September 2, 2013: Strategy Page

China has joined with Russia to oppose any use of foreign military force against Syria. This was prompted by the recent Syrian use of chemical weapons against pro-rebel civilians. The U.S. and other NATO countries had earlier told Syria that such use of chemical weapons would bring military intervention. China and Russia have long been supporters of the Assad dictatorship, and similar tyrants around the world. China and Russia are also bitter about what happened to their old friend Kaddafi, who lost his life clinging to power in Libya two years ago. Kaddafi was largely done in by NATO providing air support. NATO is reluctant to do that for Syria because the post-Kaddafi government (and post Arab Spring governments in general) tend to be tolerant of Islamic terror groups. But the Syrian civil war is dragging on and that is becoming embarrassing for the West. Assad losing power would be an even bigger embarrassment for China and Russia.

Russian naval and shipbuilding officials are not looking forward to the investigation of why a Russian built Kilo class sub belonging to India (INS Sindhurakshak) caught fire and exploded on August 14th while docked near Mumbai. The 16 year old submarine had recently returned from Russia after an $80 million refurbishment. Eighteen sailors were killed as the sub sank at dockside. The cause appears to have been an accident but a thorough forensic investigation will eventually determine if it was caused by human error or equipment failure. Back in 2008 India had refused to accept a refurbished Kilo because of repeated failures of the subs Klub missiles it had recently been equipped with. The Indian sub had test fired six Klubs in late 2007, and all failed. The Russians had no explanation for the failures. That boat had been in Russia for over two years, for $80 million worth of upgrades and repairs. India refused to pay, or take back the sub, until Russia fixed the problems with the missiles. This the Russians eventually did, and there were several successful Klub tests that persuaded the Indians to accept the refurbished Kilo. Russian missiles have little combat experience, and a reputation for erratic performance. Quality control was never a Soviet strength, but the Russians are getting better, at least in the civilian sector. The Indians are now haunted by a 2000 incident where the detonation of a missile (or torpedo) aboard the Russian nuclear sub Kursk caused the loss of the sub and all its crew. There have been other problems since then and the Indians fear that the Mumbai disaster may just be the latest.

September 1, 2013: In the south (Dagestan) an Islamic terrorist was killed and a policeman wounded when police stopped two men at night and asked for ID. The men opened fire and one managed to escape. The dead man was later identified as a wanted terrorist bomb maker.

August 31, 2013: Russia told Iran it would not discuss any new arms deals as long as the 2011 Iranian lawsuit is active at the international arbitration court in Switzerland. Iran is seeking $4 billion in damages because Russia backed out of a 2010 agreement to deliver $800 million worth of S-300 anti-aircraft systems (similar to the U.S. Patriot). Russia did not deliver on the 2010 deal because of the new UN arms sanctions against Iran, but believes that some types of military gear could still be sold to Iran and will try to do so once the 2011 lawsuit is dropped. In reality Russia is glad to have an excuse to stay away from Iranian arms deals, which cause the Russians all manner of diplomatic and foreign trade problems with the West and Israel.

At the Soviet era Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan a Russian Zenit 3SLB rocket put an Israeli communications satellite into orbit.

