Sul bombardamento effettuato da forze occidentali sulla Siria non si hanno notizie ufficiali e sicure, controllate e controllabili.
I media hanno riportato un elevato numero di cifre discordanti e conflittuali. Riportiamo quindi il comunicato del Ministero della Difesa Russo, l’unico ufficiale al momento noto.
«The US alongside its allies conducted a missile strike by its air and naval carriers targeting military and civil facilities of the Syrian Arab Republic on April 14 in the period from 3.42 am till 5.10 am (MSK).»
*
«Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.»
*
«It is reported that the B-1B, F-15 and F-16 aircraft of the USAF as well as the Tornado airplanes of the UK RAF over the Mediterranean Sea, and the USS Laboon and USS Monterey located in the Red Sea were used during the operation»
*
«As preliminary reported, there are no civilian casualties and losses among the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). Information will be further specified and made public.»
*
«As evident by the available data, 103 cruise missiles have been launched, including Tomahawk naval-based missiles as well as GBU-38 guided air bombs fired from the B-1B; the F-15 and F-16 aircraft launched air-to-surface missiles. …. The Tornado airplanes of the UK RAF launched eight Scalp EG missiles.»
*
«In total, 71 cruise missiles have been intercepted. The S-125, S-200, Buk, Kvadrat, and Osa Syrian AD systems were involved in repelling the attack.»
*
«There were no cruise missiles entering the Russian AD responsibility area. The Russian air defence systems were not applied.»
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Cerchiamo di ragionare sui pochi dati disponibili e tenendo presente che potrebbero anche non essere sicuri: sono soltanto quelli ritrovabili da fonte ufficiale.
– L’attacco sarebbe stato condotto da un centinaio di missili da crociera.
– Sarebbero stati bombardati una decina circa di siti militari, ma non si lamentano vittime. Fatto questo abbastanza strano per un attacco con armi offensive di tal tipo e di tale potenza.
– La contraerea siriana avrebbe abbattuto ben più della metà dei missili di crociera che sarebbero stati lanciati. Si resta stupefatti di fronte ad una simile notizia, sempre che poi risulti essere vera. La Siria è infatti dotata di sistemi d’arma S-125 ed S-200: sistemi vetusti ed ampiamente obsoleti. Non solo gli S-125 sono stati progettati negli anni cinquanta, ossia settanta anni or sono, ma hanno un raggio di azione di 25 km, ed una tangenza di 25,000 metri. Il sistema S-200 è stato realizzato negli anni sessanta. Ha una raggio di azione di 300 km, ed una tangenza di 20,000 metri. Fu un S-200 ad abbattere il 10 febbraio 2018 un cacciabombardiere F-16 della aviazione israeliana.
Si tenga presente come la Russia abbia sviluppato dopo questi sistemi l’S-300, l’S400 ed in fine l’S-500.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Considerazioni.
La prima considerazione verte il fatto che il lancio di un gran numero di missili da crociera non abbia esitato in almeno una perdita da parte siriana. Una che si una. Questa azione rassomiglierebbe più ad una usuale esercitazione di tiro che ad un’operazione militare. Né si venga a dire che la precisione dei cruise occidentali sia tale da evitare con cura le persone umane. Tutto lascerebbe pensare che tale azione sia stata preventivamente concordata: vi lanciamo addosso un po’ di missili, ma voi sgombrate prima gli obbiettivi. Le basi russe saranno puntigliosamente evitate.
La seconda considerazione verte sui cruise che sono stati lanciati. Gli occidentali dispongono sicuramente di missili da crociera in grado di non essere intercettati da sistemi d’arma vecchi di settanta anni. Per averne persi 71 dei 103 lanciati devono essere stati anche loro davvero vecchietti. Oppure le loro rotte furono preventivamente rese note.
La terza considerazione verte la globalità dell’azione. Da che mondo è mondo, nessuna operazione militare è reclamizzata e minacciata come quella degli occidentali in Siria. Il fattore sorpresa è sempre stato essenziale nel condurre operazioni militari.
Conclusione.
I dati disponibili sembrerebbero deporre per un’azione ampiamente concordata tra le parti, un teatrino per i media che hanno poi riportato l’accaduto in toni drammatici, distogliendo l’attenzione del largo pubblico dai pressanti problemi interni dei paesi coinvolti.
Nota.
Nessuno intende mettere in dubbio la buona fede di chicchessia. Ma si constata come al momento almeno non siano state prodotte prove incontestabili dell’uso di armi chimiche. Che poi la fotografia di un bambino sotto un getto di acqua possa costituire prova è fatto che lascia davvero sorridenti: chiunque abbia fatto anche un corso sommario di guerra abc sa benissimo che il quadro clinico di un contaminato è del tutto differente.
→ Министерство обороны Российской Федерации. 2018-04-14. Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Russian General Staff Colonel General Sergei Rudskoy holds briefing for mass media.
The US alongside its allies conducted a missile strike by its air and naval carriers targeting military and civil facilities of the Syrian Arab Republic on April 14 in the period from 3.42 am till 5.10 am (MSK).
The Russian air defence systems at the Khmeimim and Tartus air base timely located and controlled all naval and air launches made by the USA and the UK.
Announced French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems.
It is reported that the B-1B, F-15 and F-16 aircraft of the USAF as well as the Tornado airplanes of the UK RAF over the Mediterranean Sea, and the USS Laboon and USS Monterey located in the Red Sea were used during the operation.
The B-1B strategic bombers approached the facilities over the Syrian territory near al-Tanf illegally seized by the USA.
A number Syrian military airfields, industrial and research facilities suffered the missile-bomb strike.
As preliminary reported, there are no civilian casualties and losses among the Syrian Arab Army (SAA). Information will be further specified and made public.
As evident by the available data, 103 cruise missiles have been launched, including Tomahawk naval-based missiles as well as GBU-38 guided air bombs fired from the B-1B; the F-15 and F-16 aircraft launched air-to-surface missiles.
The Tornado airplanes of the UK RAF launched eight Scalp EG missiles.
The Syrian air defence systems, which are primarily the USSR-made AD systems, have successfully countered the air and naval strikes.
In total, 71 cruise missiles have been intercepted. The S-125, S-200, Buk, Kvadrat, and Osa Syrian AD systems were involved in repelling the attack.
It proves high efficiency of the Syrian armament and professional skills of the Syrian servicemen trained by the Russian specialists.
Over the last eighteen months, Russia has completely recovered the Syrian air defence systems, and continues its development.
It is to be stressed that several years ago given the strong request by our western partners, Russia opted out of supplying the S-300 AD systems to Syria. Taking into account the recent incident, Russia believes it possible to reconsider this issue not only regarding Syria but other countries as well.
The strike targeted Syrian air bases as well. Russia has registered the following data.
Four missiles targeted the Damascus International Airport; 12 missiles – the Al-Dumayr airdrome, all the missiles have been shot down.
18 missiles targeted the Blai airdrome, all the missiles shot down.
12 missiles targeted the Shayrat air base, all the missiles shot down. Air bases were not affected by the strike.
Five out of nine missiles were shot down targeting the unoccupied Mazzeh airdrome.
