REUTERS
"U.S. Navy pilot ejects, 7 hurt in F-35 South China Sea 'landing mishap'"
By Reuters Staff
JANUARY 24, 2022
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seven U.S. military personnel were hurt on Monday when an F-35C warplane had a “landing mishap” on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson in the South China Sea and the pilot ejected, the U.S Navy said.
A Navy statement said the incident happened during “routine flight operations” in the South China Sea.
“The pilot safely ejected from the aircraft and was recovered via U.S. military helicopter,” it said.
“The pilot is in stable condition."
"There were seven total Sailors injured.”
The statement said three of personnel required evacuation to a medical facility in Manila and four were treated by on-board the carrier and released.
It said all the personnel evacuated were assessed as being in stable condition.
The Navy said the cause of the “inflight mishap” was under investigation.
The F-35 jet is made by Lockheed Martin.
The Pentagon said two U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Groups, led by the Carl Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln began operations in the South China Sea on Sunday.
The carriers entered the disputed sea for training as Taiwan reported a new Chinese air force incursion at the top of the waterway.
Reporting by David Brunnstrom, Phil Stewart and Mike Stone
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sout ... SKBN2JY27D
THE DOD
Re: THE DOD
REUTERS
"U.S. orders departure of Ukraine embassy staff family members"
By David Shepardson and Costas Pitas
January 24, 2022
WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - The United States on Sunday ordered the departure of family members of staff at its embassy in Ukraine, citing the continuing threat of military action from Russia.
The U.S. State Department also authorized the voluntary departure of U.S. government employees and said Americans should consider departing immediately.
"We have been in consultation with the Ukrainian government about this step and are coordinating with Allied and partner embassies in Kyiv as they determine their posture," the U.S. Embassy said.
Russia has massed troops near the border with Ukraine prompting tensions with Western powers.
Moscow has insisted it has no plans to invade.
The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv warned in a statement that "military action by Russia could come at any time and the United States government will not be in a position to evacuate American citizens in such a contingency, so U.S. citizens currently present in Ukraine should plan accordingly."
The State Department also said it was authorizing the "voluntary departure of U.S. direct hire employees."
The New York Times reported late Sunday that President Joe Biden was considering deploying several thousand U.S. troops to NATO allies in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.
The Pentagon declined to comment on the New York Times report but noted that Pentagon spokesman John Kirby on Friday said, "we're going to make sure that we have options ready to reassure our allies, particularly on -- on NATO's Eastern Flank."
"If there's another incursion and if they need that reassurance, if they need the capabilities to be bolstered, we're going to do that and we're going to make sure that we're -- that we're ready to do that,” Kirby said.
U.S. and Russian diplomats made no major breakthrough at talks on Friday.
On Sunday, Britain accused the Kremlin of seeking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv.
The State Department late Sunday also reissued its advisory for Russia warning Americans not to travel, citing "ongoing tension along the border with Ukraine."
It also added "given the on-going volatility of the situation, U.S. citizens are strongly advised against traveling by land from Russia to Ukraine through this region."
State Department officials declined to say how many Americans are currently believed to be in Ukraine.
The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine said the decision was made "out of an abundance of caution due to continued Russian efforts to destabilize the country and undermine the security of Ukrainian citizens and others visiting or residing in Ukraine."
The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv is continuing to operate and its Chargé d’Affaires Kristina Kvien remains in Ukraine, State Department officials said.
Reporting by David Shepardson in Washington and Costas Pitas in Los Angeles; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Diane Craft
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ord ... 022-01-23/
"U.S. orders departure of Ukraine embassy staff family members"
By David Shepardson and Costas Pitas
January 24, 2022
WASHINGTON, Jan 23 (Reuters) - The United States on Sunday ordered the departure of family members of staff at its embassy in Ukraine, citing the continuing threat of military action from Russia.
The U.S. State Department also authorized the voluntary departure of U.S. government employees and said Americans should consider departing immediately.
"We have been in consultation with the Ukrainian government about this step and are coordinating with Allied and partner embassies in Kyiv as they determine their posture," the U.S. Embassy said.
Russia has massed troops near the border with Ukraine prompting tensions with Western powers.
Moscow has insisted it has no plans to invade.
The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv warned in a statement that "military action by Russia could come at any time and the United States government will not be in a position to evacuate American citizens in such a contingency, so U.S. citizens currently present in Ukraine should plan accordingly."
The State Department also said it was authorizing the "voluntary departure of U.S. direct hire employees."
The New York Times reported late Sunday that President Joe Biden was considering deploying several thousand U.S. troops to NATO allies in Eastern Europe and the Baltics.
The Pentagon declined to comment on the New York Times report but noted that Pentagon spokesman John Kirby on Friday said, "we're going to make sure that we have options ready to reassure our allies, particularly on -- on NATO's Eastern Flank."
"If there's another incursion and if they need that reassurance, if they need the capabilities to be bolstered, we're going to do that and we're going to make sure that we're -- that we're ready to do that,” Kirby said.
U.S. and Russian diplomats made no major breakthrough at talks on Friday.
On Sunday, Britain accused the Kremlin of seeking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv.
The State Department late Sunday also reissued its advisory for Russia warning Americans not to travel, citing "ongoing tension along the border with Ukraine."
It also added "given the on-going volatility of the situation, U.S. citizens are strongly advised against traveling by land from Russia to Ukraine through this region."
State Department officials declined to say how many Americans are currently believed to be in Ukraine.
The U.S. Embassy in Ukraine said the decision was made "out of an abundance of caution due to continued Russian efforts to destabilize the country and undermine the security of Ukrainian citizens and others visiting or residing in Ukraine."
The U.S. Embassy in Kyiv is continuing to operate and its Chargé d’Affaires Kristina Kvien remains in Ukraine, State Department officials said.
Reporting by David Shepardson in Washington and Costas Pitas in Los Angeles; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Diane Craft
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-ord ... 022-01-23/
Re: THE DOD
THE NEW YORK TIMES
"As ISIS Resurges, US is Drawn Back Into the Fray"
Jane Arraf and Ben Hubbard
25 JANUARY 2022
BAGHDAD, Iraq — An audacious attack on a prison housing thousands of former ISIS fighters in Syria.
A series of strikes against military forces in neighboring Iraq.
And a horrific video harking back to the grimmest days of the insurgency that showed the beheading of an Iraqi police officer.
The evidence of a resurgence of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is mounting by the day, nearly three years after the militants lost the last patch of territory of their so-called caliphate, which once stretched across vast parts of the two countries.
The fact that ISIS was able to mount these coordinated and sophisticated attacks in recent days shows that what had been believed to be disparate sleeper cells are re-emerging as a more serious threat.
“It’s a wake-up call for regional players, for national players, that ISIS is not over, that the fight is not over,” said Kawa Hassan, Middle East and North Africa director at the Stimson Center, a Washington research institute.
“It shows the resilience of ISIS to strike back at the time and place of their choosing.”
On Tuesday, fighting between a Kurdish-led militia backed by the United States and the militants spread from the embattled Sinaa prison in northeastern Syria to surrounding neighborhoods, swelling into the biggest confrontation between the American military and its Syrian allies and ISIS in three years.
The U.S. military joined the fight after the militants attacked the makeshift prison in the city of Hasaka, trying to free their fellow fighters.
The Islamic State now controls about a quarter of the prison and is holding hundreds of hostages, many of them children detained when the caliphate that their families had joined fell in 2019.
The United States has conducted airstrikes and provided intelligence and ground troops in Bradley fighting vehicles to help cordon off the prison.
Even as skirmishing was taking place around the prison Tuesday, fighting involving ISIS fighters also broke out about 150 miles away, in Rasafa, about 30 miles outside the city of Raqqa.
The militants’ show of force was not limited to Syria.
In Iraq, around the same time as the prison attack began, ISIS fighters stormed an army outpost in Diyala Province, killing 10 soldiers and an officer in the deadliest attack in several years on an Iraqi military base.
Gunmen approached the base from three sides late at night while some of the soldiers slept.
The attack raised fears that some of the same conditions in Iraq that allowed for ISIS’s rise in 2014 were now making room for it to reconstitute.
In December, insurgents kidnapped four Iraqi hunters in a mountainous area of northeast Iraq, including a police colonel.
