Tag Archives: Russia

Why the Next Generation Bomber is needed

There are some who question whether the Air Force’s planned Next Generation Bomber is needed.  An example is this article published by the liberal CPI, wherein David Axe asked many questions that are easy to answer. In this paper, I will answer them and thus show why the NGB is absolutely needed.

First, I’ll rebut his questions regarding the requirement for next-gen bomber, and then, explain why it can be developed and produced affordably.

The requirement is clear, and it’s undisputable. The air defense systems of China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, and even North Korea are dense, very deadly, and, excepting Iran and North Korea for now, very modern. Russian and Chinese air defense systems have proliferated and continue to proliferate globally.

Any notion that the B-52 or the B-1 could survive in such an environment is ridiculous and not supported by any facts. The B-52 and the B-1 would be useless in any defended airspace; nowadays, they’re useful only for COIN campaigns in very benign environments where the only opponents are insurgents unable to contest control of the air. David Axe touts these bombers’ upgrades, but these “upgrades” won’t make them viable in any contested airspace. These bombers are not stealthy, due to a lack of both a stealthy shape AND radar-absorbent materials. No amount of upgrades or even RAMs can overcome this huge deficiency. It’s inherent in these bombers’ nonstealthy design with perfect radar wave reflectors. Even legacy Soviet SAM systems like the SA-2, SA-3, SA-4, SA-5, and SA-6, with upgraded radar, could easily detect and shoot down these aircraft – and they were widely exported. Matters are even worse if you’re facing the S-300 (which Russia, Belarus, China, and Venezuela all have), China’s HQ-9 and HQ-16, or Russia’s S-400.

For purposes of any campaigns in any contested airspace, the B-52 and the B-1 practically do not exist, leaving the USAF with just 20 B-2s. But B-2s’ stealth technology is 1980s’ vintage. They won’t remain stealthy forever. Even if they did, 20 stealthy bombers are insufficient for campaigns against anyone but a trivial opponent. Bombing campaigns against the forementioned countries would require a huge number of sorties, and consequently, a LARGE number of stealthy bombers.

Cruise missiles are no substitute for the NGB. Even buying 50,000 of them would not help, as they are easily detectable and easy to shoot down. So if the USAF bought 50,000 cruise missiles, the vast majority of them would be easily shot down by the opponent’s air defense systems, and only a tiny minority of them would reach their targets. Now THAT would be a real waste of money – NOT buying a needed next-gen bomber.

Cruise missiles are also TOO EXPENSIVE to be used en masse, which is what Axe and others seem to be proposing. The reason why so few Tomahawks have been used in past wars is because… they’re too expensive. In 1996, CENTAF commander Gen. Chuck Horner was ordered to stop launching Tomahawks after just 100 were used because of their cost. Moreover, once you expend a cruise missile, you can’t use it again. It’s gone. Money is thus blown. By contrast, a bomber, once you buy it, can fly for 50 years or more. It’s an investment you make that pays off many times over during several decades.

Bombing campaigns over China – if the PRC starts a war – are viable and would be necessary to break the PRC’s back (and thus to win). The point of wars is WINNING, not achieving a draw. What Wayne Hughes (cited by Axe) is proposing is self-limiting, which would lead to self-defeat. He’s proposing a limited war doctrine of the same kind that caused defeat in Vietnam and nearly caused defeat in Korea.

Winning in war requires breaking the enemy’s capability and/or willingness to make war. Winning any war against China (or any other adversary) requires breaking its warmaking capability, which requires large-scale strikes against its military bases, nuclear/ballistic missile stockpiles, weapon factories, bunkers, and military units/SAM batteries/missile regiments. That can only be done by bombers.

Secondly, can the USAF deliver the bomber on budget?

If it pursues it in a no-frills manner as promised, it can. There are BIG differences between this program and the B-2. The B-2 was designed from stratch, and used mostly new parts. The NGB will have very few new components and will mostly use parts already used for other aircraft – from mission computers, to engines, to radar, to bomb bay and landing gear bay doors, to the landing gear itself.