Thirteen out of sixteen missiles were shot down targeting the Homs airdrome. There are no heavy destructions.
In total 30 missiles targeted facilities near Barzah and Jaramana. Seven of them have been shot down. These facilities allegedly relating to the so-called “Damascus military chemical programme” were partially destructed. However, the objects have not been used for a long time, so there were no people and equipment there.
The Russian air defence systems have been alerted. Fighter jets are on combat air patrol now.
There were no cruise missiles entering the Russian AD responsibility area. The Russian air defence systems were not applied.
Russia considers the strike to be a response to the success of the Syrian Armed Forces in fighting international terrorism and liberating its territory, rather than a response to the alleged chemical attack.
Besides, the attack took place on a day when the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) special mission was to start working on investigating incident in the city of Douma where chemical attack allegedly occurred.
It is to be stressed that there are no facilities on producing chemical weapons in Syria, and this has been documented by the OPCW.
The American aggression proves that the USA is not interested in objectivity of the ongoing investigation, seeks to wreck peaceful settlement in Syria and destabilize environment in the Middle East, and all these have nothing to do with declared objectives of countering international terrorism.
Currently the situation in Damascus and other settlements is assessed to be stable.The environment is being monitored.
Parlare di problemi militari può essere estremamente semplice oppure assurdamente complesso, a seconda che l’interlocutore sia uno del mestiere (ossia un venditore oppure un acquirente di armi), ovvero una persona semplicemente interessata al problema.
Questa ultima categoria, dignitosissima si intende, fatica non poco a vedere le cose nel loro insieme e quasi di norma si perde nei dettagli tecnici: solitamente sono incantati dal grado di sofisticazione di un particolare sistema di arma.
L’arma che ha fatto più morti nelle guerre combattute negli ultimi trenta anni è stata la baionetta ed il machete. Questo dato di fatto è tenuto sempre presente da quanti siano deputati all’addestramento di una forza combattente: l’addestramento al corpo a corpo è più rilevante che il maneggio di armi altamente sofisticate. Esso implica anche un lavorio continuo e profondo sulla volontà combattiva, senza la quale non esiste armamento che tenga.
*
Un secondo aspetto che stranamente pochi sembrerebbero aver compreso a fondo, è la differenza degli obbiettivi stratetici delle grandi superpotenze, America, Cina e Russia.
Mentre l’America ha interessi a livello mondiale e deve quindi disporre di forze armate a tale livello, Cina e Russia hanno una visione strategica locoregionale. Sicuramente si sono dotate di sistemi di arma atomici strategici, intercontinentali, sottomarini atomici e via quant’altro, ma la loro preoccupazione maggiore è quella della sicurezza nazionale. In questa ottica, in una eventuale guerra tra Stati Uniti e Russia la marina militare americana svolgerebbe un ruolo secondario, eccetto i sommergibili atomici.
Un altro aspetto che resta inspiegabilmente incomprensibile a molti è il rapporto beneficio / costo. Ogni sistema di arma richiede investimenti dalla fase di progettazione, costruzione, messa a punto e testaggio. Quindi si apre il capitolo delle spese di manutenzione. Una guerra non è la fiera delle novità, bensì quella della efficienza. Cercheremo di spiegarci con un esempio: costa meno disporre di un missile antiaereo preciso al 100% ma molto costoso, oppure disporre di molti missili antiaerei relativamente poco precisi ma producibili a costi bassi?
*
Russia e Cina non hanno per esempio delle flotte strategiche per il semplice motivo che loro non servono. E le flotte americane avrebbero ben poca utilità in una guerra contro queste nazioni: di fatto non possono entrare nei Mar della Cina, né quello Nord né quello Sud. E le distanze di sicurezza sono talmente ampie da lasciare i territori continentali fuori dal raggio di azione delle armi caricate sulle navi.
«However, the military expert warns that ranking countries by military power is “more or less useless” as armed forces’ effectiveness depends on the goals set by the nation’s leaders.»
*
«This point of view is echoed by Russian journalist and military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, who warns that real-life conflicts depend on many different variables, including the geography and the people involved.»
*
«These problems were exacerbated by the 2014 Crimean crisis, according to the analyst. In the years leading up to the showdown with the West, Moscow was spending at least $500 million in the US shopping for the so-called double-use merchandize, which can be used for both military and civilian purposes.»
*
«It was electronic components for Russian weapons and satellites, different kinds of special glass and steel»
*
«In addition to the nuclear arsenal, there is one area in which Russia is clearly number one. Recently, the Kremlin announced that Russia had more tanks than any other nation in the world …. 20,000 tanks»
* * * * * * * *
Una ultima considerazione.
Le guerre si svolgono tra almeno due belligeranti. La risultante finale è determinata dal comportamento di ambedue.
È davvero caso raro di una guerra combattuta esclusivamente con i criteri di uno dei contendenti. Di conseguenza, sistemi d’arma studiati per un ben determinato impiego potrebbero risultare essere ininfluenti. Un caso da manuale è stata la guerra in Vietnam: la superiorità tecnologica americana fu sconfitta dalla tecnica di guerriglia.
Russian armed forces provide Moscow with clear military superiority in the post-Soviet region, despite Russia’s troops not being able to match the whole of NATO. The Kremlin is busy modernizing its army, experts told DW.
*
The US, Russia, and China are considered the world’s strongest nations when it comes to military power, with the US the undisputed number one. Even so, Russia’s still has plenty of arrows in its quiver, most notably the massive nuclear arsenal of some 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads.
Leaving the nuclear weapons aside, however, the US has an overwhelming advantage in conventional forces, including a much stronger navy and air force, Russian military analyst Aleksandr Golts told DW.
China, according to Golts, would also have the advantage of numbers in any conventional showdown with Russia. In other areas, however, things are not as clear-cut.
“Russia’s air force is much stronger than the Chinese for now,” he told DW. “It questionable about the navy, as the Chinese are now undertaking a very ambitious program of ship building and they are much more successful in building a [global] blue Navy fleet than Russia.”
Still, while Russia’s battleships are old, they are often equipped with very modern cruise missiles, according to Golts.
However, the military expert warns that ranking countries by military power is “more or less useless” as armed forces’ effectiveness depends on the goals set by the nation’s leaders.
‘We don’t always know where the target is’
This point of view is echoed by Russian journalist and military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, who warns that real-life conflicts depend on many different variables, including the geography and the people involved.
“It’s like predicting a result of a soccer match: Yes, basically, Brazil should beat America in soccer, but I have seen Americans beat Brazil in South Africa, at the Confederations Cup,” he told DW. “You never know the result until the game is played.”
Felgenhauer notes that Russia is lacking in many areas of modern military technology, including drone design and production, electronic components, as well as radar and satellite reconnaissance. For example, Russia is currently producing surveillance drones under an Israeli license, and it is completely lacking in assault drone capability.
Russia is also working on modernizing its command and control centers, which serve to process information from the battlefield and feed it to the troops.