The militants beheaded the police officer, and then released the gruesome video.
The attacks in Iraq, conducted by ISIS sleeper cells in remote mountain and desert areas, have highlighted a lack of coordination between Iraqi government forces and the Peshmerga, Kurdish forces of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.
Many of the attacks take place in disputed territory claimed by both the Iraqi Kurdish government and the central government.
Ardian Shajkovci, director of the American Counterterrorism Targeting and Resilience Institute, said many of the militants arrested in attacks since the group lost the last of its territory three years ago appeared to be younger, and from families with older members tied to ISIS.
“If so,” he said, “this is a new generation of ISIS recruits, changing the calculus and threat landscape in many ways.”
Iraq has struggled to deal with tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who are relatives of ISIS fighters and have been collectively punished and placed in detention camps — now feared to be breeding grounds for radicalization.
Corruption in Iraqi security forces has left some of their bases without proper supplies and allowed soldiers and officers to neglect their duties, contributing to the collapse of entire army divisions that retreated in 2014 rather than fight ISIS.
In Syria on Tuesday, the Syrian Democratic Forces said that they had conducted sweeps in Hasaka neighborhoods near the prison, killing five ISIS fighters who were wearing suicide belts.
The militia said that on Monday it had freed nine prison employees held by the Islamic State and killed another nine militants, including two suicide bombers, in raids around the prison.
An S.D.F. spokesman, Farhad Shami, said that so far, 550 detainees who took part in the siege had surrendered.
The militia has also been negotiating with the ISIS leaders in the prison.
There are an estimated 3,500 detainees in the overcrowded prison.
As many as 700 minors are also there, some 150 of them citizens of other countries who had been taken to Syria as young children when their parents left home to join the insurgency.
An estimated 40,000 foreigners made their way to Syria to fight or work for the caliphate.
The prison siege has highlighted the plight of thousands of foreign children who have been detained for three years in camps and prisons in the region, abandoned by their own countries.
The prison inmates include boys as young as 12.
Some were transferred to the prison after they were deemed too old to remain in detention camps that held families of suspected Islamic State fighters.
The Syria director for Save the Children, Sonia Khush, said those detaining the children were responsible for their safety.
But she also pointed a finger at foreign governments that have refused to repatriate their imprisoned citizens.
“Responsibility for anything that happens to these children also lies at the door of foreign governments who have thought that they can simply abandon their child nationals in Syria,” Ms. Khush said.
At its height, in 2014, ISIS controlled about a third of Iraq and large parts of Syria, territory that rivaled Britain in size.
When the last piece of it, in Baghuz, Syria, fell three years ago, women and young children were put in detention camps, while those believed to be fighters were sent to prison.
The main detention camp for the families, Al Hol, is squalid, overcrowded and dangerous, lacking sufficient food, medical services and guards.
Amid the chaos, an increasingly radicalized segment of detainees has emerged to terrorize other camp residents.
When the boys at the camps become teenagers, they are usually transferred to Sinaa prison, where they are packed into overcrowded cells.
Food, medical care and even sunlight are in scarce supply.
But their plight gets harder still when they turn 18.
Even though none of the young foreigners have been charged with a crime, they are placed with the general prison population, where wounded ISIS fighters sleep three to a bed.
Outside the prison, the U.S. troops that have once again engaged in battle with ISIS fighters are part of a residual force of the American-led military coalition that was largely pulled out of the country in 2019.
There are currently about 700 American troops in the region, operating mostly from a base in Hasaka, and another 200 near Syria’s border with Jordan.
The Pentagon said that the armored Bradley fighting vehicles put in place to back the Kurdish-led S.D.F. forces were being used as barricades while the Kurdish militia tightened its cordon around the prison.
A coalition official said the vehicles had been fired at and had returned fire.
“We have provided limited ground support, strategically positioned to assist security in the area,” John F. Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, told reporters in Washington.
Jane Arraf reported from Baghdad, and Ben Hubbard from Beirut, Lebanon.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/as ... d=msedgntp
"As ISIS Resurges, US is Drawn Back Into the Fray"
Jane Arraf and Ben Hubbard
25 JANUARY 2022
BAGHDAD, Iraq — An audacious attack on a prison housing thousands of former ISIS fighters in Syria.
A series of strikes against military forces in neighboring Iraq.
And a horrific video harking back to the grimmest days of the insurgency that showed the beheading of an Iraqi police officer.
The evidence of a resurgence of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is mounting by the day, nearly three years after the militants lost the last patch of territory of their so-called caliphate, which once stretched across vast parts of the two countries.
The fact that ISIS was able to mount these coordinated and sophisticated attacks in recent days shows that what had been believed to be disparate sleeper cells are re-emerging as a more serious threat.
“It’s a wake-up call for regional players, for national players, that ISIS is not over, that the fight is not over,” said Kawa Hassan, Middle East and North Africa director at the Stimson Center, a Washington research institute.
“It shows the resilience of ISIS to strike back at the time and place of their choosing.”
On Tuesday, fighting between a Kurdish-led militia backed by the United States and the militants spread from the embattled Sinaa prison in northeastern Syria to surrounding neighborhoods, swelling into the biggest confrontation between the American military and its Syrian allies and ISIS in three years.
The U.S. military joined the fight after the militants attacked the makeshift prison in the city of Hasaka, trying to free their fellow fighters.
The Islamic State now controls about a quarter of the prison and is holding hundreds of hostages, many of them children detained when the caliphate that their families had joined fell in 2019.
The United States has conducted airstrikes and provided intelligence and ground troops in Bradley fighting vehicles to help cordon off the prison.
Even as skirmishing was taking place around the prison Tuesday, fighting involving ISIS fighters also broke out about 150 miles away, in Rasafa, about 30 miles outside the city of Raqqa.
The militants’ show of force was not limited to Syria.
In Iraq, around the same time as the prison attack began, ISIS fighters stormed an army outpost in Diyala Province, killing 10 soldiers and an officer in the deadliest attack in several years on an Iraqi military base.
Gunmen approached the base from three sides late at night while some of the soldiers slept.
The attack raised fears that some of the same conditions in Iraq that allowed for ISIS’s rise in 2014 were now making room for it to reconstitute.
In December, insurgents kidnapped four Iraqi hunters in a mountainous area of northeast Iraq, including a police colonel.
The militants beheaded the police officer, and then released the gruesome video.
The attacks in Iraq, conducted by ISIS sleeper cells in remote mountain and desert areas, have highlighted a lack of coordination between Iraqi government forces and the Peshmerga, Kurdish forces of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region.
Many of the attacks take place in disputed territory claimed by both the Iraqi Kurdish government and the central government.
Ardian Shajkovci, director of the American Counterterrorism Targeting and Resilience Institute, said many of the militants arrested in attacks since the group lost the last of its territory three years ago appeared to be younger, and from families with older members tied to ISIS.
“If so,” he said, “this is a new generation of ISIS recruits, changing the calculus and threat landscape in many ways.”
Iraq has struggled to deal with tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens who are relatives of ISIS fighters and have been collectively punished and placed in detention camps — now feared to be breeding grounds for radicalization.
Corruption in Iraqi security forces has left some of their bases without proper supplies and allowed soldiers and officers to neglect their duties, contributing to the collapse of entire army divisions that retreated in 2014 rather than fight ISIS.
In Syria on Tuesday, the Syrian Democratic Forces said that they had conducted sweeps in Hasaka neighborhoods near the prison, killing five ISIS fighters who were wearing suicide belts.
The militia said that on Monday it had freed nine prison employees held by the Islamic State and killed another nine militants, including two suicide bombers, in raids around the prison.
An S.D.F. spokesman, Farhad Shami, said that so far, 550 detainees who took part in the siege had surrendered.
The militia has also been negotiating with the ISIS leaders in the prison.
There are an estimated 3,500 detainees in the overcrowded prison.
As many as 700 minors are also there, some 150 of them citizens of other countries who had been taken to Syria as young children when their parents left home to join the insurgency.
An estimated 40,000 foreigners made their way to Syria to fight or work for the caliphate.
The prison siege has highlighted the plight of thousands of foreign children who have been detained for three years in camps and prisons in the region, abandoned by their own countries.
The prison inmates include boys as young as 12.