August 28, 2013: On the Baltic, outside Kaliningrad, a Russian Navy Zubr class air cushion vehicle approached a crowded beach full of people swimming and sunning themselves. Seemingly unconcerned, those in the water and on the beach the 555 ton craft was headed for got out of the way as the hovercraft came up on the sand. Out came over a hundred naval infantry in battle gear, who moved the sunbathers back and established a perimeter and then moved inland for a training exercise. Naturally there were plenty of smart phones on the beach recording it all and the videos soon appeared on the Internet. The Russian Navy could not just ignore this bizarre incident so an official explanation was given. The navy said that the beach was a military training area and no one should have been there. But the videos indicated no surprise or alarm among the crowd at the beach and people just moved out of the way of the hovercraft and went back to relaxing on a sunny and hot day at beach. The Baltic does not have many warn sunny days for visiting the beach. During the Soviet period (before 1991) if the government said stay away from somewhere most people stayed away, rather than risk a nighttime visit from the KGB (secret police). But since 1991 Russians have gladly shed decades of such obedience and fear. If there’s a fine beach on military land, and it’s a hot, sunny day, the people will insist on sharing the beach with whatever the navy has planned. The navy would like to see the good old (Soviet) days return, but know that the best they can do is pretend and tell the media that people were not supposed to be on the beach and leave it at that. That said, that hovercraft was huge and scary to the uninitiated. A Zubr can carry 130 tons (three tanks, or a combination of lighter armored or non-armored vehicles or up to 500 troops). Top speed is 110 kilometers an hour and range is 480 kilometers. The crew of 31 usually stays out less than eight hours per mission. The Zubrs also carry two stabilized MLRs (multiple tube rocket launchers), four short range anti-aircraft missiles systems (Igla-1Ms), and two AK-630 six-barrel 30mm close-in weapon systems (CIWS), for defense against anti-ship missiles. This is an amphibious warship used to quickly get troops and vehicles onto a beach.

In the south (Dagestan) two Islamic terrorists were killed when police interrupted a terrorist attack.

August 27, 2013: In the south (Ingushetia) a senior security official was killed while driving to work. It’s unclear if the killers were Islamic terrorists or gangsters as both groups have an interest in hindering police and military intelligence work in the area. The victim, however, was mostly involved with persuading Islamic terrorists to surrender and accept amnesty.

Off the north coast a group of Europeans opposed to off shore oil drilling attempted to move their ship close enough to interfere with and halt oil operations. A Russian coast guard approached the interloper and told them to leave or they would be fired on and, if necessary, sunk. The protestors’ ship left and said they would take the Russians to court for interfering with free passage in international waters. Not only do the Russians tend to open fire on real or perceived threats to their borders, but they also tend to ignore international agencies telling them that sort of thing is wrong. 

A Russian transport flew another 90 Russians (and others from former parts of the Soviet Union) out of Syria. This is in anticipation of NATO air strikes in retaliation for the Syrian government recently using nerve gas against pro-rebel civilians. Syria denies it and Russia insists the rebels did it. The U.S. says it has proof and that sarin nerve gas was detected on victims and the areas where they were when they were killed by the sarin.

August 26, 2013: A Russian cruiser, destroyer and supply ship visited Venezuela. The 11,400 ton cruiser Moskva was later ordered to go to the coast of Syria to demonstrate Russian support for the embattled Assad government. A Russian electronic intelligence collecting ship was also ordered to the same area, apparently to monitor any American naval and air operations.

August 22, 2013: South Korea put its first radar imaging satellite into orbit (via a Russian launcher). The 1.4 ton KOMPSAT 5 satellite uses a radar that can detect objects and landforms as small as one meter (39 inches) across. This satellite is mainly for obtaining geographic (land and sea) information, disaster response and environmental monitoring. Military use was not discussed publically. The launcher was a Cold War era ICBM (an RS-18) converted to work as a satellite launcher.

The Russian Air Force has ordered 15 An-148 commercial transports. The An-148 is a twin jet commercial transport that normally carries up to 80 passengers or nine tons of cargo. Max range is 2,100 kilometers and the high-wing design means that the stretched An-178 cargo version can carry up to 15 tons and have a rear door for quickly loading and unloading. The An-148 is costing the air force about $39 million each and all will be delivered by 2017. The air force does have a need for An-148s, but the government has an even greater need in keeping the Russian commercial aircraft manufacturers in business. That’s the main reason behind this purchase.

