US sends China and Russia horrifying warning by blasting target with 'futuristic laser'

Jacob Paul The laser beam test was fired from USS Portland and destroyed its practice target in the Gulf of Ade, which is between East Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. The weapon could be a "game-changer" in conflicts at sea, according to US officials. This laser test also comes after the weapon was first tested at sea in May last year, when the USS Portland used it to take out a flying drone. And is the most recent laser test, the Navy said its "Laser Weapon System" had "successfully engaged" the target, which was this time floating in the sea. But lasers are no new phenomenon for the US Navy. In fact, they have been working on these kinds of weapons since way back in the Cold War. But now, as tension heats up in the South China Sea, American officials warned that these weapons could be used in a potential war against China. This would mean that US ships would not have to waste time reloading their guns and missiles if the Chinese launch an attack.And the lasers could be used to provide cover while US ships launch attack missiles. The commanding officer of the USS Portland has said that the laser weapon is "redefining war at sea for the Navy". It could be used against drone boats carrying explosives and deployed by Yemen's Houthi rebels in the Red Sea, US officials have said. In 2018 a Congressional report called what are known as "directed energy" weapons, such as lasers, "game-changer". The report said that these lasers are "regarded as a 'game changer' for defending Navy surface ships against enemy missiles". The report also made clear that there has been "substantial progress toward deploying high-energy solid-state lasers on ships". It read: "Navy surface ships would use high-energy solid-state lasers initially for countering small boats, UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] and potentially in the future for countering ASCMs [anti-ship cruise missiles] and ASBMs [anti-ship ballistic missiles]. "They would be short-range defensive weapons. They would counter targets at ranges of about one mile to perhaps eventually a few miles." This comes as tension with China has nearly reached boiling point. It comes as China's military presence in the South China Sea has put increasing pressure on Taiwan, which China claims it owns. READ MORE: Covid horror as ANOTHER new variant discovered in France But the US, who back Taiwan, which wants independence, has warned that if China invades it will be prepared to step in. Henry Boyd, a Britain-based defence analyst with the International Institute for Strategic Studies said: "The need to stand up to China is a strong enough motivating factor that not taking this fight would also be seen as a betrayal of American national interests." And on the Russia-Ukraine border, the US has become increasingly concerned about the build-up of around 100,000 Russian troops sent there by Vladimir Putin. DON'T MISS EU supply chain crisis as HGV drivers protest green taxes [REPORT] Mystery illness sweeps through South Sudan as 89 dead [REVEAL] Einstein's theory rewritten to solve universe's greatest mystery [INSIGHT] President Joe Biden has urged Mr Putin not to launch an invasion of Ukraine. While Mr Biden has said that sending U.S. ground combat troops to Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion was "never on the table", he did say that Russia will pay "a terrible price".

The Disaster at Our Southern Border

August 2021 • Volume 50, Number 8 • Mark Morgan Mark Morgan Former Acting Commissioner, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Mark Morgan is a visiting fellow at the Federation for American Immigration Reform and at the Heritage Foundation. He served as acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Trump administration and as chief of U.S. Border Patrol in the Obama administration. A Marine veteran and a former officer in the LAPD, he served for over 20 years in the FBI, including as the assistant section chief of the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime Branch; deputy on-scene commander in Baghdad, Iraq; special agent in charge of the El Paso Division; and assistant director in charge of the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia. He has a B.S. in engineering from Central Missouri State University and a J.D. from the University of Missouri, Kansas City. FacebookTwitterLinkedInPrintEmail Download Issue The following is adapted from a speech delivered on July 22, 2021, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation Lecture Series. In just a few short months, the Biden administration has created a disaster on the southern border of the United States. It did so by methodically—and by all indications intentionally—undoing every meaningful border security measure that had been in place. As a result, we have had five straight months of over 170,000 illegal immigrants apprehended at the border. The number in June was the highest in over 20 years. And Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been effectively shut down. Our national discussion of border security is generally misleading, and it is designed to be misleading by those who favor open borders. They frame the issue as if the American people face a binary choice: either let all immigrants in because they are “looking for a better life” or close our borders completely and inhumanely. But this is a false choice. The unspoken alternative is to enforce the law, taking in immigrants who enter the U.S. legally while securing our borders against those who attempt to enter illegally—particularly those meaning to do us harm. Illegal immigration is, of course, nothing new. It has been a problem in our country for many decades. What is relatively new is the total lack of concern we see in the Biden administration, especially in terms of the national security aspect of border control. Unbelievable as it may seem to us today, it was only 15 years ago—with the 9/11 terrorist attacks still fresh in our minds—when Congress came together in a bipartisan effort to pass the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The Secure Fence Act directed the Department of Homeland Security to take appropriate actions to achieve “operational control” over U.S. land and maritime borders to “prevent unlawful entry.” It defined operational control as the prevention of all unlawful entries into the U.S., including terrorists, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband. And it specifically set the goal of “provid[ing] at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors.” It added thousands of Border Patrol personnel, mandated the acquisition of new technologies, and resulted in the construction of more than 650 miles of physical barrier along the southern border of the U.S. between 2006 and 2011. To repeat, this legislation was passed in a bipartisan spirit, with 80 members of the U.S. Senate voting to approve it. This included Senator Barack Obama, who said in 2005: “We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.” It included Senator Chuck Schumer, who said in 2009: “Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple. . . . People who enter the United States without permission are illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the same as people who enter the U.S. legally.” And it included Senator Joe Biden, who said in 2006: “Let me tell you something, folks, people are driving across that border with tons, tons—hear me, tons—of everything from byproducts from methamphetamine to cocaine to heroin, and it’s all coming up through corrupt Mexico.” Some attribute the breakdown of the bipartisan consensus on securing the border to the fact that Democrats came to look on