The CSBA’s Mark Gunzinger has estimated that such a bomber, with a 20,000 lb payload, would cost only $440 mn dollars, not $550 mn, so the USAF has probably planned for a large MOE. He furthermore listed several ways in which the DOD could achieve the low $440 mn unit cost, including reusing existing aircraft parts, fully funding the EMD phase, and purchasing enough test vehicles to weed out any bugs.

Furthermore, the total projected program cost – $55 bn – is the cost of the TOTAL program over its duration over many decades. Even if it lasted only one decade, it would be only $5.5 bn per year. If it’s done over 2 decades, it will cost only $2.75 bn annually.

Removing a pilot cockpit would save only a pittance. It would reduce the aircraft’s weight, and thus cost, only by 4%, as it wouldn’t make a meaningful difference in the weight of a large, heavy plan like a bomber. The DOD buys planes by the pound, so no large weight savings mean no large cost savings. Yet, a drone would be VERY vulnerable. Its comm links could break down or be jammed by the enemy, who could also commandeer a drone; or it could somehow else go haywire. The capture of a Sentinel drone by the Iranians proved this.

BTW, Axe is contradicting himself. He repeatedly underlines the risks related to an unmanned plane’s development (let alone as large as a bomber), yet, he claims that making the bomber unmanned would yield savings which Robert Gates and Gen. James Cartwright dreamed about. So he’s contradicting itself. Which is it, Mr Axe? Would an unmanned bomber be less or more costly and risky than a manned one?

And if an optionally manned bomber – the solution offering the USAF maximum flexibility – becomes too risky to develop, the Service can make it purely manned. Problem solved.

Thirdly, the article by Axe contains many false claims about how the B-2 and NGB sagas unfolded.

The B-2 did NOT cost $3 bn dollars to purchase, not even including R&D funds. It cost only $1.2 bn to buy, and only including research and development costs. Even then, it would have cost significantly less if the DOD had bought the 132 bombers originally planned (as it should have), instead of a puny 21. Unfortunately, the hunt for the “peace dividend” was already underway, so the B-2 was killed along with many other crucial weapon programs. As a result of these idiotic decisions, America’s long-range conventional strike capability is now limited to 20 stealthy bombers.

The NGB was not killed because the USAF overloaded it with pricey gizmos. It was killed for purely political reasons, due to Obama’s desire for defense cuts (to fund his unconstitutional domestic programs), and of course, Cartwright’s meddling, as the defense weakling and strident liberal who was then the VCJCS didn’t want America to have any weapon that could challenge China or Russia. (Cartwright, as the leader of the “Global Zero” group, has recently proposed that America essentially unilaterally disarm itself while Russia, China, and others are building up their nuclear arsenals. That should tell you a lot about his leftist ideology.)

But Gates endorsed a new bomber program in 2010 – while Cartwright was still VC of the JCS still the frontrunner for Chairman. He did so after the DOD’s 2010 QDR, in a holistic analysis, found a real need for the NGB. Gates consequently requested 200 mn for the NGB in the FY2011 defense budget – a year earlier than Axe claims. Meanwhile, the CSBA, which Axe likes to quote, found in its own holistic, impartial analysis, that 100 NGBs are indeed very much needed, and that without them, the USAF will lose its long range penetration capability when the B-2 loses its.

Gates has reaffirmed the need for the NGB several times since then, as has his successor, two successive CSAFs, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, multiple retired USAF generals, and analysts from the CSBA, the Heritage Foundation, the National Defense University, and other entities.

And if Leon Panetta, faced with a $487 bn (and potentially $1 trillion) cut to his department’s budget took care to find money for the NGB, it must be worth it.

No, the NGB will not be on the chopping block in the 2020s. This program is too important for the USAF, and there’s a clear requirement for it. If anything gets cancelled, it will be the F-35, which can’t do long range strike and is not truly stealthy.

The Next Generation Bomber is needed, and fast.

From Russia with Love: Did Putin’s “First Time” Campaign Inspire Obama’s?

putin

Single-minded college age sluts were no doubt riveted by the vaguely homo-erotic account of a tatted tramp manlier than Justin Bieber regaling the world of “her first time” voting for Obama in one of the most disgusting, unpresidential campaign ads, ever. But was the video a sexually transmitted disease caught from Russia?