August 21, 2013: The Russian government recently issued a formal reprimand to the director (Vladimir Popovkin) of the Russian Space Agency (RSA), which handles all of Russia’s satellite launches. The government later clarified that the reprimand was not for several recent disasters but for the fact that in the last three years the RSA has only been able to launch 47 percent of Russian satellites. The reprimand, which in Russia is usually the last warning for someone about to be dismissed, was about the continued inefficiency of the RSA and the inability of Popovkin to reform and revitalize the RSA. The repercussions continue in the wake of all the sloppy decisions and stupid mistakes that have led to the loss of launchers and satellites. Another shake up of the RSA is expected if the government can find someone more qualified than Vladimir Popovkin to do the deed. Senior government officials know that Popovkin is not the problem and that the corrupt environment he has to work in is. Cleaning that up means cleaning up the corruption through-out Russian society. That requires more than the vertical chop, it takes time and persistence.

August 20, 2013: In the south (Dagestan) nine Islamic terrorists were killed when police surrounded the house they were hiding in. The terrorists refused to surrender and then died in the ensuing gun battle. The dead included a local terrorist leader and the man believed responsible for the recent murder of a local Islamic cleric who had preached against Islamic terrorism.

August 19, 2013: The government revealed that two years ago Sudan had secretly bought 24 Mi-24 helicopter gunships and 14 MI-8 transport helicopters. Some have already been delivered. Russia told the UN that Sudan agreed not to use these helicopters in Darfur (western Sudan) where the UN has embargoed the introduction of new weapons.

The government repeated warning to Russians planning to visit Egyptian vacation resorts to reconsider. Russians were not forbidden from going and most did not cancel their plans. The main reason for this was that the resorts that cater to Russians (and other foreigners) are outside the cities and have had no violence. The Egyptians are grateful for the Russians showing up because a lot of Western tourists have cancelled.

Russian and Japanese negotiators met in Russia to resume negotiations over the long delayed treaty to end the state of war existing between the two countries since World War II. The talks are also about a territorial dispute. In 2010 Russia renounced a 1956 deal to return two of the four Japanese Kuril islands. Japan had been pressuring Russia to make good on the 1956 promise (made at the time Japan and the Soviet Union resumed diplomatic relations). But Russia reneged, claiming Japan was plotting to get the other two islands back as well. T he Japanese have been pressuring the Russians to return the Kurile Islands (off northern Japan) for decades, and this has caused a lot of tension recently. These four islands were seized at the end of World War II, and the Russians kept them. The Kurils had been occupied by Japanese for centuries, but when Russia reached the Pacific coast in the 17th century, they began to send ships down to the Kurils. In 1875, Japan and Russia signed a treaty settling claims in the area. Japan acknowledged Russia’s claim to the larger Shakalin island to the north while Russia acknowledged that the Kurils belonged to Japan. After World War II, Russia expelled the 17,000 Japanese inhabitants of the four Kuril Islands. Russians were brought in, and about 16,000 of them (including many Ukrainians, Koreans and so on) currently inhabit the islands. There’s not much economic value to the Kurils, except for the good fishing. But it's believed there are oil and gas deposits off shore, and valuable mineral deposits on land. Meanwhile, the Russians are still hacked off at losing a war to Japan in 1905, and to Japanese soldiers occupying parts of eastern Russia after World War I. Japan and Russia had a non-aggression treaty for most of World War II. But Russia declared war on Japan on August 15th, 1945, and promptly invaded Japanese occupied northern China (Manchuria). Japanese surrendered to the United States a month later. You could say that Japan and Russia have a lot of unresolved issues.

02.09.2013 par P. CHAPLEAU Lignes de Défense
 

Le porte-avions Nimitz était censé rentrer à sa base d'Everett, dans l'Etat de Washington (nord-ouest des Etats-Unis). Well, selon CNN puis ABC, il a reçu l'ordre de rester dans la région, près de la mer Rouge. Aucune mission particulière ne lui a toutefois été confiée, des responsables de la défense US évoquant "un positionnement prudent".

Il est flanqué du croiseur lance-missiles Princeton et d'au moins trois destroyers eux-aussi lance-missiles: les USS W.P. Lawrence, Stockdale...

