is a very accurate one.
Robles: So, Rick in your opinion, what were the main events of NATO during the past year?
Rozoff: As mentioned, the fact that they announced that they have initial capability for their European- and Mediterranean-based interceptor missile system, which is really the opening salvo in creating a global missile shield. Initially, it will be in Eastern Europe and the eastern Mediterranean, but it’s expanding already throughout most of the world. That is probably the most single significant fact with NATO expansion, is that they’re on a new plane of battle if you will.
It’s no longer simply positioning themselves, ground forces and even air forces, but now they quite openly have proclaimed that they’re setting up what is potentially a first strike, son of Star Wars as it's colloquially known, an interceptor missile system that could potentially impede the ability of a nation that has been either targeted or attacked to launch effective retaliation because of a series of sea-based and land-based interceptor missiles. That would have to be the most significant and most dangerous initiative by NATO this past year.
Robles: What about the summit in Chicago and all the events related to that?
Rozoff: By holding a NATO summit for only the second time in the United States, the only preceding one was in 1999 in Washington D.C., which marked the 50th anniversary of the founding of NATO, but to have held that only for the second time in the United States and then in the very heartland of the country, in Chicago, rather than in the administrative capital of the country, Washington, drew a lot of attention to an alliance that many Americans had either neglected to inform themselves about or had downplayed the significance of, but when it came to Chicago it forced a lot of people to take notice of it and as a result there was a coalescence of peace forces and others, anti-war and anti-intervention forces, that gathered in a series of actions in Chicago but culminating in the large, by some accounts 15-20 thousand people, the large anti-NATO protest on the second day of the summit in Chicago.
So it has brought to people’s attention both within the United States and I think globally the scope and the potential danger of the world’s only military alliance.
End of Part 1
==============================
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
==============================
Wed Jan 9, 2013 7:17 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Louis Godena" louisgodena
Wed Jan 9, 2013 7:17 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://www.globaltimes.cn/
Global Times
January 10, 2013
Japan tracer bullets will bring war closer
According to Japanese media, the Japanese government is considering permitting Japanese self-defense forces' fighter jets to fire tracer bullets as warning shots against Chinese surveillance planes which have "infringed" upon Japan's "territorial airspace" over the Diaoyu Islands.
A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said yesterday that China has consistently opposed Japan's infringement upon China's sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. China "remains vigilant against attempts to escalate the tensions."
The Chinese spokesman's statement is not enough to express the Chinese people's strong determination to fight back against Japan's unscrupulous action.
We believe that if Japan starts using tracer bullets, it will definitely trigger a military confrontation between China and Japan. Chinese people will certainly ask the government to send naval and air forces to retaliate.
Tracer bullets were used by Japan to warn Soviet Union surveillance aircraft above the Okinawa Prefecture in 1987. However, the relationship between the Soviet Union and Japan was one of war and invasion. The Diaoyu Islands are a typical disputed area.
We believe that China is carefully assessing plans to deploy combat aircraft to the Diaoyu Islands due to the imbalance between China's surveillance aircraft and Japan's fighter jets. If Japan uses tracer bullets, Chinese fighter jets are bound to be sent to the Diaoyu Islands.
China's replacing surveillance aircraft with fighter jets does not mean they will conduct military operations there. These are upgrades of China's ability to defend its sovereignty in the face of Japan's provocations. All of East Asia would face tension in that scenario, but we have no choice. We do not wish to begin a war with Japan. However, if Japan insists on provocations, we will follow it through to the end.
If the Chinese government does not earnestly prepare for it, it will certainly suffer huge political losses. The public wouldn't understand that and they would not accept any interpretations by the government.
China may fall into military conflict with Japan eventually. We hope we can continue our peaceful development, but our risk management strategies are more complex due to various pressures.
There is little room for concessions. Therefore, let us abandon all hesitation and seriously prepare for mutual warnings and confrontation with Japan over the Diaoyu Islands. If the situation goes awry, we must make Japan pay more of a price than China.