illegal immigrants as much-needed Democrat voters. For whatever reason, a decade later these same Democratic leaders were lambasting President Trump’s border wall policy as “immoral and ineffective,” even “racist,” and fiercely opposing any and every serious proposal aimed at enforcing immigration law. *** When I say that the Biden administration methodically undid every meaningful border security policy that it inherited, what specifically do I mean? I’ve mentioned the border wall. And it is a demonstrable fact that border walls, placed in strategic locations, act as effective impediments and improve the ability of law enforcement to drive and dictate the behavior of criminal organizations rather than being driven and dictated to themselves. One of the most ridiculous criticisms I’ve heard is that the wall is “a fourteenth century solution for a twenty-first century problem.” The same could be said of the wheel, which also still works pretty well. In any case, the first bullet point of President Biden’s budget for the Department of Homeland Security this year trumpets the fact that not a cent will go towards the construction of border walls. Yet despite the amount of intense debate the border wall engendered, it was not the only or even the most important border security measure instituted under the Trump administration. Let me outline two other key game changers. Prior to Trump’s presidency, a combination of three things had the effect of forcing the Department of Homeland Security to institute a “catch and release” policy for illegal immigrants: the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which mandated that the U.S. detain all unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries (countries other than Mexico and Canada); Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, an executive policy adopted in 2012 to allow some of the migrants brought into the country illegally as children to receive a renewable deferred action from deportation; and the Flores Settlement Agreement, a 1997 court decree that was reinterpreted in 2015 to prevent the U.S. from detaining migrant families and unaccompanied minors for more than 20 days. In addition to catch and release, these things combined to bring about a demographic shift in illegal immigration that was immediately exploited by smuggling organizations—a shift from the influx of predominantly single adult males from Mexico to an explosive influx of families and unaccompanied minors from far and wide, and particularly from Central America. By 2016, the message had been sent and received that America’s southern border was wide open. In response to this, the Trump administration negotiated the Migrant Protection Protocol, a bilateral agreement with Mexico more commonly known as the Remain in Mexico Program. Under this agreement, people illegally entering or being smuggled into the U.S. with a minor would no longer be able to stay simply by asking for asylum. It was chiefly this Remain in Mexico Program that ended catch and release, removing the greatest incentive for people to try to enter the U.S. illegally. Prior to the full implementation of the Remain in Mexico Program—at the height of the 2019 border crisis when Department of Homeland Security facilities were overwhelmed—the Flores Settlement Agreement had forced Border Patrol to release illegal alien families, often just hours after they were apprehended. In May of that year, Customs and Border Protection were apprehending over 5,000 illegals per day. After full implementation of Remain in Mexico, illegals who applied for asylum were returned to Mexico to await their hearings. This resulted in a dramatic reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants, especially of families and unaccompanied minors. By February 2020, we had seen a 75 percent reduction in families attempting to enter illegally. Many chose to return home—either on their own or with the assistance of the Mexican government—since catch and release was no longer in effect. It was a big victory for the rule of law. The current out-of-control surge at the border stems chiefly from the fact that the Biden administration acted quickly to halt the Remain in Mexico Program and return to catch and release. In response to a lawsuit brought by the Texas Attorney General, a federal judge has recently ruled that Remain in Mexico must be reinstated, and the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to overturn that ruling. How this will play out remains to be seen. Another game-changing development under the Trump administration was a series of Asylum Cooperative Agreements made between the U.S. and the Central American countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. These Asylum Cooperative Agreements codified accepted international practices governing asylum seekers, which encourage migrants to seek relief from the first safe country able to assist them. Migrants from these countries seeking asylum in the U.S. were traversing thousands of miles, across multiple countries, and our policies were encouraging that. The Agreements not only encouraged migrants to obtain immediate assistance closer to home, they also served as a deterrent to those with fraudulent claims. Less than three weeks after President Biden took office, Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced that “in line with the President’s vision” the U.S. had suspended, and was in the process of terminating, the Asylum Cooperative Agreements with Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. In the same announcement, Blinken said that the new U.S. approach to the problem of migration from these countries would be to address the “root causes” of that migration—especially economic underdevelopment and poverty, although, oddly enough, climate change has been mentioned as a root cause as well. We are hearing more and more subsequently about root causes—especially from Vice President Harris, who President Biden charged with developing a “Root Causes Strategy.” But what we are hearing is bunk. The fact is that when the U.S. opens its borders—which is what it amounts to when we return to a catch and release policy—illegal immigrants flock to the U.S. That’s the root cause of the crisis on our southern border. Compare the numbers in April of last year to those of this April: there was a 900 percent increase in illegal immigration. The economic conditions in Central America didn’t markedly change during that period. The climate didn’t markedly change. Our policies changed! That’s the root cause. There is a second important point to make in this regard. The basic legal premise of asylum is that the migrant must have a valid claim to be the victim of persecution in his or her home country due to race, religion, nationality, political affiliation, or membership in a protected class. Under current law, a desire to improve one’s economic status is not a valid asylum claim. If it were, the overwhelming majority of people in the world would have a valid claim to seek asylum here. Open borders advocates, including those in the Biden administration who harp on root causes, cultivate the myth that a desire for economic betterment is a valid reason by itself to seek asylum. That would require a radical change in U.S. law that I don’t think the American people would accept. *** The incoming Biden team received exhaustive briefings on the situation at the border and was warned about the consequences of undoing the security policies they inherited. They were told clearly that Border Patrol stations didn’t have adequate capacity to handle the surge of illegal immigrants that would follow a reversal of policy; they were told clearly that the Department of Health and Human Services did not have the detention capacity to handle it. They