Cinq autres destroyers de ce type: les USS Stout, le Mahan, le Ramage, le Barry et le Gravely, sont eux en Méditerranée.

Note RP Defense : Photos du USS NIMITZ (CVN 68)

MOSCOU, 2 septembre - RIA Novosti

Des livraisons illégales d'armes en provenance de Libye ont été constatées dans 12 pays du Proche-Orient, a déclaré lundi le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères Sergueï Lavrov dans une intervention devant les professeurs et les étudiants de l'Institut des relations internationales de Moscou.

"Selon l'ONU, des livraisons illégales, des transferts clandestins d'armes à feu en provenance de Libye et ont été enregistrés dans 12 pays du monde", a indiqué le ministre, précisant que ces armes étaient utilisées "principalement par des participants aux troubles" au Proche-Orient.

Selon lui, "des armes provenant de Libye ont commencé à proliférer de manière illégale", provoquant la diffusion de "terroristes qui ont besoin d'une nouvelle guerre pour renverser tel ou tel régime".

BERLIN, 2 septembre - RIA Novosti

L'Allemagne ne participera pas à l'opération militaire que les Etats-Unis pourraient lancer en Syrie, a annoncé dimanche la chancelière allemande Angela Merkel.

"Non, l'Allemagne n'y participera pas. L'Allemagne ne pourra s'impliquer que s'il y a un mandat de l'Otan, de l'Onu ou un mandat européen", a déclaré Mme Merkel durant un débat télévisé contre son opposant de centre-gauche Peer Steinbrück, à l’approche des élections du 22 septembre.

Auparavant, le ministre allemand des Affaires étrangères Guido Westerwelle a déclaré que Berlin excluait la possibilité de prendre part à une intervention militaire en Syrie.

"On ne nous a pas demandé [d'intervenir] et nous ne l'envisageons pas", a-t-il déclaré dans une interview au quotidien régional Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung.

Le secrétaire britannique à la Défense Philip Hammond a fait savoir jeudi que Londres ne participerait pas à une opération militaire éventuelle contre la Syrie, le parlement ayant voté contre.

Le premier ministre canadien Stephen Harper a annoncé lui aussi que son gouvernement n'envisageait pas d'effectuer une mission militaire.

Pour sa part, le président français François Hollande a indiqué qu'il n'excluait pas la participation de son pays à une intervention.

VLADIVOSTOK (Extrême-Orient russe), 30 août - RIA Novosti

La Russie ne pourra négocier les livraisons d'armements défensifs analogues aux systèmes sol-air S-300 à l'Iran qu'après l'abandon de toutes les plaintes déposées par ce dernier contre Moscou, a déclaré vendredi aux journalistes le vice-premier ministre russe Dmitri Rogozine.

"Des négociations ne seront possibles que si les plaintes déposées contre la Russie sont retirées", a indiqué M. Rogozine.

Il a souligné que la Russie respectait toutes les normes du droit international.

"Nous agissons strictement dans le cadre de la liste qui limite les fournitures d'armements à différents pays, y compris à la République islamique d'Iran. Nous n'avons jamais outrepassé cette liste", a affirmé le vice-premier ministre, ajoutant que Moscou était prêt à engager une "coopération technico-militaire normale" avec Téhéran.

Conclu en 2007, le contrat de livraison de missiles sol-air S-300 à l'Iran engageait la Russie à fournir cinq batteries complètes de cet armement pour un montant d'environ 800 millions de dollars. Or, l'exécution du contrat a été suspendue en septembre 2010 par le président russe Dmitri Medvedev en application de la résolution 1929 du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, qui interdisait de fournir des missiles, des chars, des hélicoptères d'assaut, des avions de combat et des bâtiments de guerre à Téhéran.

L'Iran a intenté à la Russie un procès en arbitrage pour annulation du contrat. La République islamique réclame quatre milliards de dollars d'indemnités.