The Diaoyu Islands dispute will test the Chinese government's leadership for a long time. But we should have confidence: our rival is a bully which can even bear US military occupation. As long as we keep tough, we will not lose this test of wills.
------------------------------
http://news.xinhuanet.com/
Xinhua News Agency
January 8, 2013
Commentary: Worrying right turn of Japanese politics
BEIJING: Despite repeated warnings that Japanese politics is sliding further to the right, it seems that the newly-installed Shinzo Abe administration has no interest in accommodating such concerns.
At the very beginning of 2013, reports came that Tokyo might seek to revise two official statements issued in the 1990s meant as apologies to victims of Japan's wartime atrocities.
The Kono Statement, which acknowledged the Japanese Imperial Army's role in forcing thousands of captured women into sex slavery, and the Murayama Danwa, a broader apology issued by then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama over war atrocities, have long been considered rare examples of Tokyo's self reflection.
On the heels of the worrying turn of events, Japan's Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso, in a high-profile trip to Myanmar, paid tribute to Japan's fallen soldiers buried there during WWII, in total disregard of the feelings of people that had suffered bitterly under the Japanese aggression.
Yet the most substantial effort of Tokyo toward the right is to try to upgrade its Self Defense Force into a full military force, starting with planned increase in defense budget in fiscal 2013, the first time in 11 years.
The prospect of reviving militarism in Japan evokes bitter memories among Asian countries which had endured brutal Japanese aggression and could eventually inflict a heavy toll on Japan's diplomacy.
Many observers have predicted the political orientation of the Abe administration upon the release of the list of cabinet ministers, most of whom were widely seen as "radical nationalists."
Japanese politicians have to bear in mind that any attempt to whitewash aggression would backfire and any endeavor by Tokyo to alter the post-war world order would land the country in massive trouble.
To become a future-oriented "normal country," Japan should put the brakes on right-leaning politics.
------------------------------
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/o
China Daily
January 10, 2013
Steps in wrong direction
Although the cornerstone of Japan's foreign policy is its alliance with the United States, the newly formed cabinet of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is seeking to "encircle" China by consolidating ties with neighboring countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida began a visit to the Philippines on Wednesday, part of a tour that will also take him to Singapore, Brunei and Australia. The trip is aimed at strengthening Japan's ties with members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
In mid-January Abe will visit Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia, his first foreign destinations, after "scheduling difficulties" put the brakes on his proposed trip to the US. The three countries are the largest receivers of Japan's official development assistance in Southeast Asia.
At the start of January, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Taro Aso visited Myanmar, with Japan hoping to stop China gaining the upper hand in promoting economic development projects in the country in the years ahead.
Clearly one of Abe's central strategies is to boost Japan's leverage with China by strengthening security and energy cooperation with countries in Southeast Asia. He also believes strengthening ties with Russia and other Asian nations, based on the strength of the Japan-US alliance, will help rebuild Japan's relations with China.
On Dec 28, two days after the inauguration of his cabinet, Abe consulted with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and other world leaders over the phone. One of his advisers disclosed that these telephone conversations were intended to "tighten the noose" around China.
It is not difficult to see that Abe is seeking to renew the "arc of freedom and prosperity" around China that he mapped out during his first term as prime minister from 2006 to 2007.
But the attempts by Abe and his cabinet to encircle China will only intensify the friction between China and Japan, and make the possibility of the two countries' mending their frayed relations even more remote.
After his Liberal Democratic Party's win in the lower house election on Dec 16, Abe said the bilateral relationship is extremely important and he would like to make efforts to return it to the "initial point of mutually beneficial strategic relations".
It's time he made the effort to take some steps in that direction.