If you have any teenage daughters in the room, you might want to give them $50 and send them to the mall.

When Michelle Ray linked me to a Russian campaign ad from Vladimir Putin that slutted up the dictator’s 2012 re-election tour, something instantly seemed familiar. I had seen the ad before and knew the meme to be precisely (slap) identical. Being fluent in Russian, I can verify that it is the same idea.

The title of this masterpiece is “Opening women up for their first time.” The video translation of “elect” should be “candidate.” The closing of the ad says: “Putin: First Time — Only for Love.”

And just in case you thought that was a “fluke”:

This one is called “Russian Beauty Describes Her First Time.” The weird phrases “Safe as houses” translates to “solid as a rock.” But wait, the Vladdy Daddy gets even more suggestive:

The phrase in the middle is “Let’s Do It Together.” At the end: “Elections December 4th.” The English-language music is really ironic.

So what’s next for the Obama campaign? We’ve had the war on women, war on dogs, Bane capital, Mitt hates cookies, taxathon, Julia, vote your lady parts, Big Bird, binders full of women, bayonets and horses, and now, a creepy college girl’s “first time” confession. Now, that’s flexibility.

This Is Not Let’s Make A Deal and David Axelrod is Not Monty Hall

The White House re-election campaign wants to make a deal.  In exchange for GOP presidential challenger Mitt Romney releasing five years of tax returns, they will stop criticizing him for not releasing more.  While hiding behind the skirt of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the White House campaign alleges there may be as many as ten years when Romney evaded paying income taxes.

Romney says that over the past decade he has paid at least 13 percent in federal income taxes.  According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, a non-partisan group, middle income families average paying 12.8 percent in federal income tax.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-campaign-offers-romney-5-tax-disclosure-114057169.html

Critics complain that Romney pays too few taxes.  At his income level, Romney pays plenty of taxes.  Romney made every penny he has.  Hence every dime he uses to make investments has already been taxed at wage income rates.  Romney pays a lower tax rate than wage earners because a majority of his income comes from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate than wages.  Investment income is taxed at a lower rate because, unlike wages, investments are at risk.

If Romney was guilty of income tax evasion, the IRS would already be after him and his campaign for the White House would long be over.  The IRS falls within the Department of Treasury.  At the behest of the White House, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and the IRS would be all over Romney like a ravenous pack of hyenas.

Romney has released his 2010 tax records and vowed to release his 2011 returns.  That matches the number of returns released in 2008 by Senator John McCain when he was the GOP candidate.  The number of tax returns released by McCain was never an issue.

This is not Let’s Make A Deal, and David Axelrod is not Monty Hall.  For Mitt Romney only a booby prize or worse waits behind curtain number three.

This bait and switch by the White House and their “progressive” co-conspirators is more than simply a distraction from the issues.

Throughout a shadowy, veiled, mystery shrouded political career where his own past has been intentionally concealed, obtaining confidential information about political opponents and distorting that information to smear them has been the signature move of this candidate.

Remember, the current Oval Office occupier is the same clandestine, shadowy figure caught in an open-mic moment with then Russian president Dmitry Medvedev saying that after his re-election he would have “more flexibility”.

Flexibility for…?

Three members of a Russian punk band were found guilty and sentenced to two years in jail for protesting against Russian president Vladamir Putin.   The band members were arrested on March 3rd and charged with “hooliganism”.  Nadezhda Tolokonnikova, 22, Maria Alyokhina, 24, and Yekaterina Samutsevich, 30 have been in jail ever since.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/russian-punk-band-verdict-found-guilty-hooliganism-115937812.html

What kind of flexibility is this secretive, anti-business, hostile to constitutionally protected individual Liberty White House promising to a Russian president who imprisons people for free speech?

Is this flexibility related to the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Internal Revenue Service each purchasing multi-thousands of rounds of hollow point bullets?

Could this flexibility include plans to tighten the iron grip of power by imposing Martial Law and suspending elections to ensure he can finish the “fundamental transformation” of America through the imposition of a form of government completely foreign to every principle espoused by its Founding Fathers?