“That’s what the Russian military is talking about: Yes, we have weapons, including long-range weapons, but our reconaissance capabilities are weaker than our attack capabilities,” Felgenhauer said. “So we have-long range, sometimes precision guided weapons, but we don’t always know where the target is.”
No more German and French satellites
These problems were exacerbated by the 2014 Crimean crisis, according to the analyst. In the years leading up to the showdown with the West, Moscow was spending at least $500 million in the US shopping for the so-called double-use merchandize, which can be used for both military and civilian purposes.
“It was electronic components for Russian weapons and satellites, different kinds of special glass and steel,” Felgenhauer says.
Similarly, “France and Germany were making double-use satellites, which were basically military satellites, recon satellites, for Russia. And all that kind of stopped.”
Good old Soviet weapons
Faced with the West’s embargo, Russia is also working to develop its own drones and close the technological gap in other areas. However, the breakdown of the Soviet Union left Moscow not only weaker in terms of territory and the number of troops, but also when it comes to military suppliers, according to the experts.
“The Soviet Union had an idiotic, but at least very logical economy,” Aleksandr Golts says. “It had nothing to do with market economy, but the main goal for any enterprise on Soviet territory, whether it was designated as military or civilian, was to be ready to produce military goods and equipment in case of war. After the fall of the Soviet Union, these systems disappeared.”
On the other hand, the legacy of the Soviet Union is still very much present in the modern Russian army, as many of its cutting edge systems “are the development of good, old Soviet systems and the modernization of that type of technology,” says Golts.
One such weapon is the decades-old Su-25 attack plane, designed to support ground troops. Russia recently announced that the latest version of the aircraft has entered production.
“It is very well known to all the people who participated in the (1980’s) Afghan war, such as myself,” he told DW. “But, its designers insist it only looks like the old Su-25, that all the avionics are absolutely modern […] and it has shown how good it was during the Syrian war.”
20,000 tanks
In addition to the nuclear arsenal, there is one area in which Russia is clearly number one. Recently, the Kremlin announced that Russia had more tanks than any other nation in the world, notes Felgenhauer.
“Unofficially, I have seen figures of up to 20,000, which would mean that Russia has more tanks than all the NATO countries put together.”
Most of the European powers reduced their tank capabilities after the end of the Cold War, focusing instead on conflicts with terrorist and guerilla groups. This, according to Felgenhauer, puts them at a massive disadvantage in the event of a ground war in Europe.
“Germany has only 300 tanks left right now,” he says. “Britain has, I think, 250, and France also something close to that.”
In the event of all-European war, Russia also holds a logistical advantage over the West, according to Felgenhauer. Where NATO would need months to mobilize it full strength, Russia would be able to bring in reinforcements on a much tighter schedule.
Tutti i grandi uomini sono ascesi agli onori della storia per la loro coerenza di pensiero e di vita.
Si potrà pur sempre non condividere alcune idee ed azioni del Mahatma Gandhi, ma nessuno potrebbe mai dire che fosse un ipocrita, che facesse cose che mai aveva pensato: che simulasse e dissimulasse.
Un altro tratto caratteristico di personaggi di questo livello è che hanno proposto il loro modo di pensare e di vivere, ma mai hanno cercato di imporlo. San Francesco aveva un enorme ascendete morale per la sua santità di vita: lui viveva la più stretta delle povertà ma mai la impose a chicchessia.
*
La Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel da questo punto di vista sembrerebbe essere il perfetto contrario del Mahatma, di San Francesco e di gente di quella tempra.
Se si potesse parlare liberamente, senza l’uso del politicamente corretto, è la caricatura peggiorativa della donnetta ai trogoli. Con l’aggravante che essa sa più che bene cosa stia dicendo e facendo.
*
«Last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the Turkish offensive in the Syrian enclave “unacceptable.”
*
«Despite all justified security interests of Turkey, it’s unacceptable what’s happening in Afrin, where thousands and thousands of civilians are being pursued, are dying or have to flee»
*
«the chancellor herself clearly condemned the attack»
*
«We also condemn this in the strongest possible terms»
*
«Ankara should not receive any “economic assistance”»
*
Bene.
Dopo aver inveito contro la Turkia con la massima severità, ed averne dato condanna morale inappellabile, ecco che salta fuori la verità:
«has not stopped her government from selling arms to Turkey».
In poche parole, la Germania è la principale fornitrice di armi alla Turkia, traendone lauti guadagni.
«The German government has approved the export of military equipment worth €4.4 million ($5.4 million) since January 20, when Turkey launched its offensive against Kurdish militia in Afrin»
*
«The value of the approvals in the month preceding the offensive was almost €10 million»
* * * * * * * *
Ricapitoliamo.
Italia e gli altri stati dell’Unione Europea devono guardarsene bene dal vendere armi alla Turkia che ne starebbe facendo un uso immorale: sarebbe uno sfregio ai valori fondamentali dell’Unione Europea. E ciò che sia etico e morale lo decide ovviamente la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel.
Ma se fosse in gioco un guadagno sia pur minimo della Germania, bene, allora tutte quelle azioni orribilmente immorali ne risulterebbero essere santificate.
Last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the Turkish offensive in the Syrian enclave “unacceptable.” But that has not stopped her government from selling arms to Turkey, German public media reported.
*
Germany continues to authorize the export of weapon to Turkey despite criticizing the country’s offensive in the Syrian enclave of Afrin, German public broadcaster ARD reported Thursday.
The German government has approved the export of military equipment worth €4.4 million ($5.4 million) since January 20, when Turkey launched its offensive against Kurdish militia in Afrin, ARD said, citing a response from the Foreign Ministry to a question by the Left party.
The value of the approvals in the month preceding the offensive was almost €10 million.
‘Merkel’s credibility in question’
Left party lawmaker Sevim Dagdelen, who has been a prominent critic of German arms exports to Turkey in the past, said the recent approvals had raised questions about Chancellor Angela Merkel’s credibility after she denounced the invasion as “unacceptable.”
“The criticism does not have any consequences,” he told ARD, adding that rather than taking action to stop the fighting, Merkel’s government authorized more weapons sales.
“Despite all justified security interests of Turkey, it’s unacceptable what’s happening in Afrin, where thousands and thousands of civilians are being pursued, are dying or have to flee,” Merkel told German lawmakers.
German arms in Afrin?
Social Democrat (SPD) Deputy Parliamentary Leader Rolf Mützenich said one could not rule out that Turkey would use some of the weapons bought from Germany in the ongoing offensive in Syria.
“NATO countries like Turkey have more open delivery options, but they can also be denied, and in this case, that would be appropriate,” he told the German broadcaster.
Turkey says it has taken “complete control” of Afrin after a ground and air offensive against the YPG that controlled the Syrian enclave. Ankara considers the YPG a terror group and an extension of the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) rebels, which is waging an insurgency within its own borders.
Lo Spiegel usa parole inusitatamente dure, ma a nostro sommesso parere ha ragione.
«Turkey has barricaded its border to Syria with the help of funding from the European Union»
*
«Turkey has even built a wall along its border to Syria. It is several hundred kilometers long, 3 meters (10 feet) high and equipped with heat-detection cameras.»