==============================
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
==============================
Global Times
January 10, 2013
Japan tracer bullets will bring war closer
According to Japanese media, the Japanese government is considering permitting Japanese self-defense forces' fighter jets to fire tracer bullets as warning shots against Chinese surveillance planes which have "infringed" upon Japan's "territorial airspace" over the Diaoyu Islands.
A Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said yesterday that China has consistently opposed Japan's infringement upon China's sovereignty over the Diaoyu Islands. China "remains vigilant against attempts to escalate the tensions."
The Chinese spokesman's statement is not enough to express the Chinese people's strong determination to fight back against Japan's unscrupulous action.
We believe that if Japan starts using tracer bullets, it will definitely trigger a military confrontation between China and Japan. Chinese people will certainly ask the government to send naval and air forces to retaliate.
Tracer bullets were used by Japan to warn Soviet Union surveillance aircraft above the Okinawa Prefecture in 1987. However, the relationship between the Soviet Union and Japan was one of war and invasion. The Diaoyu Islands are a typical disputed area.
We believe that China is carefully assessing plans to deploy combat aircraft to the Diaoyu Islands due to the imbalance between China's surveillance aircraft and Japan's fighter jets. If Japan uses tracer bullets, Chinese fighter jets are bound to be sent to the Diaoyu Islands.
China's replacing surveillance aircraft with fighter jets does not mean they will conduct military operations there. These are upgrades of China's ability to defend its sovereignty in the face of Japan's provocations. All of East Asia would face tension in that scenario, but we have no choice. We do not wish to begin a war with Japan. However, if Japan insists on provocations, we will follow it through to the end.
If the Chinese government does not earnestly prepare for it, it will certainly suffer huge political losses. The public wouldn't understand that and they would not accept any interpretations by the government.
China may fall into military conflict with Japan eventually. We hope we can continue our peaceful development, but our risk management strategies are more complex due to various pressures.
There is little room for concessions. Therefore, let us abandon all hesitation and seriously prepare for mutual warnings and confrontation with Japan over the Diaoyu Islands. If the situation goes awry, we must make Japan pay more of a price than China.
The Diaoyu Islands dispute will test the Chinese government's leadership for a long time. But we should have confidence: our rival is a bully which can even bear US military occupation. As long as we keep tough, we will not lose this test of wills.
------------------------------
http://news.xinhuanet.com/
Xinhua News Agency
January 8, 2013
Commentary: Worrying right turn of Japanese politics
BEIJING: Despite repeated warnings that Japanese politics is sliding further to the right, it seems that the newly-installed Shinzo Abe administration has no interest in accommodating such concerns.
At the very beginning of 2013, reports came that Tokyo might seek to revise two official statements issued in the 1990s meant as apologies to victims of Japan's wartime atrocities.
The Kono Statement, which acknowledged the Japanese Imperial Army's role in forcing thousands of captured women into sex slavery, and the Murayama Danwa, a broader apology issued by then Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama over war atrocities, have long been considered rare examples of Tokyo's self reflection.
On the heels of the worrying turn of events, Japan's Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso, in a high-profile trip to Myanmar, paid tribute to Japan's fallen soldiers buried there during WWII, in total disregard of the feelings of people that had suffered bitterly under the Japanese aggression.
Yet the most substantial effort of Tokyo toward the right is to try to upgrade its Self Defense Force into a full military force, starting with planned increase in defense budget in fiscal 2013, the first time in 11 years.
The prospect of reviving militarism in Japan evokes bitter memories among Asian countries which had endured brutal Japanese aggression and could eventually inflict a heavy toll on Japan's diplomacy.
Many observers have predicted the political orientation of the Abe administration upon the release of the list of cabinet ministers, most of whom were widely seen as "radical nationalists."
Japanese politicians have to bear in mind that any attempt to whitewash aggression would backfire and any endeavor by Tokyo to alter the post-war world order would land the country in massive trouble.
To become a future-oriented "normal country," Japan should put the brakes on right-leaning politics.