By agreeing to release any additional tax returns, Mitt Romney would be making a crucial mistake.  Let the White House re-election campaign go into grand mal seizure.  Let them scream like banshees and howl at the moon.  Let them cry like babies.  Let them wet themselves.  Let them posture, threaten, intimidate and bully.  You can bet your underwater sub-prime mortgage they will do anything, be it lie, cheat and steal to win this election.

To borrow a phrase from another popular television game show: No deal.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/08/17/this-is-not-lets-make-a-deal-and-david-axelrod-is-not-monty-hall/

Putin Punks Obama

The most glaring example of diminishing United States power and influence around the globe is the dynamic taking place between the U.S. and Russia regarding Syria.

Russia has dispatched a flotilla of eleven warships, almost half of which have the ability to carry hundreds of marines to the eastern Mediterranean.  Some of those ships are to be docked in Syria. It is the greatest display of Russian power in the region since the start of Syria’s current conflict.

This is clearly a part of Russia’s effort to become a decisive power broker in Syria, and by extension, the Middle East.  Syria is Russia’s one remaining ally in the region and home to Tartus, the last remaining Soviet era military base outside of Russia.

The unusually large size of the deployment announced by Moscow can be considered a message.  The message is not just to the Middle East, but also to the United States.  The message is: We are strong and you are weak.

Not unexpectedly, the response from Washington was, to put it politely, muted.  Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council said:  “Russia maintains a naval supply and maintenance base in the Syrian port of Tartus.  We currently have no reason to believe this move is anything out of the ordinary, but we refer you to the Russian government for more details.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/world/middleeast/russia-sends-warships-on-maneuvers-near-syria.html?_r=1

The nature of this response will reaffirm to Putin that the current Oval Office occupant is willing to react passively and submissively to the Kremlin.  Leading from behind is seen by experienced global power brokers like Putin as weakness.

Although KGB style secrecy and the Kremlin’s careful manipulation of his image make him difficult to read, watching the recent body language between Putin and Obama makes it is clear for all to see that Putin has little respect for Obama.

Whether Putin or any other Soviet/Russian leader likes you or not is irrelevant to a successful foreign policy.  Ronald Reagan understood that.  George W. Bush understood that.  Mikhail Gorbachev respected Ronald Reagan and grew to like him.  Putin never openly displayed affection for Bush in the way Gorbachev did for Reagan, but Russia’s relative inaction during Bush’s presidency indicated that Putin respected him.  It seems clear that Putin saw, as a result of Bush’s actions, that Bush was ready and willing to promote U.S. interests and power abroad.  In Obama, Putin sees the inverse.  Putin does not see a partner in Obama.  He does not see an adversary in Obama.  In Obama, Putin sees a tool, a weakling who can be punked at will.  Russia’s military deployment to Syria reinforces that conclusion.

Obama’s insistence on making the world like him the cornerstone of his foreign policy is but one of a multitude of reasons why removing him in November is vital to American interests.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/putin-punks-obama/

Russian politician: Rather have Obama than Romney

Red Square

Despite the highest tensions between the U.S. and Russia in recent decades, a prominent Russian politician has commented that it would be better for Russia if Obama were the next President rather than Mitt Romney.

Alex Pushkov, chairman of the international affairs committee, stated that Obama would be an “acceptable” partner while drawing strong parallels between Romney and the previous Bush administration – red meat for the liberal wing of the Democrat party.

We don’t think that for us Romney will be an easy partner. We think that Romney will be, on the rhetorical side, a replay of the Bush administration.

In a recent media interview Pushkov stated that the “reset”, Obama’s prominent foreign policy accomplishment,  “is stuck, basically. It needs another reset.”

The Russians have recently started facing off with the United States on almost every single foreign policy decision – Iran and Syria being the most visible.

Obama has ceded to the recently hardening lines from Russian leadership on almost every front. From missile defense in Poland to Russian attack helicopters for Syria. In a recent meeting, Obama was even criticized at home for having made his weak foreign policy position public over an open microphone as he begged the outgoing Russian President for flexibility from Putin during this election season.

As Russia and the U.S. have taken opposite sides of so many issues lately, it makes sense that the former communist nation would prefer to deal with a weak and begging leader rather than someone that may well take a harder line.