Some were transferred to the prison after they were deemed too old to remain in detention camps that held families of suspected Islamic State fighters.
The Syria director for Save the Children, Sonia Khush, said those detaining the children were responsible for their safety.
But she also pointed a finger at foreign governments that have refused to repatriate their imprisoned citizens.
“Responsibility for anything that happens to these children also lies at the door of foreign governments who have thought that they can simply abandon their child nationals in Syria,” Ms. Khush said.
At its height, in 2014, ISIS controlled about a third of Iraq and large parts of Syria, territory that rivaled Britain in size.
When the last piece of it, in Baghuz, Syria, fell three years ago, women and young children were put in detention camps, while those believed to be fighters were sent to prison.
The main detention camp for the families, Al Hol, is squalid, overcrowded and dangerous, lacking sufficient food, medical services and guards.
Amid the chaos, an increasingly radicalized segment of detainees has emerged to terrorize other camp residents.
When the boys at the camps become teenagers, they are usually transferred to Sinaa prison, where they are packed into overcrowded cells.
Food, medical care and even sunlight are in scarce supply.
But their plight gets harder still when they turn 18.
Even though none of the young foreigners have been charged with a crime, they are placed with the general prison population, where wounded ISIS fighters sleep three to a bed.
Outside the prison, the U.S. troops that have once again engaged in battle with ISIS fighters are part of a residual force of the American-led military coalition that was largely pulled out of the country in 2019.
There are currently about 700 American troops in the region, operating mostly from a base in Hasaka, and another 200 near Syria’s border with Jordan.
The Pentagon said that the armored Bradley fighting vehicles put in place to back the Kurdish-led S.D.F. forces were being used as barricades while the Kurdish militia tightened its cordon around the prison.
A coalition official said the vehicles had been fired at and had returned fire.
“We have provided limited ground support, strategically positioned to assist security in the area,” John F. Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, told reporters in Washington.
Jane Arraf reported from Baghdad, and Ben Hubbard from Beirut, Lebanon.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/as ... d=msedgntp
Re: THE DOD
NEWSWEEK
"Photo Purporting to Show Crashed U.S. F-35 Jet in South China Sea Circulates Online"
John Feng
27 JANUARY 2022
Social media websites are circulating an image that appears to show a pilotless F-35C warplane floating on the water — purportedly the same aircraft the U.S. Navy said was involved in a "landing mishap" while operating in the South China Sea on Monday.
Users on Twitter, Reddit and Weibo — China's main social media service — believe it to be the same F-35C Lightning II that struck the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson before falling into the water, an incident that resulted in injuries to seven sailors including the pilot, who safely ejected.
The U.S. Pacific Fleet, which operates out of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, didn't disclose further details about the aircraft's condition, but the Navy was reported to be making arrangements to recover the plane this week.
Observers suggested the Chinese government could move to salvage the wreckage first.
Newsweek contacted the Pacific Fleet and Department of Defense for comment.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ph ... d=msedgntp
"Photo Purporting to Show Crashed U.S. F-35 Jet in South China Sea Circulates Online"
John Feng
27 JANUARY 2022
Social media websites are circulating an image that appears to show a pilotless F-35C warplane floating on the water — purportedly the same aircraft the U.S. Navy said was involved in a "landing mishap" while operating in the South China Sea on Monday.
Users on Twitter, Reddit and Weibo — China's main social media service — believe it to be the same F-35C Lightning II that struck the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson before falling into the water, an incident that resulted in injuries to seven sailors including the pilot, who safely ejected.
The U.S. Pacific Fleet, which operates out of Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, didn't disclose further details about the aircraft's condition, but the Navy was reported to be making arrangements to recover the plane this week.
Observers suggested the Chinese government could move to salvage the wreckage first.
Newsweek contacted the Pacific Fleet and Department of Defense for comment.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ph ... d=msedgntp
Re: THE DOD
ABC NEWS
"US, NATO using military moves to send message to Russia over Ukraine"
27 JANUARY 2022
Wednesday's arrival of American F-15 fighters in Estonia to join an ongoing NATO air policing mission over the Baltics would normally not garner much attention were it not for the rising tensions of a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine.
While the F-15's weeklong deployment to Estonia to join fighter jets from Belgium had been in the works for a while, Thursday's arrival in Lithuania of four Danish F-16 fighters for a similar mission was a more recent decision by Denmark tied to the rising tensions over Ukraine.
Though small in scope, Denmark's deployment of the additional aircraft and a ship to the Baltic Sea sends a message to Russia about the willingness by NATO countries to demonstrate their military capabilities and commitment to NATO partners during a crisis.
The deployments also highlight NATO's existing presence in eastern Europe and the Baltics, prompted by Russia's 2014 invasion of Crimea, and how any military movements are being viewed through the prism of the crisis with Ukraine, no matter the size of the deployment.
Since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, the alliance has no security commitment to Ukraine should Russia invade, but it is intent on assuring the security of neighboring NATO countries.
On Wednesday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that while diplomatic efforts continue to try to defuse the crisis with Russia "we are also prepared for the worst."
Stoltenberg also said this week's announcement by the Pentagon that 8,500 troops in the United States had been placed on heightened alert demonstrated "demonstrates the strength of the NATO alliance."
On Monday, the Pentagon announced that most of the troops had been placed on shortened "prepare to deploy orders" in case they were needed for the 40,000 man NATO Response Force was activated on short notice to respond to a crisis.
That same day Stoltenberg had detailed the movement of small numbers of ships, airplanes, and troops by Denmark and other NATO countries to eastern Europe and the Baltics.
Ironically, it was Russia's 2014 takeover of Crimea that prompted NATO and the U.S. to initially rotate more robust military forces into eastern Europe and the Baltics.
That includes Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland where in recent years NATO has positioned four battlegroups consisting of 4,000 multinational troops, including American forces.
Separately Russia's annexation of Crimea led the United States to establish high-profile troop rotations in eastern Europe, currently there are 5,000 American forces carrying out training Poland.
Both the U.S. and NATO have been very public with any new or potential military call-ups or deployments to message to Russia that the alliance remains strong and has the capability of quickly reinforcing member nations that request assistance.
That messaging can include disclosing military planning and procedures that are not normally made public.
The Pentagon's top spokesman acknowledged on Tuesday that publicly announcing that 8,500 American military on heightened alert and on shorter "prepare to deploy orders" was not customary for the U.S. military.
"It's not typical that we talk about it as much as we've been talking about it," John Kirby told reporters.
Kirby also noted that the 8,500 troops on alert have not received orders to deploy and that the thousands of American troops already stationed in Europe were more likely to initially resource the NATO Response Force should it be activated.
The public messaging about military readiness is in line with the very public warnings to Russia by President Biden and American allies that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would have severe economic consequences for Russia.
"Although "strategic ambiguity" is an essential part of our international diplomacy, in this case, Russia needed to have a strong and unified message from the U.S. and NATO," said Mick Mulroy a former deputy assistant of defense and an ABC News national security contributor.
"The Pentagon has also been very forthcoming on all its activities," he said.
"This is likely in an attempt to avoid any misinterpretation of their actions."
Mulroy that Russia should do the same particularly with more than 100,000 ground troops on Ukraine's borders.
"Without constant communication, this situation could lead to a conflict in which every nation involved, and even those that are not, is negatively impacted," he said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us ... d=msedgntp
"US, NATO using military moves to send message to Russia over Ukraine"
27 JANUARY 2022
Wednesday's arrival of American F-15 fighters in Estonia to join an ongoing NATO air policing mission over the Baltics would normally not garner much attention were it not for the rising tensions of a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine.
While the F-15's weeklong deployment to Estonia to join fighter jets from Belgium had been in the works for a while, Thursday's arrival in Lithuania of four Danish F-16 fighters for a similar mission was a more recent decision by Denmark tied to the rising tensions over Ukraine.
Though small in scope, Denmark's deployment of the additional aircraft and a ship to the Baltic Sea sends a message to Russia about the willingness by NATO countries to demonstrate their military capabilities and commitment to NATO partners during a crisis.
The deployments also highlight NATO's existing presence in eastern Europe and the Baltics, prompted by Russia's 2014 invasion of Crimea, and how any military movements are being viewed through the prism of the crisis with Ukraine, no matter the size of the deployment.