were told that smuggling organizations and other criminal groups would exploit a return to catch and release. Despite this, they rushed to dismantle the entire system. And with the results becoming evident to the public, they resorted to deception. I’ve served in federal law enforcement in various capacities for more than 35 years, under six different administrations. And while I’ve become numb to the spin and misdirection that is commonplace in Washington, I have never seen as blatant a disinformation campaign as this one. Initially, this campaign involved outright denial: “Our message has been straightforward—the border is closed,” said Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on March 21, in the midst of a surge across the border of families and unaccompanied minors. There was also deflection: Mayorkas blamed the surge on the Trump administration, which he claimed had “torn down” the “entire [immigration] system” that had been in place. This took a lot of gall, given that the surge was so obviously a direct response to the termination of Trump’s Remain in Mexico Program and Asylum Cooperative Agreements and the revival of catch and release. We were also treated to a fictitious narrative according to which the surge was the reflection of seasonal trends. A “significant increase” in migration “happens every year” in the winter months, President Biden claimed at his first presidential press conference, since that is when migrants “can travel with the least likelihood of dying on the way.” The problem is that this year’s winter numbers dwarfed those of 2020—not to mention the fact that the surge has continued unabated into the spring and summer. The June apprehension number exceeded 180,000, and in July it exceeded 210,000. Year-to-date apprehensions are over one million, including more than 100,000 unaccompanied minors—a 444 percent year-to-year increase. At the point when the administration could no longer deny the dangerously overcrowded conditions at Border Patrol facilities, some operating at more than 400 percent capacity, it adopted a shell game strategy, first moving migrants into newly-constructed facilities and then surreptitiously flying families and unaccompanied minors to cities throughout the U.S. The point of this ongoing shell game is not to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into our country, but to improve the political “optics” of the crisis. *** Make no mistake, criminal organizations—which are adept at exploiting weak and ambiguous U.S. immigration policies—are paying close attention to what’s happening and will adapt their tactics and procedures accordingly. The commonsense reality is that by incentivizing and facilitating illegal immigration, the Biden administration is making it easier for drugs to pour into the U.S., for human trafficking to expand, and for criminal aliens to infiltrate our society. Simply consider that between 40 and 50 percent of Border Patrol and other Customs and Border Protection enforcement resources have been pulled off the front lines to provide humanitarian aid, leaving large areas of the border unmonitored and unsecured. It is estimated that the number of “got aways”—not the illegal immigrants being relocated around the country, but those who have successfully entered undetected—already surpasses 260,000, more than the population of the city of Arlington, Virginia. And we can safely assume that not all of them are good upstanding people. In the past decade, the Border Patrol has apprehended tens of thousands of criminal aliens and gang members. It is estimated that just this year, the Border Patrol has apprehended 8,000 criminal aliens—including 46 murderers, 393 sex offenders, and 880 assailants. Over the July 4 weekend, it apprehended several members of MS-13, the most violent transnational gang operating in the U.S. It also recently apprehended two Yemeni nationals who were listed on the U.S. Terrorist Screening Database. In 2020, ICE made more than 100,000 arrests, with 90 percent of those arrested having a criminal conviction or pending criminal charges. In addition to utilizing illegal immigration as a distraction technique, smuggling organizations often force migrants to carry drugs across the border as a means of payment. And they use their profits from human smuggling activities to finance increasingly more sophisticated drug smuggling techniques that involve tunnels, drones, ultra-light aircraft, and maritime operations. So far this year, Customs and Border Protection assets have participated in the seizure of more than 600,000 pounds of drugs. Fentanyl seizures have skyrocketed in 2021, with more than 6,000 pounds being seized by Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection—a 300 percent increase over this time last year. Let me end by saying something about what is bureaucratically called the 287(g) program—it is called that because it was established in Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1996. This is the program that makes it possible for local law enforcement to work with ICE in removing illegal criminal aliens. A majority of Americans oppose the idea of so-called sanctuary cities, which are disastrous in terms of public safety. What they might not realize is that every city is now threatened with becoming a sanctuary city. Why? Because the Biden administration has effectively shut down ICE. So today, for instance, a sheriff’s department can arrest a known gang member who is in the U.S. illegally for a non-violent felony such as burglary or drunk driving. But if that sheriff calls ICE, he will be told that is not a priority and that he should release the criminal gang member back into the community. Thomas Feeley—until recently the director of ICE in New York State—resigned from ICE out of frustration that the Biden administration is, in his words, “doing everything [it] can to cripple [enforcement and removal operations].” In an interview following his resignation, Feeley related an incident where he was told to release an illegal immigrant who was a convicted arsonist. The rationale for releasing the illegal was that he hadn’t been arrested in the past ten years. He hadn’t been arrested, Feeley pointed out, because he had been in prison during that period. But that didn’t matter. He was released into the community anyway. *** In conclusion, it is simply common sense to view border security as national security. If you make this point today, you risk being called a racist or worse. But it needs to be said over and over until we fight our way back to the point where we have a bipartisan consensus that immigration laws should be enforced. This is not going to be easy. Even as the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, I had my official government Twitter account blocked prior to the 2020 election for posting a photograph of the border wall and explaining that it is an integral part of effective border security. The powers-that-be eventually reversed this decision, but it is an indication of what the American people—who overwhelmingly support border security—are up against. What we need is widespread active public involvement. Illegal immigration, border security, the erosion of the rule of law, and the loss of our nation’s sovereignty are interconnected, and should be debated as important issues in local and state politics as well as national. When I was the chief of U.S. Border Patrol in the Obama administration, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson told us that 1,000 illegal immigrants a day is a bad day. Today that number is approaching 7,000, and nothing is being done about it. This can’t be allowed to continue. A country that cannot control its borders is not a country, and I’m sad to say that we are facing that eventuality.