*
«the Turkish soldiers indiscriminately opened fire on the refugees»
*
«EU Complicity»
*
«As a European Union member, the German government is also implicated in the arming of the Turkish border against refugees»
*
«This included the transfer of 35.6 million euros by Brussels to the Turkish company Otokar as part of its IPA regional development program for the construction of armored Cobra II military vehicles, which are now being used to patrol the border to Syria»
* * * * * * * *
«Last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called the Turkish offensive in the Syrian enclave “unacceptable.”
*
«Despite all justified security interests of Turkey, it’s unacceptable what’s happening in Afrin, where thousands and thousands of civilians are being pursued, are dying or have to flee»
*
«the chancellor herself clearly condemned the attack»
*
«We also condemn this in the strongest possible terms»
*
Queste sopra erano le parole, di seguito i fatti:
«The German government has approved the export of military equipment worth €4.4 million ($5.4 million) since January 20, when Turkey launched its offensive against Kurdish militia in Afrin»
*
«The value of the approvals in the month preceding the offensive was almost €10 million»
* * * * * * * *
In poche parole.
Unione Europea e Germania finanziano gli armamenti di quanti combattono in Siria e forniscono loro armi di ogni genere. Nel contempo finanziano e provvedono di armamenti la Turkia, con la quale, almeno a parole, sembrerebbe non correre buon sangue, per via di quello che Frau Merkel ha chiamato ‘colpo di stato‘.
Un comportamento invero molto ambiguo, troppo ambiguo per chi avrebbe voluto fare della morale il proprio vessillo.
Turkey has barricaded its border to Syria with the help of funding from the European Union. There are few options left for Syrians trying to flee the brutal war in their home country and those who do risk death.
*
When the Turkish soldiers opened fire, Ibrahim Khaled took his mother’s hand and ran. He recalls hearing the rattling of the machine guns and the screams of refugees who had been hit by bullets. “I thought if I stopped running now, I would be shot or arrested,” he says.
In their efforts to flee to Turkey from Syria, Khaled and his mother walked for hours in the direction the smugglers had told them to go. He says they walked, lost, through olive groves before reaching a Turkish village at dawn. Of the 60 refugees with whom Khaled had set out from the camp near the city of Darkush in the province of Idlib, in northwestern Syria, only a few made it over the border. The others, Khaled suspects, are either dead or back in Syria. “We were lucky,” he says.
He’s sitting in a newly constructed apartment on the outskirts of Mersin, in southern Turkey. He and his mother arrived here this past autumn. Khaled is afraid of the Turkish authorities, and he deliberated for a long time about whether he should speak to journalists about the violence at the border. He only agreed to be interviewed if his name was changed. “I want the world to know what is happening to us Syrians,” he says.
The Syrian civil war is now in its seventh year. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the fighting so far. Millions have been driven out. The week before last, Turkey displaced tens of thousands with its military intervention in the northern Syrian city of Afrin, which it has captured from the Kurdish YPG militia. Even though no peace is in sight, Syria’s neighbors — including Lebanon and Jordan — are refusing to take in any further refugees. Turkey has even built a wall along its border to Syria. It is several hundred kilometers long, 3 meters (10 feet) high and equipped with heat-detection cameras.
Khaled says the Turkish soldiers indiscriminately opened fire on the refugees. Although his claims are difficult to verify, the details do seem to line up and correspond with reports from over a half-dozen witnesses interviewed by DER SPIEGEL. Last Thursday, Human Rights Watch reported similar cases, as well as mass deportations of Syrian refugees from Turkey. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, whose numbers cannot be independently verified, at least 42 people have died trying to cross the border wall since September. The Turkish government did not answer DER SPIEGEL’s request for comment.
EU Complicity
As a European Union member, the German government is also implicated in the arming of the Turkish border against refugees. The EU states have provided the government in Ankara with security and surveillance technology valued at more than 80 million euros in exchange for the protection of its borders, according to research conducted by DER SPIEGEL and the European Investigative Collaborations network (EIC).
This included the transfer of 35.6 million euros by Brussels to the Turkish company Otokar as part of its IPA regional development program for the construction of armored Cobra II military vehicles, which are now being used to patrol the border to Syria.
Arms manufacturer Aselsan, of which the Turkish state owns a majority stake, was also commissioned by the EU to provide Ankara with 30 million euros worth of armored and non-armored surveillance vehicles for patrolling the Turkish-Greek land border.
In March 2016, the EU and Ankara closed a deal under which the Europeans would pay 3 billion euros to Turkey if the country kept the refugees inside its borders. The money was intended to help the Syrians in Turkey, but 18 million euros went to a Dutch company that manufactured six patrol boats for the Turkish coast guard.
The border to Turkey had remained open to Syrians until summer 2015. Some 3.5 million Syrians came to Turkey as refugees, more than any other country. Since then, Ankara has closed the Syrians’ escape route, partly due to pressure from the EU. Anyone still seeking to escape the war in Syria must now either be prepared to pay a lot of money or to risk their lives.
Ultimately, the EU’s refugee agreement with Turkey has merely served to shift the crisis: Fewer people are dying now in the Aegean, where the number of boat crossings to Greece has decreased since the signing of the agreement. Instead, people are now dying at the Turkish-Syrian border.
«a confidential German military report obtained by Reuters showed»
*
«impossible to carry out medical evacuations and other short-term missions»
*
«The report said the lack of a networked computer system required entry of data such as fuel usage into multiple systems, which meant it could take up to 50 man-hours to plan a mission»
*
«it is not acceptable from an operational view and must be shortened significantly»
*
«the aircraft would not meet all tactical requirements»
* * * * * * *
Cercando di usare penna benevola, Airbus è una ditta decotta, incapace di produrre un qualcosa di funzionante, che si sostiene solo grazie ai finanziamenti pubblici e che riesce ancora a vendere qualcosa solo dopo immani pressioni politiche.
Per un aereo militare dover impiegare cinquanta ore per pianificare una missione è un qualcosa fuori dal bene dell’intelletto.
Poi, tutti si sciacquano la bocca delle nuove frontiere della elettronica, della intelligenza artificiale, e della robotica.
Ci si accontenterebbe anche solo di una produzione che funzionasse.
Nota.
La tessera dl partito socialista non è sinonimo di bravura nella progettazione degli aerei, né giustifica stipendi iperborei. Similmente, Airbus avrà sicuramente una gran parte di personale femminile, ma messa in questa maniera avremmo preferito che fosse rimasta biecamente maschilista.
Lasciamo al Lettore l’onere di calcolarsi quanto sia già costata Airbus alle tasche del Contribuente europeo.
BERLIN — The Airbus A400M military transport programme faces continued problems such a cumbersome mission planning system that makes it impossible to carry out medical evacuations and other short-term missions, a confidential German military report obtained by Reuters showed.
The report said the lack of a networked computer system required entry of data such as fuel usage into multiple systems, which meant it could take up to 50 man-hours to plan a mission. This, it said, “is not acceptable from an operational view and must be shortened significantly.”
In addition, the report cited a “significant risk” that the aircraft would not meet all tactical requirements by the time the German military retires its current fleet of aging C-160 Transall transport planes after 2021.