Since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, the alliance has no security commitment to Ukraine should Russia invade, but it is intent on assuring the security of neighboring NATO countries.
On Wednesday, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that while diplomatic efforts continue to try to defuse the crisis with Russia "we are also prepared for the worst."
Stoltenberg also said this week's announcement by the Pentagon that 8,500 troops in the United States had been placed on heightened alert demonstrated "demonstrates the strength of the NATO alliance."
On Monday, the Pentagon announced that most of the troops had been placed on shortened "prepare to deploy orders" in case they were needed for the 40,000 man NATO Response Force was activated on short notice to respond to a crisis.
That same day Stoltenberg had detailed the movement of small numbers of ships, airplanes, and troops by Denmark and other NATO countries to eastern Europe and the Baltics.
Ironically, it was Russia's 2014 takeover of Crimea that prompted NATO and the U.S. to initially rotate more robust military forces into eastern Europe and the Baltics.
That includes Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland where in recent years NATO has positioned four battlegroups consisting of 4,000 multinational troops, including American forces.
Separately Russia's annexation of Crimea led the United States to establish high-profile troop rotations in eastern Europe, currently there are 5,000 American forces carrying out training Poland.
Both the U.S. and NATO have been very public with any new or potential military call-ups or deployments to message to Russia that the alliance remains strong and has the capability of quickly reinforcing member nations that request assistance.
That messaging can include disclosing military planning and procedures that are not normally made public.
The Pentagon's top spokesman acknowledged on Tuesday that publicly announcing that 8,500 American military on heightened alert and on shorter "prepare to deploy orders" was not customary for the U.S. military.
"It's not typical that we talk about it as much as we've been talking about it," John Kirby told reporters.
Kirby also noted that the 8,500 troops on alert have not received orders to deploy and that the thousands of American troops already stationed in Europe were more likely to initially resource the NATO Response Force should it be activated.
The public messaging about military readiness is in line with the very public warnings to Russia by President Biden and American allies that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would have severe economic consequences for Russia.
"Although "strategic ambiguity" is an essential part of our international diplomacy, in this case, Russia needed to have a strong and unified message from the U.S. and NATO," said Mick Mulroy a former deputy assistant of defense and an ABC News national security contributor.
"The Pentagon has also been very forthcoming on all its activities," he said.
"This is likely in an attempt to avoid any misinterpretation of their actions."
Mulroy that Russia should do the same particularly with more than 100,000 ground troops on Ukraine's borders.
"Without constant communication, this situation could lead to a conflict in which every nation involved, and even those that are not, is negatively impacted," he said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/us ... d=msedgntp
Re: THE DOD
FOX NEWS
"The US Army's Green Berets quietly helped tilt the battlefield a little bit more toward Ukraine"
Michael Lee
24 MARCH 2022
The U.S. Army's Special Forces, better known as Green Berets, have had a deep impact on Ukraine's fight to defend itself from a Russian invasion, despite not being directly involved in the conflict.
Ukraine was taken very seriously by Special Forces," retired Green Beret Sergeant Major Martin Moore told Fox News Digital.
After Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, a move that faced minimal resistance, the Ukrainian military began an effort to modernize its forces to prepare for possible further Russian incursions into the country.
The U.S. military also quickly stepped in to help, with the Army's Green Berets, taking on a critical role in training Ukrainian forces.
"They immediately set upon a great effort to protect to Ukraine, to provide training," Moore said.
"There's nobody better at training than Green Berets."
"These are people that can teach."
While elite military units such as the Navy SEAL teams garner widespread attention, the Army's Green Berets are fanned out across the world helping Army's prepare for wars similar to the one now being fought in Ukraine.
This work is typically done quietly, something Moore said Green Berets prefer.
"They do something different," Moore said.
"They go where nobody else is and find out what is possible."
Moore said Green Berets are a "force multiplier," improving the combat capability of the international forces they work with.
He stressed that they are not about "raids and ambushes," but about having an "unparalleled understanding of the place" they are operating.
Green Berets are required to learn a foreign language as part of their training and are constantly trained in the political, economic and cultural complexities of the regions in which they are assigned to operate.
This unique skill set allows them to partner with foreign forces for training and at times to fight alongside them.
Those skills have been put to use in Ukraine since 2014, with Green Berets and members of the Army's National Guard advising and training Ukrainian forces at Yavoriv Combat Training Center in western Ukraine.
It's the same facility Russia attacked with rockets on March 13, killing 35.
The Americans had already left, vacating the facility and moving troops deployed there to Germany in February.
Part of the job Green Berets did at Yavoriv was to train their Ukrainian counterparts to set up militia units that could wage guerrilla warfare against an invading force.
The Ukrainian military can now put those lessons to use, with the government actively encouraging its citizens to join the fight against Russian forces.
But the work Green Berets are doing in Europe hasn't stopped, with forces still stationed in Europe helping prepare partner countries for the possibility of a Russian invasion further into Europe.
Such a move would be a mistake for Russia, Moore told Fox News Digital, arguing that the invasion of Ukraine has already gone poorly in part because of U.S. assistance, and a further move into NATO territory would go even worse.
"Russia has a horrible thing waiting for them if they want to push this thing further," Moore said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... d=msedgntp
"The US Army's Green Berets quietly helped tilt the battlefield a little bit more toward Ukraine"
Michael Lee
24 MARCH 2022
The U.S. Army's Special Forces, better known as Green Berets, have had a deep impact on Ukraine's fight to defend itself from a Russian invasion, despite not being directly involved in the conflict.
Ukraine was taken very seriously by Special Forces," retired Green Beret Sergeant Major Martin Moore told Fox News Digital.
After Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014, a move that faced minimal resistance, the Ukrainian military began an effort to modernize its forces to prepare for possible further Russian incursions into the country.
The U.S. military also quickly stepped in to help, with the Army's Green Berets, taking on a critical role in training Ukrainian forces.
"They immediately set upon a great effort to protect to Ukraine, to provide training," Moore said.
"There's nobody better at training than Green Berets."
"These are people that can teach."
While elite military units such as the Navy SEAL teams garner widespread attention, the Army's Green Berets are fanned out across the world helping Army's prepare for wars similar to the one now being fought in Ukraine.
This work is typically done quietly, something Moore said Green Berets prefer.
"They do something different," Moore said.
"They go where nobody else is and find out what is possible."
Moore said Green Berets are a "force multiplier," improving the combat capability of the international forces they work with.
He stressed that they are not about "raids and ambushes," but about having an "unparalleled understanding of the place" they are operating.
Green Berets are required to learn a foreign language as part of their training and are constantly trained in the political, economic and cultural complexities of the regions in which they are assigned to operate.
This unique skill set allows them to partner with foreign forces for training and at times to fight alongside them.
Those skills have been put to use in Ukraine since 2014, with Green Berets and members of the Army's National Guard advising and training Ukrainian forces at Yavoriv Combat Training Center in western Ukraine.
It's the same facility Russia attacked with rockets on March 13, killing 35.
The Americans had already left, vacating the facility and moving troops deployed there to Germany in February.
Part of the job Green Berets did at Yavoriv was to train their Ukrainian counterparts to set up militia units that could wage guerrilla warfare against an invading force.
The Ukrainian military can now put those lessons to use, with the government actively encouraging its citizens to join the fight against Russian forces.
But the work Green Berets are doing in Europe hasn't stopped, with forces still stationed in Europe helping prepare partner countries for the possibility of a Russian invasion further into Europe.
Such a move would be a mistake for Russia, Moore told Fox News Digital, arguing that the invasion of Ukraine has already gone poorly in part because of U.S. assistance, and a further move into NATO territory would go even worse.
"Russia has a horrible thing waiting for them if they want to push this thing further," Moore said.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/th ... d=msedgntp
Re: THE DOD
THE NEW YORK TIMES
"Pentagon Faults Review of Deadly Airstrike but Finds No Wrongdoing"
17 MAY 2022
WASHINGTON — A Pentagon investigation into a U.S. airstrike in Syria in 2019 that killed dozens of people, including women and children, found that the military’s initial review of the attack was mishandled at multiple levels of command and replete with reporting delays and information gaps.