------------------------------
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/o
China Daily
January 10, 2013
Steps in wrong direction
Although the cornerstone of Japan's foreign policy is its alliance with the United States, the newly formed cabinet of Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is seeking to "encircle" China by consolidating ties with neighboring countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida began a visit to the Philippines on Wednesday, part of a tour that will also take him to Singapore, Brunei and Australia. The trip is aimed at strengthening Japan's ties with members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.
In mid-January Abe will visit Thailand, Vietnam and Indonesia, his first foreign destinations, after "scheduling difficulties" put the brakes on his proposed trip to the US. The three countries are the largest receivers of Japan's official development assistance in Southeast Asia.
At the start of January, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Taro Aso visited Myanmar, with Japan hoping to stop China gaining the upper hand in promoting economic development projects in the country in the years ahead.
Clearly one of Abe's central strategies is to boost Japan's leverage with China by strengthening security and energy cooperation with countries in Southeast Asia. He also believes strengthening ties with Russia and other Asian nations, based on the strength of the Japan-US alliance, will help rebuild Japan's relations with China.
On Dec 28, two days after the inauguration of his cabinet, Abe consulted with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and other world leaders over the phone. One of his advisers disclosed that these telephone conversations were intended to "tighten the noose" around China.
It is not difficult to see that Abe is seeking to renew the "arc of freedom and prosperity" around China that he mapped out during his first term as prime minister from 2006 to 2007.
But the attempts by Abe and his cabinet to encircle China will only intensify the friction between China and Japan, and make the possibility of the two countries' mending their frayed relations even more remote.
After his Liberal Democratic Party's win in the lower house election on Dec 16, Abe said the bilateral relationship is extremely important and he would like to make efforts to return it to the "initial point of mutually beneficial strategic relations".
It's time he made the effort to take some steps in that direction.
==============================
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
==============================
Wed Jan 9, 2013 7:17 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://indrus.in/articles/2013
Russia & India Report
January 9, 2013
Russia to create new missiles to compete with U.S.
Andrei Kislyakov
While the United States is building a global missile defense system, Russia is preparing for a radical renewal of its strategic nuclear missile arsenal
====
The United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 and is no longer limited by any restrictions on building up the quantity and quality of such means. According to Karakaev, it is possible that America could deploy anti-missile defenses in space.
====
It looks like the Russian military and the military-industrial complex have decided to prepare seriously for overcoming the American missile defense system. Work is underway simultaneously on two strategic missiles of different classes.
According to Sergei Karakaev, the commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, these is a heavy, 100-ton, liquid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that should outperform the world’s most powerful R-36M2 Voevoda (NATO reporting name: SS-18 Satan), and a solid-fuel ICBM scheduled to replace the fifth-generation Yars systems (the RS-24 and the Topol-M).
“Since the potential of solid-fuel ICBMs could become insufficient for overcoming the American missile defense system going forward, a heavy liquid-propellant ICBM is needed to perform this task. Such an ICBM will allow the creation of a non-nuclear, high-precision, strategic weapon with a practically global range, unless the United States abandons its program,” Karakaev said.
This is the first time Russia has spoken about creating a new solid-fuel missile. According to Gen. Karakaev, several launches of a prototype of this missile took place in 2012 – most recently on Oct. 24.
This puts an end to the debate on whether Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces need a heavyweight liquid-propellant missile.
Russia undertook a large-scale modernization of the Topol family in the 1990s and adopted the Topol-M silos (NATO reporting name: SS-27) in 2000, followed by the mobile Topol-M2 several years ago. It is the new Topol and the newly adopted RS-24 Yars that will be gradually replacing the decommissioned, first-generation, solid-fuel missiles.
But liquid-propellant missiles still form the backbone of the strategic deterrence forces: the UR-100N (NATO reporting name: SS-19 Stiletto) and the Р-36M (U.S. Department of Defense and NATO reporting name: SS-18 Satan). These, however, are obsolete and will have to be retired over the next few years.