A Few Thousand Javelins Could Seriously Impact/Sink Putin’s Invasion Plans! (The article suggests there are only a few available, however, I believe there are several 1000 available in the theater)

Could Javelin Missiles Tip a War With Russia in Ukraine’s Favor? The FGM-148 Javelin is a great anti-tank missile, but there may be too few of them. BY KYLE MIZOKAMI DEC 10, 2021 ukrainian servicemen are seen holding javelin antitankSOPA IMAGESGETTY IMAGES A major weapon in Ukraine’s arsenal is the American-made Javelin missile. Javelin was designed to destroy Russian tanks, and is by all accounts an excellent weapon. Ukraine has far too few Javelins for the weapon to make a difference on the battlefield. The American-made Javelin anti-tank missile has recently appeared in the news as one possible way Ukraine might defend itself from a Russian ground assault. Although the missiles are highly effective against the kinds of main battle tanks fielded by the Russian Ground Forces, Ukraine has purchased too few to make much of an impact on the battlefield. The missiles, and their launch teams, would also be vulnerable to Russia’s battlefield specialty: artillery. MORE ON RUSSIA AND UKRAINE Is Russia Planning a January Invasion of Ukraine? How the U.S. Military Could Intervene in Ukraine The FGM-148 Javelin anti-tank missile was introduced in the 1990s as a replacement for the M-47 Dragon in U.S. Army and Marine Corps service. The Javelin was a significant upgrade over the Dragon, featuring twice the range, an improved warhead, shorter time to target, and the ability to climb sharply and then strike a tank from above, punching through the thin overhead armor. MORE FROM POPULAR MECHANICS The UH-60 Black Hawk Play Video Importantly for the missile crews, Javelin is an infra-red guided “fire and forget” weapon, meaning the gunner can locate a tank, lock onto a target, fire, and then run away to safety. Javelin is in use with armies worldwide, including Australia, France, Norway, Taiwan, and Ukraine. president poroshenko visits testing grounds as ukrainian military test javelin missile systems US-supplied Javelin anti-tank missile systems are tested by Ukrainian military at undisclosed testing grounds. MIKHAIL PALINCHAKGETTY IMAGES The U.S. has sold Ukraine Javelin missiles twice. The first sale in 2018 was for 210 missiles and 37 command launch units (CLUs), for an estimated cost of $47 million. A second sale involved 10 additional CLUs and 150 missiles. “Ukraine’s twenty-eight combat battalions would need about 450 antitank weapons, based on U.S. practice,” Mark Cancian, a retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel and analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Popular Mechanics. “(Ukraine) could likely use a lot more anti-tank weapons. During the Cold War, the U.S. strategy to offset the large numbers of Soviet tanks was to proliferate anti-tank weapons on the battlefield.” In other words, Ukraine has only enough Javelins to equip three of twenty-eight battalions, though Cancian said that it does have stocks of older anti-tank missiles from the Cold War era. Ukraine’s army also has an unknown number of locally produced Skif laser-guided anti-tank missiles. Furthermore, three battalions are only enough troops to cover about seven miles of front line—while Ukraine’s border with Russia is 1,400 miles long. Russian intelligence could merely identify Ukrainian units outfitted with Javelins and then have tank and mechanized infantry forces skirt around them. russian army holds artillery training exercise in kemerovo region 2A65 Msta-B towed howitzers fire during a military exercise by an artillery unit of Russian Armed Force’s Central Military District at Yurginsky military training ground, August 2021. KIRILL KUKHMARGETTY IMAGES Or it could pound them into oblivion. Another problem with the Javelin is that launch teams are susceptible to artillery fire—a Russian specialty. Javelins are typically carried on foot by infantry or mounted in light armored vehicles, modes of transport that lack the heavy armor protection of tanks. In July 2014, a Russian artillery strike on Ukrainian forces at Zelenopillya, preceded by reconnaissance drones and cyberattacks, resulted in, “thirty Ukrainian soldiers dead, hundreds more wounded, and over two battalions’ worth of combat vehicles destroyed.” RELATED STORY Watch the Army's Javelin Anti-Tank Missile Blow St In the event of a major attack by the Russian Ground Forces, “made in the USA” Javelin missiles would likely only have a secondary role. It’s a great missile, but in current numbers is just not a threat to Russia’s armored spearheads. The real threat to an invasion force are the thousands of other, more local missiles, old and new, in Ukraine’s arsenal. KYLE MIZOKAMI Writer on Defense and Security issues, lives in San Francisco.