Le directeur général du consortium d'armement russe Almaz-Antei, Vladislav Menchtchikov, a fait savoir jeudi que les systèmes S-300 destinés à l'Iran avaient été démontés et partiellement recyclés.

Sep. 1, 2013 By PAUL SINGER – Defense News

WASHINGTON — US Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday he does not believe Congress will reject military action against Syria, but lawmakers are making it clear that the vote will not be easy and the outcome is not assured.

President Obama announced Saturday that he believes the United States should launch a military attack on Syria in response to an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in Damascus. But he said he would first seek approval from Congress for use of military force.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that he thinks the Senate “will rubber-stamp what (Obama) wants, but I think the House will be a much closer vote.” Paul said he believes “it’s at least 50-50 whether the House will vote down involvement in the Syrian war.”

Paul, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said it’s not clear whether American interests are at stake in Syria, or whether opponents of the Assad regime would be any more friendly to the United States.

Paul recalled that Kerry said during the Vietnam War, “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?”

“I would ask, ‘How do you ask a man to be the first to die for a mistake?’” Paul said. “I’m not sending my son, your son or anybody else’s son to fight for a stalemate.”

Paul said he was “proud” of Obama for following the Constitution and asking for congressional support. But he said the president made a “grave mistake” in setting a “red line.” Obama’s push for military action, he said, is an effort to “save face and add bad policy to bad policy.”

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the president may have trouble winning the backing of Congress.

King, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said, “I think it is going to be difficult,” noting that there is an “isolationist” tendency in the Republican Party.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said he believes “at the end of the day, Congress will rise to the occasion,” but he also said, “it’s going to take that healthy debate to get there.”

But Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., told “Fox News Sunday” that he didn’t think Congress would approve a war resolution. He said budget cuts have rendered U.S. forces “degraded and unready.”

Several lawmakers raised objections to military action in the hours after Obama announced he will ask Congress to approve the use of force.

Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.Y., an Army veteran with multiple foreign deployments, said Saturday, “I hope my colleagues will fully think through the weightiness of this decision and reject military action. The situation on the ground in Syria is tragic and deeply saddening, but escalating the conflict and Americanizing the Syrian civil war will not resolve the matter.”

Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said, “The apparent chemical weapons attack by the Assad regime is an appalling, unconscionable act by a bloodthirsty tyrant. The ‘limited’ military response supported by President Obama, however, shows no clear goal, strategy, or any coherence whatsoever, and is supported neither by myself nor the American people.”

Opposition to the use of force is not limited to the Republican Party. Democrat Betty McCollum, D-Minn., said in a statement: “Unilateral U.S. military action against the Syrian regime at this time would do nothing to advance American interests, but would certainly fuel extremist groups on both sides of the conflict that are determined to expand the bloodshed beyond Syria’s borders.”

While Congress remains on recess, the White House has begun its campaign to sway opinions, holding a classified briefing for lawmakers Sunday to show them evidence against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

“We’re not going to lose this vote,” Kerry said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

Singer writes for USA Today. Contributing: The Associated Press; Gregory Korte; Brian Tumulty and Raju Chebium, Gannett Washington Bureau

Sep. 1, 2013 By DAVID JACKSON and AAMER MADHANI – Defense News

WASHINGTON — The president’s decision to seek congressional approval for a military strike against Syria came out of the blue — none of his national security team saw it coming, according to three senior administration officials.

Obama told some of his senior advisers during a National Security Council meeting last weekend that he was leaning toward taking action against Syria, but had not made a final decision, said the officials, who spoke on the condition they not to be identified discussing internal deliberations. As Obama mulled his next steps, the aides advised him not to seek congressional authorization for a military strike, they said.

But when Obama convened his senior advisers Friday night to tell them he had settled on launching a narrowly focused strike against the Bashar Assad regime, he also told them something stunning: He would ask Congress to authorize it first.