But the inquiry also determined that most of the people killed in the strike, which was carried out by a shadowy Special Operations unit called Task Force 9, were probably Islamic State fighters, according to three officials familiar with the findings, and that military officials did not violate the laws of war or deliberately conceal casualties.
The findings did not call for any disciplinary action.
In response to the inquiry, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III ordered the military on Tuesday to improve the way it processes reports of civilian casualties.
He said in a memo that he was “disappointed” in the handling of the initial review, which he said “contributed to a perception that the department was not committed to transparency and was not taking the incident seriously.”
Mr. Austin appointed Gen. Michael X. Garrett, the four-star head of the Army’s Forces Command, to lead the inquiry in November after an investigation by The New York Times described allegations that top officers and civilian officials had sought to hide casualties from the airstrike.
The attack, which took place on March 18, 2019, near the Syrian town of Baghuz, was one of the largest civilian casualty incidents in the yearslong war against the Islamic State, but the U.S. military had never publicly acknowledged it.
The Times’s investigation showed, though, that the military initially feared that dozens of people had been killed.
A legal officer flagged the bombing as a possible war crime that required an investigation.
The Defense Department’s independent inspector general began an inquiry, but the report containing its findings was stalled and did not mention the strike.
The military’s Central Command said in response to The Times’s reporting that the strike had been in self-defense against an imminent threat and that 16 fighters and four civilians had been killed.
The command said it was not clear that the other people who had been killed were civilians, in part because women and children in the Islamic State sometimes took up arms.
General Garrett’s inquiry is classified, and the Pentagon did not release its results.
But the three officials familiar with the findings said most of the other people killed were described as fighters.
The Times’s investigation showed that the Islamic State camp that was struck included women, children, captives and scores of wounded men who were no longer in the fight and, according to the law of armed conflict, were not legal targets.
In a two-page executive summary that the Pentagon released on Tuesday, General Garrett challenged The Times’s report, saying commanders followed procedures to determine that no civilians were in the blast zone before the strike.
A senior Defense Department official acknowledged, however, that the military relied on faulty intelligence from Syrian partners, who said that only combatants were in the area, and checked the target with a low-resolution drone camera that could not distinguish among the dozens of people sheltering in the area.
The three officials familiar with the findings, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of the confidential report, said that 56 people had been killed, but that 52 of them were enemy fighters, although that assessment classified all adult males at the site as fighters, whether they were armed or not.
The officials also said 17 people had been injured, 15 of whom were civilians.
The Baghuz attack was part of a series of investigations by The Times last year into airstrikes that killed civilians, including a botched drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed 10 innocent people in August.
Another Times investigation based on a trove of Pentagon reviews of strikes revealed systemic failures to prevent civilian deaths in the United States’ air war against the Islamic State.
Last week, the series was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting.
John F. Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, acknowledged that the reporting was “not comfortable, not easy and not simple to address.”
In response to The Times’s investigation, Mr. Austin ordered a standardized reporting process on civilian harm, the creation of a military “center of excellence” and the completion of a comprehensive new policy on the issue that has been in the works for more than two years.
That policy review is still underway, with details of the initial plan expected by the end of June, Pentagon officials said.
“Protecting innocent civilians is fundamental to our operational success and is a strategic and moral imperative,” Mr. Austin said in his memo.
At a Pentagon news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Kirby defended General Garrett’s report and its lack of any disciplinary measures, arguing that U.S. ground commanders made the best decision they could with the information they had at the time.
“Yes, we killed some innocent civilians, women and children,” Mr. Kirby said in response to questions about holding military personnel accountable for the civilian deaths.
“We actually do feel bad about this.”
But, he added, “It was in the midst of combat, in the fog of war.”
The Baghuz strike occurred in the last days of the offensive to clear Islamic State fighters from their self-proclaimed caliphate, which had once sprawled across areas of Syria and Iraq.
American F-15 attack jets made repeated bombing runs on a riverbank where scores of women, children and wounded people had taken shelter.
Air Force personnel at a headquarters in Qatar who were watching drone footage taken from high above the site immediately reported the strike, saying that about 70 civilians may have been killed, and notified leaders that a formal investigation was required.
Instead, there was only a cursory report by the Special Operations unit responsible for the strike, which downplayed its impact, saying a handful of fighters had been killed and not mentioning civilian deaths.
A formal investigation, conducted by the same unit, said four civilians had been killed and found no wrongdoing.
Air Force personnel who witnessed the strike later alerted the Defense Department inspector general’s office, which started an investigation.
General Garrett’s review identified a cascade of mistakes that led to the strike and the subsequent failures to accurately report the casualties.
At the time of the attack, the Islamic State was battling the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, which called for U.S. airstrikes and said there were no civilians in the area.
An American commander who launched the strike relied on faulty Syrian intelligence and blurry drone footage that did not reveal that scores of people were sheltering in the area, the senior Defense Department official said, adding that “if women and children had been reported in the area, they would not have taken that shot, period.”
The defense official acknowledged that the military did not respond in a timely manner, but said that General Garrett’s review did not find any “malicious or wrongful intent.”
Current and former military members who worked on thousands of airstrikes during the war against the Islamic State said that military personnel had been sounding alarms about several of the factors, including the unreliability of intelligence from the Syrian Democratic Forces and the overreliance on self-defense protocols to justify strikes.
“It’s the standard government line: Mistakes were made but there was no wrongdoing,” said Eugene Tate, a former evaluator for the Defense Department inspector general’s office who had tried looking into the Baghuz strike.
“But if the same mistakes were being made over and over again for years, shouldn’t someone have done something about it?"
"It doesn’t sit well with me, and I’m not sure it should sit well with anyone else.”
Mr. Tate, who said he was never interviewed for General Garrett’s investigation, said he witnessed Defense Department leaders trying to bury reports of the strike.
“The investigation says the reporting was delayed,” Mr. Tate said.
“None of the worker bees involved believe it was delayed."
"We believe there was no reporting.”
In interviews with The Times, pilots, intelligence officers and members of a secret strike cell that ran much of the air war in Syria said the Baghuz attack was part of a disturbing pattern: Loopholes in regulations allowed Special Operations troops to speed up airstrikes against enemies, but a growing number of civilians were being killed.
At the start of the war against the Islamic State in 2014, top military leaders put in place a number of safeguards to minimize civilian harm.
Drones studying targets were required to stay overhead for hours, collecting evidence that enemies were present and civilians were not.
Strikes had to be approved by high-level officers.
But in 2016 and 2017, the authority to launch strikes was delegated to the secret cell, which was run by the Army’s elite Delta Force.
The cell, called Talon Anvil, found that it could shortcut these safeguards and strike at will by claiming self-defense.
Soon nearly all of the cell’s strikes were justified under self-defense rules, even if they were miles from any fighting.
Current and former service members have been interviewed by criminal investigators from the inspector general’s office, according to people familiar with the inquiry.
A spokeswoman for the office, Megan G. Reed, said the agency could neither confirm nor deny the existence of a criminal investigation but added, “We are conducting a body of work in this area and expect to release a report within a matter of months.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... aba2a16221
"Pentagon Faults Review of Deadly Airstrike but Finds No Wrongdoing"
17 MAY 2022
WASHINGTON — A Pentagon investigation into a U.S. airstrike in Syria in 2019 that killed dozens of people, including women and children, found that the military’s initial review of the attack was mishandled at multiple levels of command and replete with reporting delays and information gaps.
But the inquiry also determined that most of the people killed in the strike, which was carried out by a shadowy Special Operations unit called Task Force 9, were probably Islamic State fighters, according to three officials familiar with the findings, and that military officials did not violate the laws of war or deliberately conceal casualties.
The findings did not call for any disciplinary action.
In response to the inquiry, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III ordered the military on Tuesday to improve the way it processes reports of civilian casualties.
He said in a memo that he was “disappointed” in the handling of the initial review, which he said “contributed to a perception that the department was not committed to transparency and was not taking the incident seriously.”
Mr. Austin appointed Gen. Michael X. Garrett, the four-star head of the Army’s Forces Command, to lead the inquiry in November after an investigation by The New York Times described allegations that top officers and civilian officials had sought to hide casualties from the airstrike.
The attack, which took place on March 18, 2019, near the Syrian town of Baghuz, was one of the largest civilian casualty incidents in the yearslong war against the Islamic State, but the U.S. military had never publicly acknowledged it.