Airbus, which last month took a new 1.3 billion euro charge on the troubled A400M programme, declined to comment on the German report.
«The MIM-104 Patriot is a surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, the primary of its kind used by the United States Army and several allied nations. It is manufactured by the U.S. defense contractor Raytheon and derives its name from the radar component of the weapon system. The AN/MPQ-53 at the heart of the system is known as the “Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept on Target” which is a backronym for PATRIOT. The Patriot System replaced the Nike Hercules system as the U.S. Army’s primary High to Medium Air Defense (HIMAD) system, and replaced the MIM-23 Hawk system as the U.S. Army’s medium tactical air defense system. In addition to these roles, Patriot has been given the function of the U.S. Army’s anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system, which is now Patriot’s primary mission. The system is expected to stay fielded until at least 2040.» [Fonte]
*
Del sistema Patriot sono state costruite numerose versioni con differenti caratteristiche. Si va da quella con raggio di azione di 70 km e velocità massima di Mach 2.8, fino a quella con capacità operativa di 160 km e velocità massima di Mach 4.1.
Tuttavia nessuno si stupirebbe se gli Stati Uniti disponessero di versioni ancor più performanti ma ancora coperte da segreto militare.
La Polonia si dota quindi di un sistema anti aereo ed anti missile di provata tecnologia, che dovrebbe fornirle una copertura ragionevole nel caso di conflitto.
È una manovra con dei pro e dei contro.
Gli aspetti favorevoli sono evidenti: lo spiegamento di Patriot gestiti direttamente da personale polacco costituiscono un deterrente di non poco peso. Nel converso, sembrerebbe essere del tutto verosimile che un potenziale nemico farebbe di tutto per cercare di neutralizzare questi sistemi: in altri termini, potrebbe anche scatenare una risposta anche ben maggiore di quella teoricamente necessaria.
Se poi è vero che il sistema Patriot è stato testato nel corso di conflitti locoregionali, sarebbe altrettanto vero constatare che gli avversari avevano armamenti decisamente scadenti. Sembrerebbe essere verosimile che i russi siano meglio armati degli irakeni.
The Polish president described it as “an extraordinary, historic moment.” The purchase will allow the country to coordinate its anti-missile operations with NATO allies Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Greece.
“It is an extraordinary, historic moment; it is Poland’s introduction into a whole new world of state-of-the-art technology, modern weaponry, and defensive means,” Polish President Andrzej Duda said during the signing ceremony.
The deal with US defense company Raytheon will see Poland acquire four Patriot missile units, which are designed to shoot down incoming missiles and aircraft, with first deliveries expected to be made in 2022.
Following Germany’s footsteps
The acquisition will allow Poland to co-ordinate its anti-missile operations with other NATO allies that already have the Patriot system, including Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Greece.
The purchase is part of the country’s effort to modernize its armed forces amid heightened tensions with Russia.
“We are signing today a contract to deliver a modern system that has proven itself in numerous countries and thanks to which we are joining an elite group of states which have an efficient weapon that guarantees security,” Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said.
More to come?
The deal also included the option for Poland to sign a second phase agreement to purchase more missile units, a new 360-degree radar and an interceptor missile.
“We do expect that Poland will move pretty quickly with Phase II,” Wes Kremer, president of Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, told Reuters news agency. He added: “They have a stated desire to complete that by the end of the year.”
«Con l’espressione “Stati con armi nucleari” si indicano quelle nazioni che hanno costruito, hanno testato e sono attualmente in possesso di armi nucleari di qualunque tipo; in termini colloquiali, spesso ci si riferisce a questi Stati con l’espressione “club nucleare”. In base ai termini del Trattato di non proliferazione nucleare (TNP), entrato in vigore il 5 marzo 1970, sono considerate ufficialmente “Stati con armi nucleari” (nuclear weapons states o NWS) quelle nazioni che hanno assemblato e testato ordigni nucleari prima del 1º gennaio 1967: Stati Uniti d’America, Russia (succeduta all’Unione Sovietica), Regno Unito, Francia e Cina, ovvero i cinque membri permanenti del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite.
Oltre a queste, altre quattro nazioni, non aderenti al TNP, hanno sviluppato e sono in possesso di armamenti nucleari: India, Pakistan, Corea del Nord (aderente al TNP nel 1985 ma ritiratasi da esso nel 2001) ed Israele (sebbene il governo israeliano non abbia mai confermato ufficialmente di possedere un arsenale nucleare); lo status di queste nazioni circa gli armamenti nucleari non è formalmente riconosciuto dagli organismi internazionali, ma è contemplato nelle pianificazioni strategiche dei principali Stati nucleari. Il Sudafrica allestì un arsenale nucleare tra la metà degli anni settanta e la fine degli anni ottanta ma scelse spontaneamente di smantellarlo nel 1991; i neo indipendenti Stati di Bielorussia, Kazakistan ed Ucraina si ritrovarono a gestire armi nucleari ex sovietiche dopo la dissoluzione dell’URSS, smantellandole o restituendole alla Russia entro il 1997.» [Fonte]
*
Le armi atomiche sono un deterrente tale da mantenere le forze in equilibrio, anche se labile. Diciamo che da un punto di vista di Realpolitik interessano sicuramente il numero delle testate, ma soprattutto che le possibili potenze concorrenti abbiano potenzialità ragionevolmente eguali.
Sicuramente negli ultimi lustri sono stati progettati e costruiti sistemi di arma in grado di neutralizzare i missili di potenziali assalitori, ma quanto poi essi siano funzionali sul campo di battaglia è tutto da vedere, anche se si spera che mai lo si debba constatare.
Parlando a spanne, la quantità di armamenti attualmente in linea è tale da poter distruggere completamente il mondo e la vita su di esso.
Negli ultimi tempi la dottrina atomica ha virato dalle bombe di elevata potenza a quelle di potenza molto più limitata, si direbbero quasi di uso tattico, anche se il termine è improprio, pur rendendo l’idea.
A quanto sembrerebbe di capire, ma il condizionale è d’obbligo, Stati Uniti e Russia hanno sviluppato missili vettori ipersonici. Questi vettori sarebbero molto più difficilmente intercettabili.
2018 has already became a huge year for nuclear weapons-related developments all over the world, with a new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review published, the Russian and U.S. achievement of New START Central Limits, and the Doomsday Clock moved 30 seconds closer to midnight. Last but not least, Russian President Vladimir Putin rather unexpectedly showcased a number of new nuclear delivery vehicles during his annual (although postponed) Address to the Federal Assembly.
Russia remains a key figure for both worldwide nuclear arsenals as well as strategic stability, so it is important to understand the existing and future capabilities of Strategic Rocket Forces and their sea- and air-based companions.
Land
Regarding the land-based leg of Russian nuclear triad, the important part is rather evolutionary: deliveries of new Yars (SS-27 Mod 2) intercontinental-range ballistic missiles or ICBMs (as well as yet to be specified Yars-S) in road-mobile and silo-based variants have led to the complete rearmament of up to three missile divisions, with rearmament ongoing for three. The development of the Barguzin rail-mobile ICBM project has been finished, but deployment was canceled, which back in the day seemed a good sign, as this system was obviously excessive.