New missiles have been slow in arriving to the Russia’s armed forces. According to an estimate by Leonid Kalashnikov, deputy chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, Russia could receive 100-105 new ICBMs by 2015. If the bet remains on, the single-warhead Topol-M and the three-warhead Yars-24 would be able to carry a total of 110-115 warheads. At the same time, the United States is planning to deploy 900 ballistic missile interceptors worldwide by 2015.
The United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 and is no longer limited by any restrictions on building up the quantity and quality of such means. According to Karakaev, it is possible that America could deploy anti-missile defenses in space.
Russia’s military and political leadership was counting on successful negotiations with the United States on missile defense. However, the negotiations have ended in a deadlock; Washington’s persistent deployment of surface- and sea-based anti-missile defenses, coupled with a general deterioration of bilateral relations, have forced the Russian leadership to consider more decisive actions.
This is where the idea of a missile capable of carrying a dividing warhead with a large number of individually targeted blocks (which would also have a long range) originated. Russia already has such missiles – the above-mentioned liquid-propellant UR-100N and R-36M. However, these missiles have been on combat duty since the late 1980s, and their service life is nearing an end.
Development of new missiles was suspended in the 1990s, when the Strategic Missile Forces were expected to be fully converted to lightweight, solid-fuel missile complexes. However, lightweight missiles have not been able to become a full-fledged replacement for liquid-propellant giants.
According to Yuri Zaitsev, an expert at the Academy of Engineering Sciences, “It’s unlikely that the lightweight Topol-M and the Bulava [a new sea-based solid-fuel Topol-M based missile] could serve as a worthy substitute for the decommissioned missiles.”
Nonetheless, Russia is not planning to abandon its solid-fuel missiles either. Solid-fuel missiles are the best match for mobile complexes. This means that Russia will continue developing a replacement for both types of its active-duty missiles.
==============================
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
==============================
Russia & India Report
January 9, 2013
Russia to create new missiles to compete with U.S.
Andrei Kislyakov
While the United States is building a global missile defense system, Russia is preparing for a radical renewal of its strategic nuclear missile arsenal
====
The United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 and is no longer limited by any restrictions on building up the quantity and quality of such means. According to Karakaev, it is possible that America could deploy anti-missile defenses in space.
====
It looks like the Russian military and the military-industrial complex have decided to prepare seriously for overcoming the American missile defense system. Work is underway simultaneously on two strategic missiles of different classes.
According to Sergei Karakaev, the commander of Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces, these is a heavy, 100-ton, liquid-propellant intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that should outperform the world’s most powerful R-36M2 Voevoda (NATO reporting name: SS-18 Satan), and a solid-fuel ICBM scheduled to replace the fifth-generation Yars systems (the RS-24 and the Topol-M).
“Since the potential of solid-fuel ICBMs could become insufficient for overcoming the American missile defense system going forward, a heavy liquid-propellant ICBM is needed to perform this task. Such an ICBM will allow the creation of a non-nuclear, high-precision, strategic weapon with a practically global range, unless the United States abandons its program,” Karakaev said.
This is the first time Russia has spoken about creating a new solid-fuel missile. According to Gen. Karakaev, several launches of a prototype of this missile took place in 2012 – most recently on Oct. 24.
This puts an end to the debate on whether Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces need a heavyweight liquid-propellant missile.
Russia undertook a large-scale modernization of the Topol family in the 1990s and adopted the Topol-M silos (NATO reporting name: SS-27) in 2000, followed by the mobile Topol-M2 several years ago. It is the new Topol and the newly adopted RS-24 Yars that will be gradually replacing the decommissioned, first-generation, solid-fuel missiles.
But liquid-propellant missiles still form the backbone of the strategic deterrence forces: the UR-100N (NATO reporting name: SS-19 Stiletto) and the Р-36M (U.S. Department of Defense and NATO reporting name: SS-18 Satan). These, however, are obsolete and will have to be retired over the next few years.
