top of page


Public·7 members

Reveals A Major Problem For New Russian Soldiers

Analysis of Turkish diplomatic efforts reveals inadequate policy with regards to propaganda and coverage of the military operation. One major risk for Turkish national security lies in the fact that the Turkish government failed to influence international opinion on the scope of the threat posed by the PKK/PYD before the operation, failed to influence it during the operation and, it seems, will have to continue to wage its anti-terrorism efforts in highly unfavorable international conditions.

reveals a major problem for new Russian soldiers

From the official statements of Western, regional and local players, we can assume that there are several issues that cause criticism of the Turkish military operation in Syrian Afrin. A major problem for the Turkish government is proving the legitimacy of its military invasion of a foreign country. The Turkish government justified the move by invoking the UN Charter provisions that give states certain rights to such acts in cases when national security is under threat and other means of diplomacy fail to solve the issue.

V. Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us,Our Allies, and Our Friendswith Weapons of Mass Destruction“The gravest danger to freedom lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology.When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons,along with ballistic missile technology—when that occurs, even weak statesand small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations.Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seekingthese terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us,or to harm our friends—and we will oppose them with all our power.”President BushWest Point, New YorkJune 1, 2002The nature of the Cold War threat required theUnited States—with our allies and friends—toemphasize deterrence of the enemy’s use of force,producing a grim strategy of mutual assureddestruction.With the collapse of the Soviet Unionand the end of the Cold War, our security environmenthas undergone profound transformation.Having moved from confrontation to cooperationas the hallmark of our relationship with Russia,the dividends are evident: an end to the balance ofterror that divided us; an historic reduction in thenuclear arsenals on both sides; and cooperation inareas such as counterterrorism and missile defensethat until recently were inconceivable.But new deadly challenges have emerged fromrogue states and terrorists. None of these contemporarythreats rival the sheer destructive powerthat was arrayed against us by the Soviet Union.However, the nature and motivations of these newadversaries, their determination to obtain destructivepowers hitherto available only to the world’sstrongest states, and the greater likelihood thatthey will use weapons of mass destruction againstus, make today’s security environment morecomplex and dangerous.In the 1990s we witnessed the emergence of asmall number of rogue states that, while differentin important ways, share a number of attributes.These states:brutalize their own people and squandertheir national resources for the personal gainof the rulers;display no regard for international law,threaten their neighbors, and callouslyviolate international treaties to which theyare party;are determined to acquire weapons of massdestruction, along with other advancedmilitary technology, to be used as threats oroffensively to achieve the aggressive designsof these regimes;sponsor terrorism around the globe; andreject basic human values and hate the UnitedStates and everything for which it stands.At the time of the Gulf War, we acquiredirrefutable proof that Iraq’s designs were notlimited to the chemical weapons it had usedagainst Iran and its own people, but also extendedto the acquisition of nuclear weapons and biologicalagents. In the past decade North Korea hasbecome the world’s principal purveyor of ballisticmissiles, and has tested increasingly capablemissiles while developing its own WMD arsenal.Other rogue regimes seek nuclear, biological, andchemical weapons as well. These states’ pursuit of,and global trade in, such weapons has become alooming threat to all nations.We must be prepared to stop rogue states andtheir terrorist clients before they are able tothreaten or use weapons of mass destructionagainst the United States and our allies andfriends. Our response must take full advantage ofstrengthened alliances, the establishment of newpartnerships with former adversaries, innovationin the use of military forces, modern technologies,including the development of an effective missiledefense system, and increased emphasis onintelligence collection and analysis.Our comprehensive strategy to combatWMD includes:Proactive counterproliferation efforts. Wemust deter and defend against the threatbefore it is unleashed.We must ensure thatkey capabilities—detection, active andpassive defenses, and counterforcecapabilities—are integrated into our defensetransformation and our homeland securitysystems. Counterproliferation must also beintegrated into the doctrine, training, andequipping of our forces and those of ourallies to ensure that we can prevail in anyconflict with WMD-armed adversaries.Strengthened nonproliferation efforts toprevent rogue states and terrorists fromacquiring the materials, technologies, andexpertise necessary for weapons of massdestruction. We will enhance diplomacy,arms