Fundraise and Fore! obama’s Answer to World Events

Israel issued warnings over security problems with Egypt. Militants from the Sinai Peninsula crossed over into southern Israel Monday and fired on a border security fence, killing one Israeli. The IDF moved tanks and other armed forces to the Israel-Egypt border in response to the attack. Egypt is on the offensive against Israel.

Egypt’s presidential election results lean towards victory for Mohammed Morsi, the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood candidate. Thanks at least in part to vocal White House support for the “Arab Spring”, which ushered the Muslim Brotherhood to Egypt’s presidency, Egypt is now likely to be more inclined towards acting offensively towards Israel.

Russia’s General Staff announced Russian Black Sea fleet warships may head for Syria, saying: “The Mediterranean Sea is a zone of the Black Sea Fleet responsibility. Hence, warships may go there in the case it is necessary to protect the Russian logistics base in Tartous, Syria”. Several warships, including large landing ships are ready for deployment. Russia supports Syria, an active agent for radical Ismanists in Iran, who also just happen to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Russia exerts new influence in the Middle East while Russia’s President Vladimir Putin plays the White House like a fiddle.

The Euro survived over the weekend after a close call in Greek elections. Early market euphoria on Monday diminished when persistent uncertainty over the situation in Spain, Italy and other eurozone countries resurfaced. Despite Greece’s election result easing fears that the single currency will disintegrate, indications that Greece will run out of money in mid-July stalled initial market optimism. Multiple countries in Europe are now in economic decline after decades of following Socialist policies.

In France, Socialist President Francois Hollande was given a mandate to follow through with his tax-and-spend agenda when France’s Socialists won control of parliament on Sunday. Hollande now has the majority he needs to combat France’s debt crisis by following the very formula that created a debt crisis in France, Greece, Spain, Italy and the rest of the eurozone.

Meanwhile, in an address to the UN sustainability conference in Rio, Great Britain’s Prince Charles issued warnings about climate change. In a pre-recorded speech the Prince declared: “Catastrophic consequences of carrying on with ‘business-as-usual’ are bearing down on us faster than we think, already dragging many millions more people into poverty and dangerously weakening global food, water and energy security for the future”. The Prince then went on to say: “We do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term.” So, which is it? Either “we do not have nearly enough knowledge on which to base the decisions that will be the best for the long term” or we know enough to say “many millions more people” have to worry about poverty, food, water and energy security. You can’t have it both ways, “your majesty”.

In America, Al Gore cashed in on the hysteria he and his fellow climate change propagandists created when New York city Comptroller John Liu OK’d a $16.56 million contract with Generation Investment Management, the former vice president’s environmentally friendly investment firm. Generation Investment Management will help manage New York City pension funds to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Given the track record of green energy capital investments, New York City pension funds are going to be another candidate for a taxpayer funded federal bailout. As with any investment management company, Generation Investment Management will earn their fees no matter what happens to the funds they invest. Apparently it pays to be a global warming alarmist. Perhaps Prince Charles fears the British Monarchy faces pending austerity measures and is just trying to get on the global warming gravy train.

Over the past three and a half years while current world events were taking shape, the White House has been spending money it does not have ala Socialist Europe. All the while enacting another big government socialist “entitlement” program to “nudge” Americans towards European style government dependency.

They championed bureaucratic violations of the free exercise of religion, using the presidential bully pulpit and complicit media lapdogs to convince uninformed voters that it was really a Republican attack on women’s healthcare.

Drones and unmanned airplanes began spying on private property in America’s heartland to ensure American Citizens are complicit with stifling new draconian EPA regulations. An EPA that is now attempting to redefine ditches as bodies of water in order to grant itself additional regulatory power.

Exceeding the Oval Office’s Constitutional and statutory authority to give work visas to a hand picked group of illegal aliens was deemed more important than creating a business friendly, jobs creating economic environment for American Citizens and legal immigrants.