The Times’s investigation showed, though, that the military initially feared that dozens of people had been killed.
A legal officer flagged the bombing as a possible war crime that required an investigation.
The Defense Department’s independent inspector general began an inquiry, but the report containing its findings was stalled and did not mention the strike.
The military’s Central Command said in response to The Times’s reporting that the strike had been in self-defense against an imminent threat and that 16 fighters and four civilians had been killed.
The command said it was not clear that the other people who had been killed were civilians, in part because women and children in the Islamic State sometimes took up arms.
General Garrett’s inquiry is classified, and the Pentagon did not release its results.
But the three officials familiar with the findings said most of the other people killed were described as fighters.
The Times’s investigation showed that the Islamic State camp that was struck included women, children, captives and scores of wounded men who were no longer in the fight and, according to the law of armed conflict, were not legal targets.
In a two-page executive summary that the Pentagon released on Tuesday, General Garrett challenged The Times’s report, saying commanders followed procedures to determine that no civilians were in the blast zone before the strike.
A senior Defense Department official acknowledged, however, that the military relied on faulty intelligence from Syrian partners, who said that only combatants were in the area, and checked the target with a low-resolution drone camera that could not distinguish among the dozens of people sheltering in the area.
The three officials familiar with the findings, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss details of the confidential report, said that 56 people had been killed, but that 52 of them were enemy fighters, although that assessment classified all adult males at the site as fighters, whether they were armed or not.
The officials also said 17 people had been injured, 15 of whom were civilians.
The Baghuz attack was part of a series of investigations by The Times last year into airstrikes that killed civilians, including a botched drone strike in Kabul, Afghanistan, that killed 10 innocent people in August.
Another Times investigation based on a trove of Pentagon reviews of strikes revealed systemic failures to prevent civilian deaths in the United States’ air war against the Islamic State.
Last week, the series was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for international reporting.
John F. Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, acknowledged that the reporting was “not comfortable, not easy and not simple to address.”
In response to The Times’s investigation, Mr. Austin ordered a standardized reporting process on civilian harm, the creation of a military “center of excellence” and the completion of a comprehensive new policy on the issue that has been in the works for more than two years.
That policy review is still underway, with details of the initial plan expected by the end of June, Pentagon officials said.
“Protecting innocent civilians is fundamental to our operational success and is a strategic and moral imperative,” Mr. Austin said in his memo.
At a Pentagon news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Kirby defended General Garrett’s report and its lack of any disciplinary measures, arguing that U.S. ground commanders made the best decision they could with the information they had at the time.
“Yes, we killed some innocent civilians, women and children,” Mr. Kirby said in response to questions about holding military personnel accountable for the civilian deaths.
“We actually do feel bad about this.”
But, he added, “It was in the midst of combat, in the fog of war.”
The Baghuz strike occurred in the last days of the offensive to clear Islamic State fighters from their self-proclaimed caliphate, which had once sprawled across areas of Syria and Iraq.
American F-15 attack jets made repeated bombing runs on a riverbank where scores of women, children and wounded people had taken shelter.
Air Force personnel at a headquarters in Qatar who were watching drone footage taken from high above the site immediately reported the strike, saying that about 70 civilians may have been killed, and notified leaders that a formal investigation was required.
Instead, there was only a cursory report by the Special Operations unit responsible for the strike, which downplayed its impact, saying a handful of fighters had been killed and not mentioning civilian deaths.
A formal investigation, conducted by the same unit, said four civilians had been killed and found no wrongdoing.
Air Force personnel who witnessed the strike later alerted the Defense Department inspector general’s office, which started an investigation.
General Garrett’s review identified a cascade of mistakes that led to the strike and the subsequent failures to accurately report the casualties.
At the time of the attack, the Islamic State was battling the U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces, which called for U.S. airstrikes and said there were no civilians in the area.
An American commander who launched the strike relied on faulty Syrian intelligence and blurry drone footage that did not reveal that scores of people were sheltering in the area, the senior Defense Department official said, adding that “if women and children had been reported in the area, they would not have taken that shot, period.”
The defense official acknowledged that the military did not respond in a timely manner, but said that General Garrett’s review did not find any “malicious or wrongful intent.”
Current and former military members who worked on thousands of airstrikes during the war against the Islamic State said that military personnel had been sounding alarms about several of the factors, including the unreliability of intelligence from the Syrian Democratic Forces and the overreliance on self-defense protocols to justify strikes.
“It’s the standard government line: Mistakes were made but there was no wrongdoing,” said Eugene Tate, a former evaluator for the Defense Department inspector general’s office who had tried looking into the Baghuz strike.
“But if the same mistakes were being made over and over again for years, shouldn’t someone have done something about it?"
"It doesn’t sit well with me, and I’m not sure it should sit well with anyone else.”
Mr. Tate, who said he was never interviewed for General Garrett’s investigation, said he witnessed Defense Department leaders trying to bury reports of the strike.
“The investigation says the reporting was delayed,” Mr. Tate said.
“None of the worker bees involved believe it was delayed."
"We believe there was no reporting.”
In interviews with The Times, pilots, intelligence officers and members of a secret strike cell that ran much of the air war in Syria said the Baghuz attack was part of a disturbing pattern: Loopholes in regulations allowed Special Operations troops to speed up airstrikes against enemies, but a growing number of civilians were being killed.
At the start of the war against the Islamic State in 2014, top military leaders put in place a number of safeguards to minimize civilian harm.
Drones studying targets were required to stay overhead for hours, collecting evidence that enemies were present and civilians were not.
Strikes had to be approved by high-level officers.
But in 2016 and 2017, the authority to launch strikes was delegated to the secret cell, which was run by the Army’s elite Delta Force.
The cell, called Talon Anvil, found that it could shortcut these safeguards and strike at will by claiming self-defense.
Soon nearly all of the cell’s strikes were justified under self-defense rules, even if they were miles from any fighting.
Current and former service members have been interviewed by criminal investigators from the inspector general’s office, according to people familiar with the inquiry.
A spokeswoman for the office, Megan G. Reed, said the agency could neither confirm nor deny the existence of a criminal investigation but added, “We are conducting a body of work in this area and expect to release a report within a matter of months.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... aba2a16221
Re: THE DOD
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
"Pentagon Weighs Deploying Special Forces to Guard Kyiv Embassy"
Gordon Lubold, Courtney McBride, Warren P. Strobel
22 May 2022
WASHINGTON—U.S. military and diplomatic officials are weighing plans to send special forces troops to Kyiv to guard the newly reopened embassy there, proposals that would force the Biden administration to balance a desire to avoid escalating the U.S. military presence in the war zone against fears for the safety of American diplomats, U.S. officials said.
President Biden has yet to be presented with the proposal.
But if he approves it, troops would be deployed only for the defense and security of the embassy, which lies within range of Russian missiles, U.S. officials said.
Their presence inside Ukraine would mark an escalation from Mr. Biden’s initial pledge that no American troops will be sent into the country.
The administration seeks to balance concerns within the State Department that a robust, conspicuous security posture at the embassy could provoke Russian President Vladimir Putin with the need to deter a potential attack on American personnel — and have sufficient forces to extract them if fighting breaks out again in Kyiv.[/b][/color]
Russia continues to target the Ukrainian capital with occasional airstrikes or shelling even as the city has begun to return to normal.
For now, the State Department will furnish its own security, from a corps of guards in the Diplomatic Security Service, for the embassy in Kyiv.
Preliminary planning is under way at the Pentagon and the State Department for possibly dozens of special forces troops who could augment security at the embassy, or could stand by to deploy if needed.
In addition to using special forces troops to provide security at the embassy, officials are considering restoring a Marine security guard detachment, like those that normally provide security at embassies around the world.
No formal proposals have been sent so far to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark Milley or Mr. Biden.
“We are in close touch with our colleagues at the State Department about potential security requirements now that they have resumed operations at the embassy in Kyiv,” said Pentagon press secretary John Kirby in a statement.
“But no decisions have been made, and no specific proposals have been debated at senior levels of the department about the return of U.S. military members to Ukraine for that or any other purpose.”
Over time, and depending on how the conflict in the east unfolds, U.S. officials envision a larger presence for the U.S. to administer the tens of billions of dollars of weaponry that have poured into the country in recent months.