If Russia Strikes Ukraine, Here's How the Pentagon Could Bring the Heat!

This could be the U.S. military's playbook for a war in Eastern Europe. BY KYLE MIZOKAMI DEC 8, 2021 russian army t72 b3m tanks are seen during the annual armySOPA IMAGESGETTY IMAGES U.S. intelligence officials now believe that Russia's military buildup on its border with Ukraine is a prelude to attack. While an attack is not certain, the stockpiling of forces would allow Moscow to stage a limited invasion of its rival. The Pentagon has a range of options to deal with a potential conflict, from sending Ukraine intelligence data, to deploying U.S. troops to Eastern Europe. Following a virtual summit on Tuesday between U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Washington believes that the Kremlin is preparing to attack its neighbor, Ukraine, and may do so as early as January. The leaders' meeting—which seemed mostly unproductive—centered on Russia's massing of up to 175,000 troops on Ukraine's border, and what the U.S. may (or may not) do about it. Washington has a range of options to deter Moscow, from providing Kiev with key intelligence, to sending troops, aircraft, and ships to Europe. Yet as much as Putin understands the use of force, it may ultimately be the economic sanctions that Biden foreshadowed in their virtual meeting that will prompt Russia to reconsider its bad neighbor policy. If it does come down to a physical conflict—or perhaps even war—the U.S. has a wide range of options to deal with Russia, though. ✅ GET THE FACTS What You Need to Know About a Russia-Ukraine War How Many Russian Troops Have Massed Ukraine? In late November, Bloomberg reported that U.S. intelligence officers had briefed its NATO allies about a Russian massing of ground forces. The buildup, along Russia's border with its neighbor Ukraine, consisted of about 50 battalion tactical groups, or about the equivalent of five divisions of combat troops. Battalion tactical groups (BTGs) are self-contained combat groups consisting of armor, motorized rifle, artillery, and air defense forces capable of independent operations. Intelligence sources believe that the buildup ultimately could consist of about 100 BTGs, or about 175,000 troops. In August, Russian state media reported that the entire Russian Ground Forces fielded "about" 170 BTGs. MORE FROM POPULAR MECHANICS The UH-60 Black Hawk Play Video russia holds amphibious landing exercise The Saratov large landing ship and Mil Mi-8AMTSh helicopters take part in an exercise in amphibious landing, Crimea, October 2021. Ukraine SERGEI MALGAVKOGETTY IMAGES The U.S. and NATO still don't know what Putin truly intends to do with his assembled armies, but during the Tuesday videoconference with President Biden, he said that Russia will not attack. Still, the Kremlin is paranoid about eastward NATO expansion, and wants guarantees that member nations will not deploy weapons near Russia, per the BBC. Those are negotiations that the U.S. and NATO may not be interested in, however. Meanwhile, Putin could be attempting to intimidate Ukraine and its people, hoping they would elect a government more bent on Russian appeasement, if not with a pro-Russian bent. Or, he might be planning limited attacks to seize small tracts of Ukrainian territory. In the worst-case-scenario, Russia might even stage an all-out attack on Ukraine, though Putin seems to understand it would be risky to get himself dragged into an Iraq-style guerrilla war with a country the size of Texas. How Could the U.S. Military Respond to Conflict in Ukraine? rq 4 global hawk The RQ-4 Global Hawk can survey an area the size of Illinois in 24 hours, making it an important surveillance tool in the U.S. arsenal. GETTY IMAGESGETTY IMAGES The first (and arguably most important) tactic is to increase surveillance of Russian forces to figure out what they're up to. The U.S. Army could redeploy RC-12 Guardrail spy aircraft, which typically operate from the Baltic states to monitor Russian communications in and around Kaliningrad (a Russian province between between Poland and Lithuania), to keep watch over the Russian-Ukrainian border. Meanwhile, the Air Force could increase surveillance missions with RQ-4 Global Hawk drones. Those operations typically begin in Sicily and involve the giant 737-sized drones flying eastward over Ukraine and the Black Sea, while looking into Russia itself. Special operations forces might engage on the ground in Ukraine, probing Russian ground forces and collecting information. ➡️ READ THIS NEXT Why the M1A1 Abrams Is Such a Badass Tank If the U.S. detects that Russia is preparing for imminent attack in the coming weeks, there are options that could dissuade it from doing so, all while laying the groundwork for a more forceful response. Activating the U.S. Military Sealift Command fleet—the force that would transport tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and other heavy equipment across the Atlantic—would send a strong signal that the Pentagon is prepared to send ground forces to Europe. (The sealift fleet is also old, and the earlier it's activated, the better.) m2a3 A M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicle with 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, fires a 25-millimeter tracer round during an integrated night live-fire exercise for Winter Shield 2021 at Camp Ādaži, Ādaži, Latvia, November 25, 2021. U.S. ARMY PHOTO BY SPC. MICHAEL BAUMBERGER/DVIDS The Army could also redeploy existing forces in Europe to prepare to counter a Russian buildup. The 1st Armored Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division is in Europe, training with NATO and other European allies, but many of its subunits are widely separated across the continent. Reforming the brigade in eastern Poland would create a potent, on-the- ground intervention force. Other troops that could mass in Poland include the 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany and the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Italy. Activating National Guard combat units—like Mississippi's 30th Armored Brigade Combat Team and the Texas Army National Guard's 36th Infantry Division—would send a signal that the U.S. is preparing for an extended crisis, even disrupting the lives of reservists. This content is imported from {embed-name}. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. Naturally, the Navy would also get in on the action. U.S. aircraft carrier assets are thin right now, with just one carrier operating between the East Coast and the Philippine Sea. The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group departed Norfolk, Virginia on November 30 for a regularly scheduled deployment. Truman and her escorts will likely end up off Europe in the coming weeks, and moving the strike group into the Baltic Sea would enable her strike fighters and Tomahawk cruise missiles to threaten Russian forces massing against northern Ukraine. Another option is to send one or more Ohio-class guided-missile submarines to Europe, making visible appearances in local ports. Each is equipped with up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles. b 1b craft Originally designed as a low-altitude penetrator, the B-1B is now capable of attacking up to two dozen targets from as far as 575 miles away. ETHAN MILLERGETTY IMAGES The Air Force, with its stealth fighters and long-range cruise missiles, might well be the most decisive arm. Fighters and bombers, including F-22 Raptors, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, and F-15E Strike Eagles could cross the Atlantic and touch down at bases in NATO countries such as Poland and Romania, both of which share a border with Ukraine. U.S. Strategic Command might forward-deploy bombers, laden with cruise missiles, to bases in the United Kingdom. American military planners would likely elect to send B-1B Lancer bombers due to their ability to carry up to 24 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles at a time. A force of just ten B-1Bs, armed with JASSM cruise missiles, can strike up to 240 separate targets, devastating the Russian military's ability to sustain an invasion force. B-1Bs also have the benefit of being incapable of carrying nuclear weapons, reassuring Moscow that Washington isn't deploying nuclear arms to Europe. Yet. ✈︎ BEFORE YOU GO... Why the F-22 Raptor Is Such a Badass Plane Why the F-35 Is Such a Badass Plane The Pentagon's capabilities are so vast that these are just some possible military options. Yet as much as the Pentagon can do, nothing would hit Putin as hard as economic sanctions. Testimony in the U.S. Senate in 2017 claimed that Putin himself had a net worth of $200 billion at the time—making him one one of richest men in the world. The dominance of Western financial institutions and the interconnected nature of the global economy makes his fortune, and those of his allies, vulnerable to economic sanctions. But are threats of military action and sanctions enough to keep Russia out of Ukraine? Only Putin could tell you. KYLE MIZOKAMI Writer on Defense and Security issues, lives in San Francisco.

Russia aggression, … Ukraine, NATO & United States…in war possible?

Russia and Ukraine Are Dangerously Close to War. That Puts the U.S. in a Bind Inaction could embolden Moscow, but will the U.S. really go to war with another nuclear power? BY KYLE MIZOKAMI DEC 6, 2021 russian soldier in gas maskGAVRIIL GRIGOROVGETTY IMAGES Recent troop movements in western Russia point to the possibility of war with Ukraine. The two countries have centuries' worth of tensioned of history, with recent strains exacerbated by an expansionist Russia. New fighting could drag the U.S. (and the rest of NATO) into the conflict, though not all NATO countries are enthusiastic about standing up to Russian aggression. U.S. intelligence officials recently warned NATO allies that Russian military forces are massing up to 175,000 troops on Ukraine's border—and could be in a position to invade that country by late January. If true, this would mark the second round of fighting between the two neighboring countries, and the second time in eight years that Russia has invaded Ukraine. Unlike last time, this new conflict could draw in the United States and elements of NATO, pitting nuclear-armed powers against one another. Here's everything we know about the possibility of a war between Russia and Ukraine. Why Does Russia Want to Invade Ukraine? After Russia, Ukraine is the second largest country in Europe by area, and the two share a land border. Historically, Ukraine made up a major part of the territory inhabited by the greater Rus people (ancients who gave their name to Russia and Belarus); it was politically dominant among the Rus before the Mongol Empire invaded it in the 13th century. The territory never fully recovered, and its neighbors, including a Moscow-centered Russia, continually divided up the land until the early 20th century. Although Ukraine enjoyed a brief stint of independence between 1918 and 1920, it subsequently joined the Soviet Union, which collapsed in 1991. Ukraine has had full political independence ever since. ✅ GET THE FACTS: GLOBAL CONFLICTS IN 2021 Is Russia Planning a January Invasion of Ukraine? Will Tensions Over Taiwan Lead to an All-Out War? Logistics at Kabul's Airport Were Complicated However, Ukrainian independence has never sat well with Russia, and that has held true under the reign of President Vladimir Putin. A history of foreign invasions, from the Mongols to Nazi Germany, has caused many in Russia to desire a wall of buffer states, including Ukraine, surrounding the country. NATO's expansion eastward in the 1990s and 2000s to include countries like Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia stoked Russian paranoia about foreign encroachment. Despite NATO's purpose as a defensive alliance, many across Russia view it as a military organization dominated by the United States, which has invaded foreign countries (Afghanistan, Iraq) twice in the last 20 years. Ukrainian sovereignty is also a sore point for those in Russia, particularly Putin, who came up during the reign of the Soviet Union and remember a time when the USSR was a superpower. While the U.S. and NATO primarily see Ukrainian independence as a net positive for the Ukrainian people. Meanwhile, Moscow sees it as a rejection of a union between ex-Soviet states; Under this zero-sum thinking, Ukraine's sovereignty is a win for the United States and NATO. What Happened Last Time Russia Invaded Ukraine? crimea under russian control Russian special forces storm the Ukrainian Belbek Airbase on March 22, 2014 near Sevastopol, Crimea. EPSILONGETTY IMAGES Crimea, a peninsula along the northern coast of the Black