Another future system, the Sarmat (SS-X-29) heavy liquid-fuel ICBM faced a number of problems, but eventually reached the ejection test stage, which was deemed successful. This missile is said to be more powerful than the renowned Satan (SS-18). However, using it as delivery vehicle for multiple (10+) warheads looks like an unnecessary capability given the existing New START limits (700 deployed launchers and 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads).
Now we come to the “gliding cruise bloc” Avangard, a hypersonic glider previously known as “Project 4202” or “Yu-71.” This type of payload, said to enter serial production, is capable of precise hits on any target, avoiding any existing or future missile defenses. The mating of Avangard and Sarmat (probably up to five gliders per missile, but likely less) seems the most appropriate way to use those new toys.
There were six ICBM test launches over 2017, related both to life extension and new payload types. As usual, the number was lower than previously announced; the same dynamics will probably remain in 2018.
Overall, Strategic Rocket Forces (RVSN) commander Sergei Karakayev remains committed to the 400 ICBMs at his disposal, but this number obviously includes nondeployed missiles, as otherwise there’s no chance for Russia to get under New START limits. It’s important to note that, given the rapid decline of the provisional “warheads-per-vehicle” coefficient over the last year, there’s a chance that “un-deployment” for existing heavy ICBMs (the SS-18 and SS-19) had already taken place.
Coming back to Putin’s nuclear weapons extravaganza, there’s one more system possibly related to the ground leg, the nuclear-powered cruise missile (possibly 9M730, but no one knows for sure) with unlimited range. Its current status, research, and deployment schedules are yet to be disclosed (or not), but it is worth noting, that “examples” given during the address were the sea-launched Tomahawk and air-launched Kh-101. However, the launcher used during the test shown in the relevant video resembles several types of self-propelled launchers for tactical surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles combined.
Sea
The sea leg of the nuclear triad launched several SS-N-23A Sinevas and a single SS-N-32 Bulava in 2017. The latter fact raises some concern, as we are yet to witness the possibility of salvo fires with this missile system. The Tula (Delta-IV class) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) returned from repairs to the Northern Fleet, while Bryansk of the same type (praised for a successful submarine-launched ballistic missile launch during strategic exercises by the fleet commander), left in turn for Zvezdochka to undergo work to repair, modernize, and restore its combat readiness.
Judging from the official photos, two Borei and 3 Delta-III SSBNs are ready for combat duty in the Pacific Ocean. The first 955A (Borei-A), Prince Vladimir, took to the water in 2017 as well. The original Borei class used the hulls from the Soviet reserve, so this ship is the first of entirely new construction. It’s worth noting that over the past year there were a number of confirmations regarding plans to develop an even more advanced underwater cruiser, Borei-B, within the framework of the State Armaments Program-2027 (GPV-2027).
There were a number of disclosures and an eventual statement by Putin on new unmanned underwater “drones,” namely Status-6 (or Kanyon) and Klavesin-2P (Harpsichord). It is rather strange that those two systems appeared in the same video and now are waiting for “public” designations together as well, because they obviously have different purposes. The main task of Klavesin-2P is believed to be expanding situational awareness for submarines, while Status-6 is an “intercontinental nuclear-tipped torpedo,” capable of destroying coastal infrastructure and (at least as shown in the video rendering) surface ship strike groups. It is yet to be understood how such a system, supposedly carrying a multimegaton nuclear warhead, should be factored into existing and future arms control agreements. Status-6 is a strategic system, so it seems appropriate to include this beast into some future START-type treaty, but one must keep in mind that long-range nuclear-tipped submarine-launched cruise missiles, which are still in service in the Russian Navy (and possibly will see a return for the U.S. Navy as well), are not covered by existing treaties, while having strategic implications.
Air
The most important “material” event for the Russia Air Force’s Strategic Aviation over the last year happened in 2018: first “new” Tu-160 (“Blackjack”) Heavy Bomber took its maiden flight. Of course one must remember that it was built using anunfinished body and it is yet to be understood which types (Tu-160M/160M1/160M2) will be produced and when, but this is an important milestone nevertheless. A contract for 10 planes was signed. A proper “future bomber,” PAK DA is yet to be disclosed; the only specification we may be sure about is that it will be based on a “flying wing” scheme. There’s word that some level of unification regarding avionics and weapons will be achieved for new Blackjacks and the PAK DA.
As for today, the main capability increase for the air leg of Russia’s nuclear triad is being achieved by the modernization of existing Tu-160 and Tu-95MS (Bear-H) aircraft, so they can use Kh-101 cruise missiles. This long-range stealthy cruise missile (Kh-102 for nuclear-tipped variant) will remain the main armament for new heavy bombers as well.
Heavy bombers remain an important signalling tool. Blackjacks and Bears routinely visit faraway airspace and airdromes, serving as a reminder of Russian strategic capabilities. Also, they are the only part of the triad (Luckily) that has seen real action: there were at least 66 air-launched cruise missiles launched at Islamic State terrorists in Syria.
During Vladimir Putin’s address, the air-based hypersonic weapons system “Kinzhal” (“Dagger”) was demonstrated, and even said to have entered test service in the Southern Federal (sic) District of Russia. The easiest way to describe this system is an Iskander-M (SS-26 Stone) solid-fuel aeroballistic missile (probably a 9M723 derivative) mated to MiG-31 (Foxhound) interceptor. The system is capable of hitting ground and sea-surface targets, avoiding missile defenses, and serves as a good example how existing technological marvels may produce synergy. It is yet to be determined if the stated 2,000 kilometer range means the missile only or the system as a whole. Kinzhal does not fall under New START definitions for strategic air leg, as Foxhound is hardly a heavy bomber, and the missile is obviously not cruise-type, but this is an important topic for discussion among experts and policymakers.
Stability or Escalation?
Russia remains fully capable of destroying the United States, and, most importantly, U.S. Strategic Command capabilities are roughly the same. This balance remains a pillar of global peace, even under the currently strained relations between the great powers. Discussions on limited nuclear use will likely remain unrelated to reality; any nuclear use will lead to full-scale retaliation.
What is important is how other nuclear-weapons states may be factored into the equation. Russia has until recently insisted that any further reductions can’t be achieved on a bilateral basis, while “third parties” have speculated that they can’t “join the game” while Russian and U.S. arsenals are bigger by such a great margin. Another issue in the strategic arms debate is U.S. Missile Defense, an overhyped problem for both the domestic audience and some military experts in Russia. Showing a great number of new “penetrating” nuclear delivery vehicles must be seen not as “saber-rattling” but as a therapy for the audience both within Russia and abroad.
However, an unusual statement was made by Vladimir Putin during his interview for NBC, which may show a way to overcome both problems. He said that Russia is ready to continue the dialogue on existing and new strategic arms control treaties, and added that, given new weapons’ missile defense penetration capabilities, “We no longer consider the reduction of ballistic missiles and warheads to be highly critical.” He indicated that new strategic weapons also will be included in the grand total.