The president raised this idea to his national security team for the first time Friday night after a one-on-one chat with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. In discussions Friday night and again Saturday morning in the Situation Room, Obama laid out his reasoning to his aides, some of whom were opposed to seeking congressional approval, according to the officials who declined to name the skeptics.

“Many people have advised against taking this decision to Congress, and undoubtedly, they were impacted by what we saw happen in the United Kingdom this week when the Parliament of our closest ally failed to pass a resolution with a similar goal, even as the prime minister supported taking action,” Obama told the nation Saturday. “Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.”

In the months leading up to Saturday’s announcement, Obama made clear his desire to have broad support for any potential action against Syria — crystallizing his long-held view that the credibility of military action comes with numbers. But Russia, Syria’s most powerful patron, would block any United Nations Security Council resolution against Syria. After the British Parliament rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s call for military action last week, it became clear to Obama that a groundswell of international was not coming.

Notably, Obama called President Francois Hollande of France — the one major U.S. ally that has endorsed a military strike — before he publicly announced his decision to seek backing from Congress.

Still, as Obama edged toward calling for a limited military strike against the Assad regime following Syrian forces’ alleged killing of more than 1,400 in a chemical attack in rebel stronghold outside of Damascus Aug. 21, White House officials maintained their view that the president did not need to seek congressional approval.

But aides said Obama, who as a candidate for the White House criticized President George W. Bush’s for rushing to war in Iraq, saw formal consultation with Congress as a central part of his desired legacy to take the United States off a permanent war footing.The president was further convinced that this was the best course of action after the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told him a Syria operation was not time-sensitive, and there was no negative impact for waiting, the officials said.

Congress is set to return from its summer recess Sept. 9 and is expected to debate and vote on an authorization that week. Obama would not rule out taking action immediately if Assad deploys chemical weapons before Congress is set to vote, the officials said.

The officials also stressed that the president changed his own mind, and no congressional leaders directly asked him to seek authorization, even though about a third of rank-and-file House members have called for it. They won’t speculate what Obama would do if Congress does not approve use of force, while maintaining that Obama retains the authority to go it alone

Obama made clear in his remarks on Saturday that a “no” vote would send the wrong message to Assad and America’s enemies. “Here’s my question for every member of Congress and every member of the global community: What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?” Obama said.

“What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?”

Jackson and Madhani write for USA Today.

01 septembre 2013 22h22 Romandie.com (AFP)

LE CAIRE (Qahirah) - Les ministres arabes des Affaires étrangères ont appelé dimanche soir l'ONU et la communauté internationale à assumer leurs responsabilités dans le dossier syrien, alors que plusieurs pays envisagent des frappes contre le régime accusé d'avoir mené une attaque chimique.

Réunis au Caire, les ministres des pays de la Ligue arabe ont appelé l'ONU et la communauté internationale à assumer leurs responsabilités conformément à la Charte des Nations Unies et au droit international afin de prendre les mesures de dissuasion nécessaires contre les auteurs de ce crime odieux dont le régime porte la responsabilité, en référence à l'attaque qui a fait des centaines de morts le 21 août près de Damas.

Les ministres réclament en outre que les auteurs de cette attaque soient traduits devant la justice internationale comme les autres criminels de guerre.

Ils demandent également que soient fournies toutes les formes de soutien requises par le peuple syrien pour se défendre et rappelle l'obligation de concerter les efforts arabes et internationaux pour aider les Syriens.

Cette décision finale n'évoque toutefois pas précisément l'éventualité de frappes étrangères sur la Syrie, l'institution panarabe étant profondément divisée sur ce sujet, qualifié dingérence étrangère par certains Etats comme l'Egypte, l'Algérie, l'Irak ou le Liban. Ces trois derniers pays se sont d'ailleurs abstenus au cours du vote.

Plus tôt, devant les ministres réunis, le chef de la Coalition nationale syrienne, Ahmad Jarba, avait plaidé en faveur d'une intervention étrangère pour arrêter la machine de guerre et de destruction du régime de Bachar al-Assad.