control, multilateral export controls,and threat reduction assistance that impedestates and terrorists seeking WMD, andwhen necessary, interdict enabling technologiesand materials.We will continue to buildcoalitions to support these efforts, encouragingtheir increased political and financialsupport for nonproliferation and threatreduction programs. The recent G-8agreement to commit up to $20 billion to aglobal partnership against proliferationmarks a major step forward.Effective consequence management to respondto the effects of WMD use, whether by terroristsor hostile states. Minimizing the effects ofWMD use against our people will help deterthose who possess such weapons anddissuade those who seek to acquire them bypersuading enemies that they cannot attaintheir desired ends. The United States mustalso be prepared to respond to the effects ofWMD use against our forces abroad, and tohelp friends and allies if they are attacked.It has taken almost a decade for us tocomprehend the true nature of this new threat.Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, theUnited States can no longer solely rely on a reactiveposture as we have in the past. The inabilityto deter a potential attacker, the immediacy oftoday’s threats, and the magnitude of potentialharm that could be caused by our adversaries’choice of weapons, do not permit that option.Wecannot let our enemies strike first.In the Cold War, especially following theCuban missile crisis, we faced a generallystatus quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrencewas an effective defense. But deterrencebased only upon the threat of retaliation isless likely to work against leaders of roguestates more willing to take risks, gamblingwith the lives of their people, and the wealthof their nations.In the Cold War, weapons of mass destructionwere considered weapons of last resortwhose use risked the destruction of thosewho used them. Today, our enemies seeweapons of mass destruction as weapons ofchoice. For rogue states these weapons aretools of intimidation and military aggressionagainst their neighbors. These weapons mayalso allow these states to attempt to blackmailthe United States and our allies toprevent us from deterring or repelling theaggressive behavior of rogue states. Suchstates also see these weapons as their bestmeans of overcoming the conventionalsuperiority of the United States.Traditional concepts of deterrence will notwork against a terrorist enemy whoseavowed tactics are wanton destruction andthe targeting of innocents; whose so-calledsoldiers seek martyrdom in death and whosemost potent protection is statelessness. Theoverlap between states that sponsor terror andthose that pursue WMD compels us to action.For centuries, international law recognized thatnations need not suffer an attack before they canlawfully take action to defend themselves againstforces that present an imminent danger of attack.Legal scholars and international jurists oftenconditioned the legitimacy of preemption on theexistence of an imminent threat—most often avisible mobilization of armies, navies, and airforces preparing to attack.We must adapt the concept of imminentthreat to the capabilities and objectives of today’sadversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do notseek to attack us using conventional means.They know such attacks would fail. Instead, theyrely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use ofweapons of mass destruction—weapons that canbe easily concealed, delivered covertly, and usedwithout warning.The targets of these attacks are our militaryforces and our civilian population, in direct violationof one of the principal norms of the law ofwarfare. As was demonstrated by the losses onSeptember 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is thespecific objective of terrorists and these losseswould be exponentially more severe if terroristsacquired and used weapons of mass destruction.The United States has long maintained theoption of preemptive actions to counter a sufficientthreat to our national security. The greaterthe threat, the greater is the risk of inaction—and the more compelling the case for takinganticipatory action to defend ourselves, even ifuncertainty remains as to the time and place ofthe enemy’s attack. To forestall or prevent suchhostile acts by our adversaries, the United Stateswill, if necessary, act preemptively.The United States will not use force in all casesto preempt emerging threats, nor should nationsuse preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet inan age where the enemies of civilization openlyand actively seek the world’s most destructivetechnologies, the United States cannot remain idlewhile dangers gather.We will always proceed deliberately, weighingthe consequences of our actions. To supportpreemptive options, we will:build better, more integrated intelligencecapabilities to provide timely, accurate informationon threats, wherever they may emerge;coordinate closely with allies to form acommon assessment of the most dangerousthreats; andcontinue to transform our military forces toensure our ability to conduct rapid andprecise operations to achieve decisive results.The purpose of our actions will always be toeliminate a specific threat to the United States orour allies and friends. The reasons for our actionswill be clear, the force measured, and the cause just. 041b061a72


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page