And some U.S. military officials would like to return to Ukraine the special forces and other troops that were conducting train-and-advise operations for the Ukrainian military.
The embassy in Kyiv was all but shuttered by the time Russia invaded Ukraine Feb. 24, its diplomatic staff largely relocated 340 miles west to Poland, with a small group making short trips to a makeshift diplomatic post in Lviv, just inside the Ukraine border.
After Mr. Putin failed to achieve a key objective of taking Kyiv and installing a puppet government, Russian forces have shifted operations to the east.
In late March, Russian forces began to focus on the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.
Although Kyiv remains under threat of artillery and missile fire, several key U.S. allies have reopened their embassies or returned to Kyiv diplomats who had relocated to other parts of the country.
The State Department has already begun to lean on the U.S. military for security.
On May 8, Kristina Kvien, the senior diplomat in the U.S. mission to Ukraine, and a small group of U.S. diplomats temporarily based in Poland returned to the U.S. Embassy complex in Kyiv to commemorate Victory in Europe Day with Ukrainian officials.
They were escorted by U.S. Special Forces assigned from Joint Special Operations Command in Fort Bragg, N.C., who provided for their security — the first known instance in which American forces entered the country since the invasion.
Last Wednesday, the American flag was raised at the embassy.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the department had “put forward additional measures to increase the safety of our colleagues who are returning to Kyiv and have enhanced our security measures and protocols.”
The Senate has recently confirmed a new U.S. ambassador to Kyiv, Bridget Brink, but she has yet to arrive in Ukraine.
The initial contingent of American diplomatic personnel will be small, and it will take time and resources to move them and their families back to the post, U.S. officials said.
But the benefits of a renewed diplomatic presence are clear, U.S. officials say: U.S. personnel will be able to interact in person with the Kyiv government, monitor the distribution of billions of dollars in U.S. weaponry, keep an eye on Russian troop movements and offer technical assistance.
The addition of more intelligence assets, say U.S. officials, is key.
The Kyiv embassy is a traditional European diplomatic installation, rather than a fortified complex as seen in some other parts of the world where security threats are more longstanding.
Officials see as unlikely an attack on the embassy like the 2012 assault on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans including the top diplomat.
But they are generally uneasy about sending American diplomats into an active war zone.
Also weighing on officials at the State Department and Pentagon is the evacuation of the Kabul embassy last summer.
As the Taliban was taking control of Afghanistan, the Pentagon urged the State Department to begin to reduce the size of the embassy, which stood at more than 4,000 people.
State Department officials hesitated moving diplomats out, determined to maintain a robust diplomatic mission in Kabul despite the deteriorating security situation.
In August, troops evacuated the remaining U.S. diplomats to Kabul’s international airport, where some continued to work through the chaotic last days of the mission there.
Write to Gordon Lubold at Gordon.Lubold@wsj.com, Courtney McBride at courtney.mcbride@wsj.com and Warren P. Strobel at Warren.Strobel@wsj.com
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pe ... 4dea736993
"Pentagon Weighs Deploying Special Forces to Guard Kyiv Embassy"
Gordon Lubold, Courtney McBride, Warren P. Strobel
22 May 2022
WASHINGTON—U.S. military and diplomatic officials are weighing plans to send special forces troops to Kyiv to guard the newly reopened embassy there, proposals that would force the Biden administration to balance a desire to avoid escalating the U.S. military presence in the war zone against fears for the safety of American diplomats, U.S. officials said.
President Biden has yet to be presented with the proposal.
But if he approves it, troops would be deployed only for the defense and security of the embassy, which lies within range of Russian missiles, U.S. officials said.
Their presence inside Ukraine would mark an escalation from Mr. Biden’s initial pledge that no American troops will be sent into the country.
The administration seeks to balance concerns within the State Department that a robust, conspicuous security posture at the embassy could provoke Russian President Vladimir Putin with the need to deter a potential attack on American personnel — and have sufficient forces to extract them if fighting breaks out again in Kyiv.[/b][/color]
Russia continues to target the Ukrainian capital with occasional airstrikes or shelling even as the city has begun to return to normal.
For now, the State Department will furnish its own security, from a corps of guards in the Diplomatic Security Service, for the embassy in Kyiv.
Preliminary planning is under way at the Pentagon and the State Department for possibly dozens of special forces troops who could augment security at the embassy, or could stand by to deploy if needed.
In addition to using special forces troops to provide security at the embassy, officials are considering restoring a Marine security guard detachment, like those that normally provide security at embassies around the world.
No formal proposals have been sent so far to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark Milley or Mr. Biden.
“We are in close touch with our colleagues at the State Department about potential security requirements now that they have resumed operations at the embassy in Kyiv,” said Pentagon press secretary John Kirby in a statement.
“But no decisions have been made, and no specific proposals have been debated at senior levels of the department about the return of U.S. military members to Ukraine for that or any other purpose.”
Over time, and depending on how the conflict in the east unfolds, U.S. officials envision a larger presence for the U.S. to administer the tens of billions of dollars of weaponry that have poured into the country in recent months.
And some U.S. military officials would like to return to Ukraine the special forces and other troops that were conducting train-and-advise operations for the Ukrainian military.
The embassy in Kyiv was all but shuttered by the time Russia invaded Ukraine Feb. 24, its diplomatic staff largely relocated 340 miles west to Poland, with a small group making short trips to a makeshift diplomatic post in Lviv, just inside the Ukraine border.
After Mr. Putin failed to achieve a key objective of taking Kyiv and installing a puppet government, Russian forces have shifted operations to the east.
In late March, Russian forces began to focus on the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.
Although Kyiv remains under threat of artillery and missile fire, several key U.S. allies have reopened their embassies or returned to Kyiv diplomats who had relocated to other parts of the country.
The State Department has already begun to lean on the U.S. military for security.
On May 8, Kristina Kvien, the senior diplomat in the U.S. mission to Ukraine, and a small group of U.S. diplomats temporarily based in Poland returned to the U.S. Embassy complex in Kyiv to commemorate Victory in Europe Day with Ukrainian officials.
They were escorted by U.S. Special Forces assigned from Joint Special Operations Command in Fort Bragg, N.C., who provided for their security — the first known instance in which American forces entered the country since the invasion.
Last Wednesday, the American flag was raised at the embassy.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the department had “put forward additional measures to increase the safety of our colleagues who are returning to Kyiv and have enhanced our security measures and protocols.”
The Senate has recently confirmed a new U.S. ambassador to Kyiv, Bridget Brink, but she has yet to arrive in Ukraine.
The initial contingent of American diplomatic personnel will be small, and it will take time and resources to move them and their families back to the post, U.S. officials said.
But the benefits of a renewed diplomatic presence are clear, U.S. officials say: U.S. personnel will be able to interact in person with the Kyiv government, monitor the distribution of billions of dollars in U.S. weaponry, keep an eye on Russian troop movements and offer technical assistance.
The addition of more intelligence assets, say U.S. officials, is key.
The Kyiv embassy is a traditional European diplomatic installation, rather than a fortified complex as seen in some other parts of the world where security threats are more longstanding.
Officials see as unlikely an attack on the embassy like the 2012 assault on a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans including the top diplomat.
But they are generally uneasy about sending American diplomats into an active war zone.
Also weighing on officials at the State Department and Pentagon is the evacuation of the Kabul embassy last summer.
As the Taliban was taking control of Afghanistan, the Pentagon urged the State Department to begin to reduce the size of the embassy, which stood at more than 4,000 people.
State Department officials hesitated moving diplomats out, determined to maintain a robust diplomatic mission in Kabul despite the deteriorating security situation.
In August, troops evacuated the remaining U.S. diplomats to Kabul’s international airport, where some continued to work through the chaotic last days of the mission there.
Write to Gordon Lubold at Gordon.Lubold@wsj.com, Courtney McBride at courtney.mcbride@wsj.com and Warren P. Strobel at Warren.Strobel@wsj.com
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/pe ... 4dea736993
Re: THE DOD
THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
"Submarine crash in South China Sea was 'preventable,' Navy investigation finds"
Abigail Adcox
23 MAY 2022
A U.S. Navy investigation tasked with looking into the events that led to a nuclear submarine crashing into an "uncharted seamount" in the South China Sea last fall found the mishap was "preventable."
