Thursday, March 27, 2014

Why isn't this a surprise. Place sanctions on Russia as we give them free military equipment.

U.S. Gives Russia Free Military Equipment Used By Army, Marines


Behind closed doors the U.S. government is giving Russia free military equipment—also used to train American troops—even after President Obama announced punitive sanctions against Moscow and, more importantly, a suspension in military engagement over the invasion and occupation of Ukraine.
The secret operation was exposed this week by members of Congress that discovered it in the process of reviewing the Fiscal Year 2014 budget and the proposed Fiscal Year 2015 budget request. It turns out that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has been providing the Russian Federation with the Multiple Integrated Laser Engagement System (MILES), the federal legislators say. The U.S. military uses MILES for tactical force-on-force training because it has a system of lasers and dummy ammunition to simulate ground combat.
It’s a crucial, military-grade technology that’s similar to a “laser tag” available in some commercial markets, according to one of the outraged lawmakers (Oklahoma Republican Jim Bridenstine) that helped uncover the scandal. Bridenstine, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, has joined forces with Ohio Republican Mike Turner, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, to demand an end to the program. Along with about a dozen other House colleagues they penned a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, who oversees the agency carrying out the “irresponsible military equipment transfers” to Russia.
The Obama administration’s planned supply to the Russian Federation is a grave mistake given the recent invasion of Ukraine launched by Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, the legislators point out. “It is difficult to imagine a worse time to provide military-grade technology employed by the U.S. Marine Corps, Army, and Special Operations Forces to Russia than when it has illegally invaded Ukraine and is violating the intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty,” the letter to Moniz says. “To make matters worse, it is our understanding from the budget documents that the Department has been, and continues to propose, providing this technology to Russia free-of-charge.”
This is preposterous and borders on criminal if you really think about it. As if we need reminding, Congressman Turner recants Putin’s “brazen disregard for the sovereignty and stability of Eastern Europe” as well as his disregard for international law. “Despite this overwhelming evidence that Putin is not our ally, it is astonishing that the Obama Administration would still provide superior, U.S. military technology to an aggressive and advancing Russia,” Turner said. “The United States must seriously redirect its approach and immediately terminate all military aid to Russia.”
President Obama has already proven to be an international joke for his response to the worsening crisis in Ukraine. Even the mainstream media in this country has blasted the commander-in-chief’s foreign policy as based on fantasy. One famously liberal magazine published a satirical article saying that the Obama administration froze Putin’s Netflix account as a “major ramping up of sanctions.” In a piece published a few days ago, a former veteran congressman wrote this: “The embarrassment of U.S. impotence in dealing with Russian aggression in the Ukraine is only the beginning of what will likely be a series of foreign policy disasters.”

15 comments:

  1. Okay they were reviewing a budget written months ago. Just because that is in there doesn't mean it is happening. It was a planned supply. Doesn't mean it happened. Throwing shit at the wall is what this is. Do you have documents proving a transfer? No you do not. Plans and reality are two different animals. For example when I was 15 I planned to be rich. Didn't happen the way I planned. See the difference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The response was expected.

      Excellent Rick, your would defend this administration to the end no matter what they did.

      As a side note obviously the negotiations for the materials began long ago, didn't happen over night. Obviously the Russians could care less as they pushed forward in February before the budget proposal was sent forward. Obviously the administration didn't read the budget proposal or didn't care that the transfer was in the budget.

      Obviously you missed the point completely. Why would the US give away anything to Russia for free? They are far from a friendly country. Trying to buy their friendship? No one pay attention in this administration including the guy in the seat. The Keystone cops running the country at it's finest.

      I love paying 70 million for a ride into space to a country that we are so close to. Bait and switch, first ride a reasonable 7 million bucks. Today 70 million and we are stupid enough to continue doing it. So much for America leading the world.

      Keep shilling for the busted administration, it is amusing.

      Delete
    2. Saying anything about this Rick, is a no win situation. I certainly believe Obama has been slow to respond and should have stepped up much sooner. But, I also believe that conservatives are living in a fantasy land if they think we are going to go to war with Russia or if they think that somehow we can make Putin back down by running around giving blistering speeches.

      In reality, unless we want to pour troops into Ukraine and threaten to have a military battle, we are not going to scare Putin from annexing former Soviet states that are on HIS border and NOT on ours. The only real pain we can cause is financial and we can't do that without considerable cooperation from countries like Germany who get a lot of their natural gas from Russia.

      Delete
    3. I would ask... delivered or not... why the president of the United States was even remotely helping Russia with war preparations? It is a phenomenal to me that anyone believes that this KGB agent is somehow an agent for democratic change... Russia is still very much an advisory, with a nuclear arsenal larger than ours… The last arms reduction negotiated by… guess who… was unilateral with respect to reduction of weapons.

      As far as the political dilemma we find ourselves in currently, I suggest to relates to a policy that is the antithesis of 'Walk softly and carry a big stick'. We of course have created a limp wristed Europe in our desire to occupy and ‘defend’ it for decades (sounds like a democratic social policy) and they couldn’t come together to fight a cold much less put up a credible deterrent to Russia. The real test will be when Putin tests NATO’s resolve with a member state like Estonia. We make treaties we are unable or unwilling to keep and wonder why we seem to have a credibility problem. We don’t have to be in 150 countries around the world. The world just needs to know that we have the terminal amounts of power and will to use it when challenged…

      Delete
    4. Putin won't go after NATO members he's not that stupid. You all miss the whole point of the Crimea affair. He needs the naval base. As Ukraine moves towards closer ties to the west it has made Putin nervous solely because the naval base. Would any of you be comfortable with China controlling Hawaii and Pearl Harbor? It would be the same thing for Russia. Get your checkbooks out cause Putin is going to leave the garbage part of the Ukraine right on our doorstep.