This coming from an administration that pledged in 2008 that it would cut the federal deficit in half by the end of its first term. Instead, the size of the federal government, federal spending and the deficit are all at record high levels. The U.S. national debt has increased by over $5 trillion in less than four years, and after surviving WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the economic disaster that was Jimmy Carter’s presidency and the global financial crash of 2008, the United States of America’s credit rating has been downgraded.

Insinuating his name into the online biographies of former Presidents and releasing a photo-montage of himself in his “private moments” became priorities, as did attending a record number of fund raising events and playing 100 rounds (and counting) of golf. Never mind that David Axelrod, his 2012 re-election campaign chief, called former President George W. Bush “out of touch” for playing golf while the country struggled with a bad economy.

That’s what his deep-pocketed out of touch with reality millionaire and billionaire Hollywood elite friends expect from their “cool” friend in the White House. To be truly “cool”, one must be seen as being above it all.

America and the world will be better off once the current Chief Executive of the United States begins spending his days playing golf full time as a former government employee.

God Save the Queen.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/fundraise-and-fore-obamas-answer-to-world-events/

Obama’s foreign policy shares fate of North Korea’s rocket launch

capt_photo_1246899797111-1-0-300x200

On Thursday, North Korea’s launch of its Unha-3 rocket – purported to have an orbital satellite as a payload – broke apart shortly after launch and fell into the ocean – along with the current administration’s foreign policy approach.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had said on Thursday that a launch by North Korea would violate the agreement made between the United States and North Korea. The earlier agreement had promised food and medical supplies for the starving masses as long as several conditions were met – one of which was a missile testing moratorium.

In another sternly-worded statement, Clinton said:

If Pyongyang goes forward, we will all be back in the Security Council to take further action.  And it is regrettable because, as you know, we had worked through an agreement that would have benefited the North Korean people with the provision of food aid. But in the current atmosphere, we would not be able to go forward with that, and other actions that other countries had been considering would also be on hold.

The United Nations is the sole remedy from the Obama administration. As proved by North Korea’s actions, Iran’s continued defiance of U.N. mandates and the ongoing violence in Syria, it is a failed approach that relies on a defunct, but expensive, organization.

Obama has also recently expressed his willingness to sell-out American defense interests as he told Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Obama would have much more flexibility on missile defense once he gets re-elected. There had also been confusion over just what the Obama administration had negotiated away last January in the START treaty with Russia. While Russia said that the treaty prevented America from deploying missile defenses, American counter-parts disagreed.

President Obama’s speak softly and carry nothing policy will likely lead to both Iran and North Korea having an inter-continental ballistic missile capability and the United States having no missile defenses to protect herself. This is not simply a failure in foreign policy, but now in national defense.

President Obama's Treacherous Deals with the Russians

President Obama gave a hot mic supplication to departing Russian president Dmitry Medvedev that Putin should give him more “space” and “flexibility” on such national security issues as Anti-Ballistic Missile defense. According to Obama, this will be his “last election,” after all.

Of course, any mention of this eye-popping exchange outside the credentialed press will be spun by Pravda West as mere blog fodder for de-contextualized right-wing hysterics. Well, comrades, let’s at least make sure our hysterics are properly contextualized, shall we?

The exposed convo between the two outgoing presidents runs as follows and was originally reported by Jake Tapper of ABCNews:

President Obama: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.”

President Medvedev: “Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…”

President Obama: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

President Medvedev: “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you.”

The exchange runs more like a series of Twitter replies between BFFs than a serious high-ranking discussion on national security. It’s time we start rummaging through Barack Obama’s closet to see what kind of Russian connections we can find.

Alright, a boatload of Матрёшкu, some empty Stoli bottles, and a Russian mail order bride catalogue… hmm. Okay, here’s the good stuff:

