Colombia establishes closer information security links with NATO

Colombia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization signed an agreement on information security that will allow exploring future cooperation and consultation in areas of common interest. The agreement was signed on Tuesday in Brussels by NATO Secretary General Ambassador Alexander Vershbow and the Defense Minister of Colombia, Juan Carlos Pinzón Bueno.

“As an Alliance of democracies, we are gratified when countries sharing similar values reach out to us,” the Deputy Secretary General said during his meeting with Minister Pinzón Bueno.

Ambassador Vershbow said that Allies have agreed to pursue tailored cooperation with Colombia on a case-by-case basis, in areas of common interest and that by signing this accord NATO and Colombia stress their shared interest in consultation and cooperation. Continue reading

State Dept. Advisers: Let’s Cut Nukes Some More

To best illustrate on how a country commits national suicide, consider the following exerpt from Viktor Suvorov’s “Spetsnaz. The Story Behind the Soviet SAS“; Chapter 10, “Battle Training”:

One one occasion following my flight to the West I was present at some large-scale military manoeuvres in which the armies of many Western countries took part. The standard of battle training made a very favourable impression on me. I was particularly impressed by the skilful, I would even say masterly, way the units camouflaged themselves. The battle equipment, the tanks and other vehicles, and the armoured personnel carriers are painted with something that does not reflect the sunlight; the colour is very cleverly chosen; and the camouflaging is painted in such a way that it is difficult to make out the vehicle even at a short distance and its outline mixes in with the background. But every army made one enormous mistake with the camouflaging of some of the vehicles, which had huge white circles and red crosses painted on their sides. I explained to the Western officers that the red and white colours were very easily seen at a distance, ,and that it would be better to use green paint. I was told that the vehicles with the red cross were intended for transporting the wounded, which I knew perfectly well. That was a good reason, I said, why the crosses should be painted out or made very much smaller. Please be human, I said. You are transporting a wounded man and you must protect him by every means. Then protect him. Hide him. Make sure the Communists can’t see him.

In the last war the Communists did not respect international conventions and treaties, but some of their enemies, with many centuries of culture and excellent traditions, failed equally to respect international laws. Since then the Red Army has used the red cross symbol, painted very small, as a sign to tell its own soldiers where the hospital is. The red cross needs only to be visible to their own men. The Red Army has no faith in the goodwill of the enemy.

International treaties and conventions have never saved anybody from being attacked. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact is a striking example. It did not protect the Soviet Union. But if Hitler had managed to invade the British Isles the pact would not have protected Germany either. Stalin said quite openly on this point: ‘War can turn all agreements of any kind upside down.’ (Pravda, 15 September 1927.)

The Soviet leadership and the Soviet diplomatic service adopt a philosophical attitude to all agreements. If one trusts a friend there is no need for a treaty; friends do not need to rely on treaties to call for assistance. If one is weaker than one’s enemy a treaty will not be any use anyway. And if one is stronger than one’s enemy, what is the point of observing a treaty? International treaties are just an instrument of politics and propaganda. The Soviet leadership and the Soviet Army put no trust in any treaties, believing only in the force that is behind the treaties.

Thus the enormous red cross on the side of a military vehicle is just a symbol of Western naivete and faith in the force of protocols, paragraphs, signatures and seals. Since Western diplomats have signed these treaties they ought to insist that the Soviet Union, having also signed them, should explain to its soldiers, officers and generals what they contain, and should include in its official regulations special paragraphs forbidding certain acts in war. Only then would there be any sense in painting on the huge red crosses.

The red cross is only one example. One needs constantly to keep in mind what Lenin always emphasised: that a dictatorship relies on force and not on the law. ‘The scientific concept of dictatorship means power, limited in no way, by no laws and restrained by absolutely no rules, and relying directly on force.’ (Lenin, Vol. 25, p. 441.)

Why put up the red cross or sign treaties when history has shown us that the Soviet Union has never cared about either? The last world war was not the first time that they have disregarded these.

Adding a signature to a treaty means nothing to them but a means to an end. They know America will always (and also foolishly as a demonstration of moral strength) take the “high road” in painting a red cross and abide by it.

In their eyes, it’s a sign of weakness and we’re outright extending our Achilles Heel to them. This is nothing short of rolling out the red carpet and an invitation for the Soviets.

We are literally handing them a weakness to exploit.

The article:

New State Dept. report suggests working toward elimination of nuclear weapons

A State Department advisory board report made public Tuesday shows that the Obama administration is studying cuts in U.S. strategic arsenals to “very low” levels and ultimately eliminating nuclear arms.

The advisory board, headed by former Defense Secretary William Perry, reflects themes promoted by liberal arms control and disarmament officials in the administration and calls for a new U.S. nuclear doctrine dubbed “mutual assured stability” based on better relations with Russia.

The current nuclear doctrine is “mutual assured destruction,” in which both the United States and Russia maintain balanced nuclear forces that threaten the destruction of cities and nuclear forces to deter a nuclear war.

Another concept examined by the board was working to create a future that is “a cooperative world of ‘increased transparency and trust’ without ‘adversarial challenges’ in which [nuclear deterrence] is no longer necessary.

The report said that the cooperative world scenario “may be unrealistic to achieve in an acceptable timeframe” and focused instead on how to cut nuclear arsenals.

The report calls for conciliatory policies toward Russia and dialogue involving “cooperative security” efforts designed to reduce the risk of a nuclear conflict.

The report also mentions one potentially destabilizing result of deploying a very small nuclear force as “nuclear forces, albeit progressively smaller in size, but not adequately sized and maintained, and with a force structure and posture not appropriately tailored for circumstances and uncertainty.” It also warns that there are risks that reducing nuclear arms will undermine U.S. nuclear deterrence provided to allies in Asia and Europe.

Russia’s government in recent months has issued threats to conduct preemptive attacks on U.S. missile defenses in Europe as a result of plans for building European defenses.

Moscow for several years has demanded legally binding restrictions on U.S. missile defenses, a position rejected so far by the Obama administration.

The president’s open-microphone promise to Russia’s leader of “more flexibility” after his presumed reelection has raised concerns among national security Republicans about future talks with Russia.

Russian strategic nuclear bombers also recently conducted air defense identification zone incursions near Alaska and California and a Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine was said by U.S. officials to have sailed undetected in the Gulf of Mexico.

The State Department report joins a separate Pentagon study called the Nuclear Posture Review implementation that is also examining deep cuts in nuclear warhead levels. Officials familiar with the study say it is looking at cutting U.S. deployed warheads to as few as 300 warheads—smaller than China’s current arsenal. Other levels in that study include a force of some 800 warheads or around 1,000 warheads.

Under the 2010 U.S.-Russia New START treaty, deployed warhead levels will be cut to 1,550, a level U.S. Strategic Command officials have said is what is needed to maintain nuclear deterrence against Russia and other nuclear states.

The board report also recommended downgrading the nuclear threat from Russia by changing doctrine and posture “away from defining our nuclear posture based on perception of Russia as the primary threat, toward a doctrine of general deterrence, a posture in which attacks from any direction are discouraged, without singling out a particular adversary or enemy.”

The report also called for greater “clarity and assurance” with Russia to build trust through sharing launch data, providing advance notice of new weapons, declaring fissile material stocks, and working to develop a response to the use of a nuclear weapons some place in the world.

Full article: State Dept. Advisers: Let’s Cut Nukes Some More (Washington Free Beacon)