La Syrie est en proie depuis mars 2011 à une révolte populaire devenue guerre civile qui a fait plus de 110.000 morts et a valu à la Syrie d'être suspendue fin 2011 des travaux de la Ligue arabe avant que son siège ne soit réattribué à l'opposition syrienne.

August 30, 2013 voanews.com

DOHA — Saudi Arabia, a supporter of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, has raised its level of military alertness in anticipation of a possible Western strike in Syria, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The United States has been calling for punitive action against Assad's government for a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of people.

Saudi Arabia's defense readiness has been raised to "two" from "five," a Saudi military source who declined to be named told Reuters. "One" is the highest level of alert.

"It is a must, no one knows what will happen," he said.

The source said other countries in the region, including Jordan, Turkey and Israel, appeared also to have raised their level of military readiness.

A second source said Saudi Arabia's defense readiness had been raised last week, and meant that all leave for the armed forces would be cancelled.

The sources declined to give further details of what a change in alert level would mean, but analysts said it was likely some forces would be moved closer to national borders.

In Kuwait lawmakers have asked their government to inform them about plans for readiness to deal with repercussions of a strike on Syria, Kuwaiti newspapers reported.

The prime minister, Sheikh Jaber al-Mubarak al-Sabah, held an extraordinary cabinet meeting on Thursday, al-Watan reported.

Interior minister Sheikh Mohammad al-Hamad al-Sabah was told to take all necessary measures in case of an emergency that might arise as a result of strikes, the paper said.

Saudi Arabia, a major U.S. ally, Qatar and other Sunni Muslim powers back the mainly Sunni rebels battling Assad, who is from Syria's minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shi'ite Islam. The rebels have been joined by foreign Sunni jihadis.

Assad enjoys military support from Iran, Lebanon's Hezbollah and among Iraqi Shi'ites.

30/08/2013 - 19:02 JDD

Les experts de l'ONU ont terminé leur travail en Syrie et vont désormais "rapidement" faire un rapport sur l'usage éventuel d'armes chimiques dans le conflit syrien, a déclaré vendredi le porte-parole des Nations unies.

"L'équipe a terminé de récolter des échantillons et des élements", a déclaré Martin Nesirky à des journalistes. "Ils préparent maintenant leur départ et quitteront Damas, puis la Syrie demain" samedi, a-t-il ajouté.

Aug. 30, 2013 - By ZACHARY FRYER-BIGGS – Defense News

As the US moves toward intervention in Syria, blossoming American cyber capabilities are getting a hard look as a solution to one of the more difficult military problems: the Syrian air defense network. But much of the uncertainty that has plagued the use of cyber — both the legal concerns and the lack of verification for the effectiveness of attacks — is likely to limit its use in a conflict.

Though more a cobbled-together mass than a lean, precise system, the Syrian air defense network is far more advanced than what the US has confronted in any recent operation. The network, mostly composed of Russian hardware, is thought to pose a legitimate risk to aircraft. It remains one of the central concerns for military planners because a conflict is likely to be largely composed of an air campaign with little ground involvement.

Cyber strikes against missile batteries or radar installations have been possible for years, according to sources, but concerns about validating the effectiveness of a strike have limited their implementation into commanders’ plans.

Gen. William Shelton, the chief of Air Force Space Command who oversees the branch’s cyber capabilities, described the problem to reporters last year.

“When you develop a kinetic weapon, you do extensive testing to develop a probability of kill with that particular weapon,” Shelton said. “We don’t have that same assurance yet with cyber capabilities. There’s a little bit of a decision here on the part of combatant commanders as to how much he or she is willing to rely upon that particular objective being accomplished by a cyber capability.”

That ability to provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of a tool, or “battle damage assessment” in military speak, hasn’t progressed very far, said Jeff Moulton, a researcher with Gerogia Tech Research Institute.