Sea, had long been a part of Russia, but the Soviet Union transferred it to Ukraine in 1954. This was not a big deal as long as the Soviet Union existed, as it was about the same as the U.S. federal government transferring a swath of land from California to Nevada. But once the two countries were independent, however, Crimea proved strategically important for Russia's control of the Black Sea. In 2014, things came to a head. Russian marines, paratroopers, and Spetsnaz special forces invaded and captured the Crimea region of Ukraine with hardly any fighting. At the same time, Russia-backed proxy forces attacked Ukraine in the country's Donbas region, seeking to break it off from Ukraine and join it to Russia. The unofficial war is still ongoing, with occasional flare-ups of violence along the Russia-Ukraine border. ➡️ ON CRIMEA Chess Game of Troop Movements in Crimean Crisis Drone Footage of Russia's 12-Mile Bridge to Crimea The response from the United States and NATO has been tepid. The annexation of Crimea, and the use of proxies in the Donbas, were met with economic sanctions and minor military aid to Ukraine, though not nearly enough to re-equip the Ukrainian ground forces in any meaningful way. Now, a broader concern has emerged: failure to inflict sufficient punishment on Russia for its aggression has only emboldened it (and Putin in particular). Moscow reasons that it can outlast any repercussions, short of war, with the West. What Kind of Military Action Could Russia Take Against Ukraine? ukraine Russian armored vehicles drive on the road between Simferopol and Sevastopol on March 17, 2014. VIKTOR DRACHEVGETTY IMAGES On November 19, the New York Times reported that U.S. intelligence officials had warned NATO allies that Russia was preparing for action, moving forces westward toward the border with Ukraine. The U.S. believes Russia has been redeploying Russian Ground Forces amounting to about nine or ten combat divisions, or about as many divisions in the active-duty U.S. Army. The activity began in October, and will be complete by late January or early February. Interestingly, Russian steel and oil companies began complaining about a shortage of rail transport that also began in October—perhaps due to high levels of military transport. This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site. What kind of military action could Russia take against Ukraine? Unlike in 2014, when Russia used proxies and its own military personnel, stripped of their identification, a new conflict would see direct, open conflict between the two countries. The 90 or more battalion tactical groups of the Russian Ground Forces, bolstered with tanks, artillery, and air support, would be far too large to hide their identities. If it does come to all-out war, Russia will likely only use a fraction of its assembled combat power, quickly seizing a limited amount of Ukrainian territory. Ukraine is too large to completely occupy, and the longer a conflict drags on, the more likely a NATO military response will become. The occupation of Ukraine, to satisfy Putin's appetite for expansion, is merely part of Russia's goal; The rest is about cowing the country into political submission to intimidate NATO. How Would the U.S. and NATO Respond to Russia Invading Ukraine? bundeswehr receives first leopard 2 a7v battle tanks German Army Leopard 2 A7V tanks. If war breaks out in Ukraine, these tanks probably won’t head East. JENS SCHLUETERGETTY IMAGES Would NATO respond militarily? Jens Stoltenberg, secretary general of NATO, has warned member states that they must "expect the worst," while stating that Russia would "pay a high price" for attacking Ukraine. Many NATO countries—especially small, formerly Soviet states such as Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, as well as former captive Warsaw Pact nations—back military involvement in Ukraine, reasoning that they could be next. Germany, however, has all but signaled it would not use military force against Russia, which supplies it, and much of the rest of Europe, with natural gas in the winter. Other countries closer to the Atlantic than the Black Sea might well reason that, with no direct stake in a Russian-Ukrainian war, there is no reason to start a wider one. ➡️ MUST-READ This MiG Super Fighter Terrified NATO If Russia attacks Ukraine, it will be over quickly, and there won't be much NATO can do about it. There are no NATO combat troops in Ukraine, and deploying them in sufficient numbers to resist the Russian Army would take weeks. By the time NATO cobbles together a credible military force, Russia will sue for peace, demanding a ceasefire. A major problem is the potential for Putin to miscalculate. If Putin aims for a larger piece of Ukraine, and there is significant resistance, NATO forces could end up opposing him, suddenly giving him a bigger war than even he wanted. If Putin attacks NATO forces directly, Article 5 of the Atlantic Charter, NATO's founding document, would require all NATO countries to respond militarily. Suddenly, Russia would be looking at a war with virtually all of Europe. multinational military exercises "balkan sentinel 21" A NATO intervention in Ukraine would largely fall on the U.S. armed forces to provide the bulk of troops and equipment. ANADOLU AGENCYGETTY IMAGES Putin is already laying the groundwork for freezing out NATO from the equation. Russia broke diplomatic ties with the alliance in October, then complained that Brussels had "destroyed all mechanisms for dialogue" that could de-escalate the crisis. The Russian President has also warned that NATO long-range missiles in Ukraine would be a "red line" that would force Russia to act. Putin hinted that the short flight time of tactical missiles (potentially with nuclear warheads) from Ukraine to Moscow would force him to preemptively attack. It's quite possible that Russian military deployments are merely posturing meant to frighten Moscow's enemies; Maybe Putin isn't even contemplating invasion. But it's not like Russia hasn't attacked Ukraine before. NATO is split: some countries are warning that inaction will further embolden Russia, while others have signaled they won't consider military action. If push comes to shove, will the United States really go to war with another nuclear power? Let's hope Putin has other plans this winter and we never have to find out.