Such an attitude is yet to see implementation in detailed strategic stability talks (it’s possible that this may have been a subject of the recently postponed meeting), but the parties seem ready for discussion. Future reductions may open the way for third parties to join the process – initially by agreeing to some level of transparency and confidence-building measures.
Military planners in every country think about waging and winning nuclear war, but testing their calculations remains superfluous.
Si constata come dopo dodici anni di cancellierato di Frau Merkel, e svariati anni di Mrs Ursula von der Leyen come Ministressa della Difesa, le forze armate tedesche siano state disintegrate in modo quasi perfetto e totale: sono state efficienti quasi quanto l’Armata Rossa di vecchia memoria.
Se questo fatto preoccupa, e molto, gli alleati della Nato, Stati Uniti in testa, esso rende invece felice il cuore di Mr Putin, che è riuscito ad ottenere questo grandioso risultato senza sparare un colpo e spendere un copeco. Quando si tratta del Ministero della Difesa altrui Mr Putin è un fervente liberal e propugnatore del femminismo più drastico.
«More than half of the Leopard 2 main battle tanks of the Bundeswehr are not operational. According to the Defence Ministry report, of the 244 Leopard 2 battle tanks were only 95 ready for use.
The German army has been well known in the past for its ability to deploy well-trained and maintained tank formations against the enemy, but this belief seems to be fading. Only 95 out of the Bundeswehr’s 244 Leopard 2 main battle tanks are combat-ready, Funke media group has learnt from a Defense Ministry report.
Some 53 tanks have been disarmed, seven are being used for testing, while 89 vehicles are “conditionally operational” as they cannot be repaired without critical spare parts. The Defense Ministry report especially highlights multiple cases in which “unavailability of the required spare parts would be detrimental.”»
The Leopard 2 is a main battle tank developed by Krauss-Maffei in the 1970s for the West German Army. The tank first entered service in 1979 and succeeded the earlier Leopard 1 as the main battle tank of the German Army. Various versions have served in the armed forces of Germany and 12 other European countries, as well as several non-European nations, including Canada (Leopard 2A4M CAN), Chile, Indonesia, Singapore and Turkey.»
*
Ma per essere sicura di aver dispiegato tutto il suo effetto distruttivo, Mrs Ursula von der Leyen ha aggiunto:
«Berlino prosegue nella politica delle porte aperte e dell’integrazione dei profughi. La Germania programma di reclutare rifugiati nelle Forze armate della Repubblica federale. E’ stato il ministro della Difesa Ursula von der Leyen a comunicarlo in una intervista alla Frankfurter Allgemeine am Sonntag»
* * *
Il Leopard 2 ha cinquanta anni sulle spalle e li dimostra tutti. Con novantacinque carri armati in servizio non è nemmeno possibile addestrare il personale. Se poi il personale fosse composto di rifugiati dalla Siria, come auspica la Ministressa, forse sarebbe anche meglio non addestrarlo. Non sempre infatti i mercenari hanno grande spirito combattivo e non sempre sarebbero felici di andare a morire in battaglia per gratificare chi li paga, ed anche male.
* * *
Di questi giorni la Commissione Militare del Bundestag ha rilasciato un report che conferma appieno i dubbi più pessimistici sullo stato della Bundeswehr.
«The German parliament’s military commissioner has published a report sharply critical of Germany’s combat-readiness. The problem comes amid the country’s increasing involvement in military missions abroad.
Germany’s military has deteriorated in recent years amid budget cuts and poor management, according to a report published on Tuesday by Parliamentary Armed Forces Commissioner Hans-Peter Bartels.
The call on politicians to double-down on reforms and increase funding came in the same week a Defense Ministry paper revealed German soldiers did not have enough protective vests, winter clothing or tents to adequately take part in a major NATO mission.
What’s wrong with the Bundeswehr?
– Bartels pointed to “big gaps” in personnel and equipment. At the end of 2017, no submarines and none of the air force’s 14 large transport planes were available for deployment due to repairs.
– Other equipment, including fighter jets, tanks and ships, was outdated and in some cases not fully operational because of bad planning or a lack of spare parts. Some air force pilots were unable to train because too many aircraft were being repaired.
– Soldiers have experienced increasing levels of stress and there was a lack adequate leadership due to some 21,000 vacant officer posts.
– The report said the government needed to pursue reforms “with greater urgency” and increase defense spending.
– A lack of funding and inefficient management structures and planning were behind the problems. Germany has cut defense spending since the end of the Cold War. In 2017, it spent about 1.2 percent of its economic production in 2017 on the armed forces, which is below the 2 percent target recommended by the NATO alliance.
Bundeswehr Chief of Staff reacts: Volker Wieker defended the military, saying “no complaints have come to my ear either in Germany or from our allies.” He did however admit that combat-readiness needed to be improve.
Bad timing: Bartels, a member of the center-left Social Democrats (SPD), said the meager state of the military was particularly bad because Germany has committed more troops to NATO and missions in Mali and Iraq. “Tasks for which there are supposed to be additional people and equipment in future are already upon us”, he said.
Germany’s spending promise: Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives and the SPD have committed to improving the Bundeswehr’s equipment and increasing defense spending to meet NATO targets in their coalition deal. SPD rank-and-file are currently voting on whether to accept the agreement and form a new government.
Two-percent-goal controversial: On Monday, the parliamentary leader of the Christian Social Union (CSU), Alexander Dobrindt, said it would be a “mistake” if Germany failed to meet NATO’s two-percent-goal by 2024. Acting SPD leader Andrea Nahles later said the coalition agreement only referred to a “target range” for defense spending, “but did not explicitly name the two-percent-goal.”
Allies expect more: Some of Germany’s NATO allies have repeatedly criticized alliance members who fail to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense. US President Donald Trump raised the criticism at a NATO summit in 2017 and Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has said those countries that do not meet the NATO target threaten the alliance’s “unity.”»
* * * * * * *
«Soldiers have experienced increasing levels of stress and there was a lack adequate leadership due to some 21,000 vacant officer posts.»
Poniamoci adesso una domanda seria: per quale potenza straniera lavorano Frau Merkel e Mr Ursula von der Leyen?
«Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s highly-anticipated interview on CBS’s 60 minutes aired on Sunday night in which the young royal spoke on a wide-range of topics, including the link between al-Qaeda and Iran.
The television interview, the first in which he is addressing an American audience, was broadcast two days before the crown prince’s meeting with US President Donald Trump in Washington.
Co-host of CBS This Morning Norah O’Donnell bagged the exclusive interview, in which the crown prince said the son of former al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is being supported by Iran.
“Unfortunately, Iran is playing a harmful role. The Iranian regime is based on pure ideology. Many of the Al-Qaeda operatives are protected in Iran and it refuses to surrender them to justice, and continues to refuse to extradite them to the United States. This includes the son of Osama bin Laden, the new leader of Al-Qaeda. He lives in Iran and works out of Iran. He is supported by Iran,” Prince Mohammed said.
He also said that Saudi Arabia would build its own nuclear capabilities “immediately” if Iran develops a bomb.»