  • After unsurprisingly attractive female Russian spy Anna Chapman is captured by American counter-intelligence, the Obama administration releases her spy ring in exchange for… a carton of black market Pall Malls? No, but close. The Russkies’ release of four accused spies… who aren’t even Americans.  No blabbing about a suspected mole in the NSA, no blue prints revealing Russia’s ABM countermeasures, only a foxy photo spread in Russian Maxim in exchange! Men, I think we got the better end of that bargain, don’tcha think? Meoww!
  • Russian President Medvedev engaged in drunken saber-rattling with the demand that America remove Theater Wide Defense from Europe. This was despite the Obama administration’s supine proposals to “cooperate” with the Russians on certain aspects of missile defense. Yes, and maybe swimmers in the South Atlantic should cooperate with sharks over the issue of what’s for dinner?
  • The most belligerent Noble Peace Prize winner in world history has pledged to work towards a world without nuclear weapons. No, seriously. Obama proposed a good faith sacrifice in this quixotic crusade to make a unilateral cut of our nuclear weapons by up to 80%. This would put our stores below even Chinese levels, let alone Russian stockpiles. Who else is for a “flexible” second term? Hands, anyone?
  • The president conceded disputed oil-rich territory in the North Pacific and the Arctic to the Russians. According to bilateral treaties with the Russians going back to 1867, the United States had developed a claim to islands off the coast of Alaska. One is tempted to dub this “Obama’s Folly,” but it is hard to imagine any unforeseen upside in the deal. Unless Russia secretly conceded to allow Obama free reign on the world’s algae supplies.
  • Russian billionaire Alexei Mordashov, ranked in the top 50 on Forbes’ wealthiest people in the world at around $19 billion net worth, applied to the Department of Energy for a green subsidy to assist with Government Motors manufacturing. According to Investors Business Daily, Mordashov was given a $773 million loan to produce special high-quality steel, already available in ample supply, for the disastrously unmarketable Chevy Volt.
  • Despite Russia’s arming of Syrian dictator Bashir Assad, who has bloodily repressed a domestic uprising, the administration has remained remarkably quiet. The same might be said of the Russians’ assistance of the Iranian nuclear weapons energy program at Bushehr. In fact, the Russians’ human rights violations and jeopardizing of international security might be the only matters this garrulous president will keep quiet about.

The dirty laundry list could go on, but the sane have already come to the conclusion that something is amiss in the Oval Office. After all, if you had taken a vodka shot for every time the president double-crossed America, you’d be drunker than a Russian sailor on payday.

If it turns out that the Wikileaker was right that the Russians got the best president money could buy, one could hardly color a prescient observer with a surprised face. Obama has been more supine than a Romanian gymnast while bending over backwards for ‘Vlady Daddy’ (“he likes to pahty, he don’t start trouble, he don’t botha nobody”).

The problem with the president having a man-crush on Putin is you can take the man out of the KGB, but you can’t take the KGB out of the man. And as far as the Kremlin is concerned, it is sure starting to look a lot like Obama is “our man in Washington.”

You can call this crazy, but the proper response is that the things our president is doing are crazy.

Kyle Becker blogs at RogueGovernment, and can be followed on Twitter as @RogueOperator1. He writes freelance for several publications, including American Thinker and OwntheNarrative and is a regular commentator on the late night talk show TB-TV.

Putin Wins, Unrest On Russian Horizon?

.

Vladimir Putin will once again serve in the Kremlin as President of Russia, raking in an estimated 62% of the vote one day ago.  The closest competitor in the race was communist Gennady Zyuganov, bringing home around 17% of the votes.

Mr. Putin will enter his 3rd term (6 year term) .  He is returning after a 4 year gap where he served as prime minister under Dmitry Medvedev: who will now become Prime Minister.

However all is not well in the Russian Federation as opposition leaders have said that the result was marred by ballot-rigging and bribery.

The U.K. Daily Mail is reporting that Mikhail Kasyanov, Mr Putin’s former prime minister and now an opposition activist, said: ‘These elections are not free, that’s why we will have protests tomorrow. We will not recognise the president as legitimate.’

Even the last leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, has unkind words about Putin, saying, “These are not going to be honest elections, but we must not relent.  Honest elections should be our constant motto for years to come.”

 

Clinton's State Department to discredit Russian elections?

NEW YORK, January 31, 2012 — Anthony T. Salvia, Director of the American Institute in Ukraine, and consultant in international public advocacy and governmental affairs, has said that Vladimir Putin is still the most popular politician in Russia.