The Oct. 2 underwater crash of the USS Connecticut that put the submarine out of commission for months happened because of navigation planning and risk management mistakes, among other errors, according to a final investigative report by Rear Adm. Christopher Cavanaugh.
"This mishap was preventable."
"It resulted from an accumulation of errors and omissions in navigation planning, watch team execution, and risk management that fell far below U.S. Navy standards," an executive summary of the investigation's findings reads.
"Prudent decision-making and adherence to required procedures in any of these three areas could have prevented the grounding."
Eleven sailors suffered minor injuries in the incident, and the submarine's nuclear propulsion was damaged.
Leaders aboard the submarine during the underwater crash were relieved of their duties in November.
Three additional crew members are recommended to be relieved of their positions after the investigation.
The investigation team, composed of one investigator and 13 other personnel, reviewed documents, interviewed witnesses, and conducted inspections aboard the vessel.
The crash spurred concern overseas, with Chinese officials demanding "specific details" about what happened and "whether the collision caused a nuclear leak or damaged local marine environment."
The Connecticut is expected to be out of operation for an "extended period of time" due to the damage sustained in the incident, the report states.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/su ... ea52876cf0
"Submarine crash in South China Sea was 'preventable,' Navy investigation finds"
Abigail Adcox
23 MAY 2022
A U.S. Navy investigation tasked with looking into the events that led to a nuclear submarine crashing into an "uncharted seamount" in the South China Sea last fall found the mishap was "preventable."
The Oct. 2 underwater crash of the USS Connecticut that put the submarine out of commission for months happened because of navigation planning and risk management mistakes, among other errors, according to a final investigative report by Rear Adm. Christopher Cavanaugh.
"This mishap was preventable."
"It resulted from an accumulation of errors and omissions in navigation planning, watch team execution, and risk management that fell far below U.S. Navy standards," an executive summary of the investigation's findings reads.
"Prudent decision-making and adherence to required procedures in any of these three areas could have prevented the grounding."
Eleven sailors suffered minor injuries in the incident, and the submarine's nuclear propulsion was damaged.
Leaders aboard the submarine during the underwater crash were relieved of their duties in November.
Three additional crew members are recommended to be relieved of their positions after the investigation.
The investigation team, composed of one investigator and 13 other personnel, reviewed documents, interviewed witnesses, and conducted inspections aboard the vessel.
The crash spurred concern overseas, with Chinese officials demanding "specific details" about what happened and "whether the collision caused a nuclear leak or damaged local marine environment."
The Connecticut is expected to be out of operation for an "extended period of time" due to the damage sustained in the incident, the report states.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/su ... ea52876cf0
Re: THE DOD
REUTERS
"EXCLUSIVE U.S. plans to sell armed drones to Ukraine in coming days -sources"
By Mike Stone
June 1, 2022
WASHINGTON, June 1 (Reuters) - The Biden administration plans to sell Ukraine four MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones that can be armed with Hellfire missiles for battlefield use against Russia, three people familiar with the situation said.
The sale of the General Atomics-made drones could still be blocked by Congress, the sources said, adding that there is also a risk of a last minute policy reversal that could scuttle the plan, which has been under review at the Pentagon for several weeks.
Ukraine has been using several types of smaller shorter range unmanned aerial systems against Russian forces that invaded the country in late February.
They include the AeroVironment RQ-20 Puma AE, and the Turkish Bayraktar-TB2.
But the Gray Eagle represents a leap in technology because it can fly up to 30 or more hours depending on its mission and can gather huge amounts of data for intelligence purposes.
Gray Eagles, the Army's version of the more widely known Predator drone, can also carry up to eight powerful Hellfire missiles.
The sale is significant because it puts an advanced reusable U.S. system capable of multiple deep strikes on the battlefield against Russia for the first time.
The administration of President Joe Biden intends to notify Congress of the potential sale to Ukraine in the coming days with a public announcement expected after that, a U.S. official said.
A White House spokesperson referred inquiries to the Pentagon and a Pentagon spokesperson said there was "nothing to announce."
Money from the recently passed $40 billion Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative has been set aside to fund both the possible sale and the training needed for the drones, the U.S. official and one of the people familiar said.
"Generally the MQ-1C is a much larger aircraft with a max take-off weight around three times that of the Bayraktar-TB2, with commensurate advantages in payload capacity, range, and endurance," said drone expert Dan Gettinger with the Vertical Flight Society.
The MQ-1C is also compatible with a greater variety of munitions than the Bayraktar-TB2.
The Ukrainian Bayraktars are equipped with 22 kg (48 pound) Turkish-made MAM-L missiles, around half the weight of a Hellfire.
Training on the UAV system made by General Atomics usually takes months, Gettinger said, but a notional plan to train experienced Ukrainian maintainers and operators in a handful of weeks has been proposed in recent weeks, the sources said.
Arming the drones with Hellfire missiles will be done via a future Presidential Drawdown Authority once training on the drones has been completed, the U.S. official and one of the sources said.
Up until an announcement on Wednesday that Ukraine would get four HIMARS rocket systems, the Pentagon has stressed that smaller systems such as Javelin anti-tank systems and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, which allies are shipping to Ukraine via truck near-daily, are most useful.
Raytheon Technologies and Lockheed Martin Corp jointly produce Javelins, while Raytheon makes Stingers.
Reporting by Mike Stone in Washington; editing by Chris Sanders and Grant McCool
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-06-01/
"EXCLUSIVE U.S. plans to sell armed drones to Ukraine in coming days -sources"
By Mike Stone
June 1, 2022
WASHINGTON, June 1 (Reuters) - The Biden administration plans to sell Ukraine four MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones that can be armed with Hellfire missiles for battlefield use against Russia, three people familiar with the situation said.
The sale of the General Atomics-made drones could still be blocked by Congress, the sources said, adding that there is also a risk of a last minute policy reversal that could scuttle the plan, which has been under review at the Pentagon for several weeks.
Ukraine has been using several types of smaller shorter range unmanned aerial systems against Russian forces that invaded the country in late February.
They include the AeroVironment RQ-20 Puma AE, and the Turkish Bayraktar-TB2.
But the Gray Eagle represents a leap in technology because it can fly up to 30 or more hours depending on its mission and can gather huge amounts of data for intelligence purposes.
Gray Eagles, the Army's version of the more widely known Predator drone, can also carry up to eight powerful Hellfire missiles.
The sale is significant because it puts an advanced reusable U.S. system capable of multiple deep strikes on the battlefield against Russia for the first time.
The administration of President Joe Biden intends to notify Congress of the potential sale to Ukraine in the coming days with a public announcement expected after that, a U.S. official said.
A White House spokesperson referred inquiries to the Pentagon and a Pentagon spokesperson said there was "nothing to announce."
Money from the recently passed $40 billion Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative has been set aside to fund both the possible sale and the training needed for the drones, the U.S. official and one of the people familiar said.
"Generally the MQ-1C is a much larger aircraft with a max take-off weight around three times that of the Bayraktar-TB2, with commensurate advantages in payload capacity, range, and endurance," said drone expert Dan Gettinger with the Vertical Flight Society.
The MQ-1C is also compatible with a greater variety of munitions than the Bayraktar-TB2.
The Ukrainian Bayraktars are equipped with 22 kg (48 pound) Turkish-made MAM-L missiles, around half the weight of a Hellfire.
Training on the UAV system made by General Atomics usually takes months, Gettinger said, but a notional plan to train experienced Ukrainian maintainers and operators in a handful of weeks has been proposed in recent weeks, the sources said.
Arming the drones with Hellfire missiles will be done via a future Presidential Drawdown Authority once training on the drones has been completed, the U.S. official and one of the sources said.
Up until an announcement on Wednesday that Ukraine would get four HIMARS rocket systems, the Pentagon has stressed that smaller systems such as Javelin anti-tank systems and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, which allies are shipping to Ukraine via truck near-daily, are most useful.
Raytheon Technologies and Lockheed Martin Corp jointly produce Javelins, while Raytheon makes Stingers.
Reporting by Mike Stone in Washington; editing by Chris Sanders and Grant McCool
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerosp ... 022-06-01/