“There’s very little that we can do, very little assurance that we can provide that a non-kinetic has had the desired effect,” he said.

Without confidence that a target has been eliminated — something that is fairly obvious in the case of kinetic weapons because of the crater left behind — commanders are hesitant to push forward with cyber attacks.

But there’s another problem: Once a cyber capability is used, it is usually discovered and remedied, with an adversary’s other equipment receiving prophylactic treatment and the ability to reuse the cyber weapon nonexistent.

“Cyber exploits are disposable,” Moulton said. “It’s not entirely a question of can you do it, it’s whether you want to.”

The only way to avoid that problem is to launch an attack that isn’t detected by an adversary, likely a temporary disabling of a system that might be confused for a power outage or something equally innocuous.

But because of the concerns about verifying the effectiveness of an attack, using expensive aircraft and risking American lives might be ill-advised. Instead, Moulton suggested that maybe drones do have a purpose in this environment: as a testing tool.

“You send in a drone or some other less valued asset, use it as a decoy,” he said.

Complicating matters even further, the US has been hesitant to use cyber weapons extensively for fear of setting a precedent for future combat. Cyber weapons were discussed for the Libya campaign, only to be turned down.

But that doesn’t mean there aren’t smaller applications where cyber might still be used, whether to disrupt Syrian intelligence gathering or otherwise tamper with systems.

If a cyber weapon can be used where there isn’t a pilot’s life at risk, a more targeted area, cyber could play a role, said a former senior government official. “At present it might be more likely to be used for a stand-alone covert op, rather than one on which a whole campaign hinges.”

But the former official said that when it comes to air defense, bombing targets or using cruise missiles remains far more likely.

“Cyber disablement may be less risky for a short-term disablement, but physical destruction is less reversible,” the former official said. “That might make it more appropriate if you want to establish, say, an enduring no-fly zone.”

Note RP Defense : read Strategic SAM Deployment in Syria

Technical Report APA-TR-2010-0103

Sean O'Connor, BA, MS (AMU)

January 2010

Updated April, 2012

Text © 2009 Sean O'Connor

Line Artwork, Layout © 2009 Carlo Kopp

MOSCOW, August 30 (RIA Novosti)

Moscow has no knowledge of Syria having made payments for Russian-made S-300 surface-to-air missile systems, a Kremlin aide said Friday.

“We don’t know about that,” presidential aide Yury Ushakov said, when asked whether the Assad regime was making payments under a previously signed contract for Russian surface-to-air missile systems.

All previously signed military supply contracts with Damascus are being honored, he said, adding “this is common practice for any state” and is “not in conflict with any international rules.”

“There are no bans in place, and our collaboration in the military technology sphere is proceeding ahead,” Ushakov said.

Earlier in the day, Russia’s state arms exporter Rosoboronexport said Moscow has signed no new arms supply contracts with Damascus since the start of the civil war in Syria. Corporation Deputy CEO Viktor Komardin said his company is currently implementing contracts signed prior to 2011, which are “100 percent defensive.”

Syrian President Bashar Assad claimed in an interview with Izvestia published Monday that all the contracts Syria has previously signed with Russia were being implemented, despite pressure from the West, but did not clarify the status of a deal for Moscow to deliver advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles to Damascus.

Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed in June a deal had been signed with Damascus for the S-300 system, but said Russia had not shipped the weapons for fear of disrupting “the balance of power in the region.” Russian media reports said Moscow and Damascus had signed a $1.1 billion deal for the S-300 systems.

The S-300 would be a largely useless weapon for use in the civil war that the Syrian government has been waging since 2011 because the Syrian rebels have no air force, but would be a huge obstacle to Western powers opposed to the Assad regime if they tried to carry out air strikes against Damascus, analysts have previously told RIA Novosti.

Russia is currently locked in commercial arbitration with Syria’s ally and neighbor Iran over a suspended contract for delivery of S-300 missiles.