New missiles have been slow in arriving to the Russia’s armed forces. According to an estimate by Leonid Kalashnikov, deputy chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, Russia could receive 100-105 new ICBMs by 2015. If the bet remains on, the single-warhead Topol-M and the three-warhead Yars-24 would be able to carry a total of 110-115 warheads. At the same time, the United States is planning to deploy 900 ballistic missile interceptors worldwide by 2015.
The United States withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 and is no longer limited by any restrictions on building up the quantity and quality of such means. According to Karakaev, it is possible that America could deploy anti-missile defenses in space.
Russia’s military and political leadership was counting on successful negotiations with the United States on missile defense. However, the negotiations have ended in a deadlock; Washington’s persistent deployment of surface- and sea-based anti-missile defenses, coupled with a general deterioration of bilateral relations, have forced the Russian leadership to consider more decisive actions.
This is where the idea of a missile capable of carrying a dividing warhead with a large number of individually targeted blocks (which would also have a long range) originated. Russia already has such missiles – the above-mentioned liquid-propellant UR-100N and R-36M. However, these missiles have been on combat duty since the late 1980s, and their service life is nearing an end.
Development of new missiles was suspended in the 1990s, when the Strategic Missile Forces were expected to be fully converted to lightweight, solid-fuel missile complexes. However, lightweight missiles have not been able to become a full-fledged replacement for liquid-propellant giants.
According to Yuri Zaitsev, an expert at the Academy of Engineering Sciences, “It’s unlikely that the lightweight Topol-M and the Bulava [a new sea-based solid-fuel Topol-M based missile] could serve as a worthy substitute for the decommissioned missiles.”
Nonetheless, Russia is not planning to abandon its solid-fuel missiles either. Solid-fuel missiles are the best match for mobile complexes. This means that Russia will continue developing a replacement for both types of its active-duty missiles.
==============================
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
==============================
Wed Jan 9, 2013 7:37 pm (PST) . Posted by:
"Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff
http://en.trend.az/regions/met
Trend News Agency
January 9, 2013
Missile shipment to Turkey expected to be completed end of January
Shipment of Patriot air-defense missiles and equipment as well as 400 US military personnel to Turkey is expected to be completed end of January as part of a NATO mission to bolster Turkey's air defense capabilities against possible missile threat from Syria, a Pentagon spokesperson said Tuesday, Anadolu reported.
"Almost half of the equipment and 400 personnel have arrived in Turkey and by the end of the month we expect all of the equipment and personnel to be in Turkey," George E. Little told a daily press briefing.
Little said the mission covered a period of one year, adding that the US would continue to monitor the situation in Syria to determine for how long the two Patriot batteries would stay in Turkey.
NATO allies Germany and the Netherlands contribute to the NATO deployment with two Patriot batteries each.
During the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003, NATO deployed Patriot missiles in Turkey but they were never used.
Trend News Agency
January 9, 2013
Missile shipment to Turkey expected to be completed end of January
Shipment of Patriot air-defense missiles and equipment as well as 400 US military personnel to Turkey is expected to be completed end of January as part of a NATO mission to bolster Turkey's air defense capabilities against possible missile threat from Syria, a Pentagon spokesperson said Tuesday, Anadolu reported.
"Almost half of the equipment and 400 personnel have arrived in Turkey and by the end of the month we expect all of the equipment and personnel to be in Turkey," George E. Little told a daily press briefing.
Little said the mission covered a period of one year, adding that the US would continue to monitor the situation in Syria to determine for how long the two Patriot batteries would stay in Turkey.
NATO allies Germany and the Netherlands contribute to the NATO deployment with two Patriot batteries each.
During the Iraq wars of 1991 and 2003, NATO deployed Patriot missiles in Turkey but they were never used.