He said: “If the Russian presidential election were held next week, Prime Minster Vladimir Putin would likely win with 52-58% of the popular vote-some 20 points fewer than the result he achieved in 2004, but still representing broad popular support in line with Western standards of electoral success. If his position were to slip between then and March 4th, and he were to receive less than 50% of the vote, he would find himself in a run-off, most likely with Communist party leader Gennady Zyuganov, over whom he would certainly prevail.

“So says Valery Fyodorov, general director of VTsIOM, one of Russia’s leading public opinion research organizations. He recently presented detailed polling results to an international conference organized by the Mitteleuropa Initiative in Vienna.

“He said a greater danger for Putin than Zyuganov would be the inevitable efforts of opposition forces to de-legitimize his election-which they will do even if the process is conducted freely and fairly.

“US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton provoked Moscow’s ire when she labeled the Russian State Duma elections of last December 4th “neither free nor fair,” demanding that each and every instance of fraud be investigated.

“Fyodorov contradicted this narrative. He told your correspondent that while vote fraud certainly did take place, it did not do so on such a scale as to alter the results, which corresponded broadly to exit and pre-election polling nationwide. Nevertheless, the opposition-i.e., the disaffected members of the urban middle class, the liberal intelligentsia, Communists and Russian nationalists who took to the streets to protest electoral chicanery- as well as much of the Western media and some leading Western politicians, have sought to de-legitimize the Duma elections, and, thereby, the Russian government.

“More of the same can be expected in the aftermath of the presidential vote on March 4th.

“Some opposition forces will surely seek to portray any decline in Putin’s percentage of the vote since the last time he ran (certain to happen), a lower rate of voter participation (as those who feel there is no acceptable alternative to Putin stay home), and an upsurge in support for the parties of the left, including the Communist Party (likely in view of their strong showing in the State Duma elections of last December, although as of this writing, Putin is rising in the polls) as popular disavowal of Putin. For good measure, they will allege voter fraud-whether or not it took place-in an effort to discredit and de-legitimize Putin and the Russian system generally.

“Secretary Clinton and her merry band of humanitarian interventionists at Foggy Bottom will be only too happy to egg them on. They will be aided and abetted by the Republican foreign policy establishment, which shares Mrs. Clinton’s antipathy to Putin-not because, in their view, he is not a democrat (they could not care less about that), but because he dares to resist Washington’s efforts to turn Russia into a nominally independent satellite by standing up for Russia’s legitimate national interests.”

Russian Customs Seize Radioactive Metal Bound For Iran

Fox News reports that Russian Federal Customs agents have seized 18 pieces of radioactive metal bound for Iran. Friday, at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport, authorities were alerted when radiation alarms were set off showing levels at 20 times higher than normal. News agency Interfax says the metal pieces contained a radioactive isotope known as Sodium-22. The kind that can only be produced at a nuclear reactor. The customs agency said they have launched an investigation into the incident.

This incident comes after the Senate voted yesterday approving tough sanctions on Iran because of it’s nuclear program. Plus, the U.S. and Iran’s already heightened tensions were escalated by the recent crash of an Air Force drone in Iran. It has prompted Iranian officials to demand an apology from the U.S. for the “hostile act”.

Iran Actually Hacked America's RQ-170 Spy Drone

This is looking bad, folks.  Reports initially said that Iran had shot down one of  America’s RQ-170 spy drones (the type of drone that was used to provide real-time data during the Osama Bin Laden raid).  And to be honest with you, that’s what we wish would have happened.  Instead, it looks like Iran actually hacked the drone and commanded it to land on one of their air strips.  Here’s video of the drone (that is clearly NOT shot down and damaged).

Below is an excerpt from BBC.co.uk

US officials have acknowledged the loss of the unmanned plane, saying it had malfunctioned.

However, Iranian officials say its forces electronically hijacked the drone and steered it to the ground.

BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the intact condition of the Sentinel tends to support their claim.

Iran’s Press TV said that the Iranian army’s “electronic warfare unit” brought down the drone on 4 December as it was flying over the city of Kashmar, about 140 miles (225km) from the Afghan border.

So, this is bad no matter how you slice it.  One has to wonder, however, did Iran gain the capability to bring down one of the most sophisticated pieces of technology in the world.  You would almost think they had help…..

« Older Entries Recent Entries »