      Delete
    5. "Behind closed doors the U.S. government is giving Russia free military equipment—also used to train American troops—even after President Obama announced punitive sanctions against Moscow and, more importantly, a suspension in military engagement over the invasion and occupation of Ukraine"

      Where's the proof? I re iterate because it was in a budget drafted months ago don't make it so. This is of course some rogue website I am sure where you got this shit since you didn't bother to post a source..

      Delete
    6. Putin won't go after NATO members he's not that stupid.

      That remains to be seen. The regions of Georgia and Crimea are low hanging fruit. You are mistaken if you don't think Putin feels personally aggrieved that, in his eyes, weak domestic leadership allowed the USSR to disintegrate. He will annex as much of the old republics as he can without direct confrontation with the west and with every parcel he gobbles up, he will thump his chest a little louder and if we have a weak president or a nation distracted by a hundred little fires, have no illusions, he will test... He will test with direct interference in elections, he will test with oil and gas blackmail and he will test with his military if he calculates the move to be a correct one. I don't think he wants to risk a war but I don't think a hardliner like him can ever back off the idea of old glory and that could lead him into making very reckless moves.

      Delete
    7. "You are mistaken if you don't think Putin feels personally aggrieved that, in his eyes, weak domestic leadership allowed the USSR to disintegrate."

      THIS, is the heart and soul of conservative thought. If you lose standing in the world, it is 100% because you are big pussy. It's not failed ideology, it's not that the world has moved on around you, it's because you didn't stand up, put your boot up someone's ass and let em' know who's boss. That disgust that he feels is the disgust and contempt that conservatives feel for Obama.

      Delete
    8. Scott you answered the question yourself in your comment,

      "He will annex as much of the old republics as he can without direct confrontation with the west"

      This is the same as my statement "He's not that stupid". To invade a member of NATO starts a war that Putin cannot win. The very act of invading a NATO member unleashes the power of NATO upon Russia no questions asked. It is the treaty.

      Article 5 requires member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack.
      This will be stretched to the limit if Putin has designs on any NATO state that has ended it's association with Russia. Invoking article 5 puts Russia at war with the 28 member nations. Granted many of them can be of little assistance, but Russia cannot stand alone against the big 5 USA, England, France, Canada, Germany.

      Delete
  2. Yes Scott in total number of weapons Russia leads. But here's the definitive difference, they gain that lead in mid and short range weapons that cannot reach our shores. As far as long range stuff, the stuff that matters we are now and have always been far superior. Also any number of weapons given for a foreign country are only estimates we really don't know. They may have a million of them but more then likely a thousand.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Max.

    No reason to go to war. We have zero interests in the area. Ukraine isn't a member of NATO which would also be a poor excuse to go to war. Putin is looking at reuniting the empire which has zero affect on the US.

    We pretend to care, here let me freeze your netflix account, take that. Threaten sanctions. To export gas may have a minor impact on Putin but a major effect on the US consumer with higher prices.

    The point is the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing in government. We offer free weapons to Russia and pay 70 million for a ride into space. Then Russia does the Ukraine thing and nothing is said about the proposal of giving Russia free junk. What a goof government we have.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I submit the most pertinent point in this debate so far is from Ric "He needs the naval base:" Quite correct, the only warm water port available to him in the region. Consider if you will the Latino nations coveting a slice of their 'Homeland" which they settled in the seventeenth century California and Texas for starters.

    Spain cannot do more than look with envy at “their” land but Putan can not only look, he can act with impunity provided the West remains fragmented on the issue. I can see neither the necessity, nor the likelihood of war. The problem will be solved by partition and reverting to the old borders of sixty years ago. Russia erred in giving up territory with so much strategic value, it was thought that the USSR would emulate the Roman Empire and supposedly last for ever.

    We all know what happened to Rome; same thing now and Putin is trying to put his broken egg back together.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I submit Rick should do a little research before blathering about.
      Seems they already had use of the naval bases.

      In 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed the Partition Treaty, establishing two independent national fleets and dividing armaments and bases between them. Ukraine also agreed to lease major parts of its new bases in Sevastopol to the Russian Black Sea Fleet until 2017. During the presidency of Victor Yushchenko the Ukrainian government declared that the lease will not be extended and that the fleet will have to leave Sevastopol by 2017

      Amid several Russia–Ukraine gas disputes, including a halt of natural gas supplies to European countries, the price that Ukraine had to pay for Russian natural gas was raised in 2006 and in 2009.

      On 21 April 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement in which Russia agreed to a 30% drop in the price of natural gas sold to Ukraine. Russia agreed to this in exchange for permission to extend Russia's lease of a major naval base in the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sevastopol for an additional 25 years (to 2042) with an additional 5 year renewal option (to 2047).

      Delete
    2. Louman YOU do your research. Yes they had use of the bases, and Ukraine had a pro Russian President. No one ever said that they didn't use the base. But the trend of the Ukraine revolt is to move Ukraine closer to west and eventual membership in NATO. Putin is merely acting in case that happens to protect his base. Frankly even in a NATO aligned Ukraine he could probably use the base. But I again ask, would you be comfortable if China had some kind of treaty that let it control the Hawaiian Islands and Pearl Harbor. Ukraine will eventual join the NATO alliance with Putin's blessing and it will be a dependent basket case that Putin can no longer afford to prop up.

      Delete
    3. We have zero national interest in Ukraine.

      Why beat the war drum Rick?

      Ready to send your son to war?

      It's a European issue, not a US issue. If France, Germany, England feel threatened, let them deal with it or better yet, let the UN do their job for a change.

      Note to Obama shut up you sound like a windbag. All mouth no substance.

      Nice analogy. We are not the Ukraine.

      China has no access to HI.

      Delete