Biden’s Marxist Socialist Democratic Party on the road again!

Every day it becomes quiet clear that Putin is playing Chess while Biden is struggling to play checkers! The Biden Regime is is hopelessly outclassed by the majority of its opponents on the world stage!

Putin outsmarts Biden with ace up sleeve to deliver 'chokehold' before Ukraine invasion Jacob Paul Russia will reportedly increase the volumes of gas supplies to the bloc in accordance with requests, according to its ambassador to Hungary, Yevgeny Stanislavov. It comes after the leaders met to discuss a range of issues, from the gas crisis to the reported build-up of Russian troops at the Ukraine-Russia border. Mr Stanislavov said: "Gazprom has increased supplies to Europe by 10 percent this year, whereas the total increase in supplies of the Russian gas to the continent equals 15 percent, including liquified natural gas. "There has been not a single rejection." It comes as tension with the West escalated after Mr Putin reportedly slashed the volumes of gas transiting into Europe, while also sparking panic as fears of an imminent invasion of Ukraine appears to be on the cards. Mr Putin was accused of tightening gas supplies in Europe in the hope to speed up certification of his new Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which will transit gas from Russia into Germany, bypassing Poland and Ukraine. The move exposed Mr Putin's tight grip on the European energy market and led to accusations that the Russian President uses gas as a "geopolitical weapon" rather than a commodity. But now that Mr Putin has reportedly agreed to boost gas supplies to Europe, some say the pipeline can be used as leverage against Russia as Mr Biden threatens to scrap Nord Stream 2. But Olexander Scherba, a chief advisor at Ukraine gas giant Naftogaz and former diplomat is not so convinced. He told Express.co.uk: "The pipeline connecting Russia and the West running through Ukraine was a major factor stopping Putin from undertaking any full-blown aggression so far. "If this pipeline for some reason becomes unnecessary or expandable, it is one reason less for Putin to be reasonable. "But also, Putin knows for sure if he attacks then Nord Stream 2 will be shut down, but if it is operational Putin can get Ukraine in an energy chokehold. "It would be like saving someone from a shooting squad but then right away giving someone to a strangler. "One has to be cautious about being overly optimistic about the pressure being applied to Putin so far, maybe it is not enough." Brandon Weichert, a geopolitical analyst and author of Winning Space: How America Remains a Superpower, also believes that using the pipeline as leverage may not be the wisest tactic. READ MORE: Greece blows top at EU and warns Russia gas reliance is 'unavoidable' He told Express.co.uk:" Yes. The West can use the pipeline as leverage. But to what end? Ultimately, Germany and the rest of Europe need that gas flowing as soon as possible. "Beyond that, though, sanctioning the pipeline might actually put the Putin regime in a use-it-or-lose-it mentality when it comes to taking what they want in Ukraine. "Beyond a temporary halt of the pipeline, though, my personal opinion is that the Germans will not permanently scrap the pipeline." While Mr Biden has called for abandoning the project altogether, Germany's new chancellor Olaf Sholz has also warned of "consequences" if Russia decides to invade Ukraine. When asked by Welt television whether Nord Stream 2 could be used as leverage, Mr Sholz said: "We have a very clear view - we want everyone to respect the integrity of borders. "Everyone understands that there will be consequences if that doesn't happen, but the thing is to do everything to make sure they remain unbreached." DON'T MISS Russia could deliver hammer blow to UK economy [REPORT] Pfizer vaccine horror: Jab 40 times less effective against Omicron [INSIGHT] Bible archaeology: Location Jesus walked on water challenged [REVEAL] Professor Tracey German, from Kings College London, does not think that the pipeline can be used as leverage at all. She told Express.co.uk: "Not sure I fully agree with US national security adviser Jake Sullivan who said the fact that gas was not yet flowing through Nord Stream 2 created leverage for the West over Putin." Prof German said that it is more the other way round, with Gazprom and Russia in fact having leverage over Europe. We have seen following the latest announcement that Russia will boost supplies, if it also has the power to cut that off again, arguably what it reveals is that Europe needs Russia's gas and is in no position to use gas as "leverage" over Russia. Prof German said: "Gazprom and Russia still have considerable leverage over Europe. "Russia is happy to exploit vulnerabilities, such as over-reliance on it as a supplier of natural gas, to achieve its own objectives, but it did not necessarily create these vulnerabilities. "Europe has long been aware of the dangers of over-reliance on a single supplier such as Russia, but, despite a series of wake-up calls that prompted the EU to re-assess both its energy and foreign policies in an attempt to further diversify their sources to ensure the security of supply and prevent over-reliance on any one fuel or any one country. "Russia has developed new pipelines such as TurkStream and now NordStream 2, which undermine this aim of importing non-Russian sources of gas. "In 2020 Russian gas giant Gazprom exported 174.9 Billion cubic metres of gas to Europe, down from the record highs of around 200 Bcm in 2018 and 2019 - despite diplomatic tensions and the EU's long-running objective to reduce its dependence on Russia."