*
Allo stato attuale della scienza e della tecnica, qualsiasi paese che abbia qualche ragionevole disponibilità economica è in grado di progettare e costruire un ordigno nucleare.
Se entrare nel novero delle superpotenze atomiche richiederebbe molto tempo ed investimenti mastodontici, perché ordigni atomici senza adeguati vettori e tutto il relativo supporto logistico sarebbero virtualmente inutili, arrivare ad avere un qualche armamento atomico ad uso locoregionale è diventato accessibile a molti.
Nel Medio Oriente l’Iran sta cercando di sviluppare una sua bomba atomica. Si dice, ma non esiste al momento alcuna conferma ufficiale, che Israele abbia da tempo simili armi.
L’iniziativa iraniana è comprensibile, ma occorre prendere atto che altera i già labili equilibri locoregionali.
Sono quasi millequattrocento anni che gli arabi odiano gli iraniani e tutti i loro vicini, adeguatamente ricambiati.
Sunniti, sciiti e wahabiti si odiano cordialmente ed al di là delle buone maniere diplomatiche, se potessero si sterminerebbero dal primo all’ultimo.
Poi, quasi che non fosse sufficiente, oltre a detestarsi per motivi politici e religiosi, è in corso una lotta all’ultimo sangue per il controllo dei bacini idrici e dei campi petroliferi.
Studiare il Medio Oriente è cosa desolante: ma siccome al peggio non c’è mai limite, si dovrebbero anche considerare le ambizioni politiche, economiche e militari delle superpotenze, che di fatto si stanno fronteggiando in quella regione in una lotta all’ultimo sangue.
«Saudi Arabia held talks with China around six months ago to establish a nuclear infrastructure for peaceful purposes»
Se un cinico constatasse come solo una guerra distruttiva e massacrante potrebbe, forse, risolvere la situazione attuale, verosimilmente direbbe un qualcosa non molto lontano dalla verità.
Sotto queste considerazioni risulta chiaro il messaggio lanciato dal Principe Ereditario Mohammed bin Salman:
«Saudi Arabia will develop nuclear weapons if Iran builds a nuclear bomb».
Sempre una persona cinica ma raziocinante arriverebbe a concludere che l’unico modo di conservare uno straccetto di pace, nome pomposo per una realtà ove la gente non si ammazzi su scala industriale, sarebbe quella di cercare di mantenere equilibri politici e militari in termini ragionevolmente accettabili.
Infine, cinico o disincantato, si dovrebbe ammettere come i trattati siano meri pezzi di carta, che valgono solo ed esclusivamente se supportati a garantiti da eserciti pronti, agguerriti, e soprattutto in equilibrio.
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman dropped a bombshell when he said Saudi Arabia will develop nuclear weapons if Iran builds a nuclear bomb. Before this week, Saudi Arabia’s strategy was either based on not letting Iran develop nuclear weapons, via international negotiations and pressure, or depending on the international community – which we know is not reliable – to deter it.
Saudi policy has now changed. Prince Mohammed bin Salman chose CBS to announce the kingdom’s new policy before meeting with US President Donald Trump. His statements had tangible consequences in Washington whose stances are usually divided. The crown prince’s task to convince legislators in the Congress and the different political powers in Washington will be difficult.
Washington’s approval to let Saudi Arabia develop nuclear weapons is almost impossible especially that some countries, like Israel, oppose this. However, the prince linked this to Iran’s attempt to build its own nuclear weapons. This resembles the Pakistani scenario with India.
Deterrence
The new Saudi policy conveys to the Europeans and the Americans, particularly those who seem lenient towards Iran, that they must understand that Riyadh will not settle with any guarantees if Iran develops its nuclear weapons and that it will do the same within the context of balance of deterrence.
First of all, we must ask, is Saudi Arabia capable of building a nuclear bomb?
No one can confirm that. However, the kingdom does have scientific competencies. This year, it will set up projects related to reactors, factories and infrastructure to develop its nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes. What distinguishes Saudi Arabia from Iran here is that it has uranium in its desert. Therefore, the kingdom does not need to buy it, and it has actually adopted a plan to extract it for development projects that are part of Vision 2030.
The second question is how will Saudi Arabia confront international opposition and possible political risks?
I do not think Riyadh will take this step to develop nuclear weapons without the approval of the concerned superpowers which cannot ignore the fact that Iran targets Saudi Arabia and that the former has reached an advanced stage of readiness to build nuclear weapons. If Tehran decided to enrich uranium and resume its nuclear project for military purposes, the crown prince’s statement will thus be justified.
Those who oppose the crown prince are not just in Iran but also in Washington itself. US Senator Ed Markey, also member of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, immediately responded to the prince’s statements and said: “Saudi Arabia’s crown prince has confirmed what many have long suspected—nuclear energy in Saudi Arabia is about more than just electrical power, it’s about geopolitical power,” adding: “The United States must not compromise on nonproliferation standards in any 123 agreement it concludes with Saudi Arabia.” Opponents have noted that Saudi Arabia refuses to sign the “gold standard” or the “123 agreement” which guarantees that it does not enrich uranium and does not reproduce plutonium.
It’s worth noting that a week before the crown prince kicked off his tour in the US, the kingdom announced that it approved its national policy of the atomic energy program and confirmed its commitment to international agreements and the principle of transparency while emphasizing the program aims to serve peaceful purposes. The prince’s recent statements ahead of his travel to Washington prepared everyone there to understand that keeping silent and being lenient with Iran, thus allowing it to produce nuclear weapons, will mean that Saudi Arabia will do the same and possess a nuclear bomb. His statements may be looked at from two angles. The first one is that Saudi Arabia does not intend to develop nuclear weapons if Iran commits not to, and the second one is that the prince is warning of being lenient with Tehran because he will thus develop nuclear weapons to defend his country and create “a balance of terror.” Everyone takes Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s statements seriously. In addition to announcing its national policy of the atomic energy program, Saudi Arabia held talks with China around six months ago to establish a nuclear infrastructure for peaceful purposes. This will probably be among the topics he will address in Washington. Discussing these matters will not be easy due to all those skeptics who doubt Saudi Arabia’s aims and intentions. These skeptics have two choices, to either work seriously to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons – in this case Saudi Arabia and the world will not sense nuclear threats – or approve Saudi Arabia’s right of readiness to possess weapons like Iran’s. Iran is headed by an extremist fascist and religious regime which may use any nuclear weapons it builds to attack its rivals. Even if it does not directly use these weapons, it will exploit them to blackmail the region and the world and it will threaten to use them to achieve its expansive activities it’s currently endeavoring.
«L’NHI NH90 (NATO Helicopter per gli anni novanta) è un elicottero multiruolo biturbina medio pesante con rotore a quattro pale, sviluppato a partire dagli anni novanta dal consorzio internazionale NHIndustries, costituito da Leonardo (nuovo nome di Finmeccanica assunto dal 2017, in precedenza dall’AgustaWestland, confluita in Leonardo-Finmeccanica nel 2016), la franco-tedesca Eurocopter e l’olandese Stork Fokker Aerospace.
L’NH90 è il primo elicottero europeo completamente “fly-by-wire” e viene realizzato utilizzando estesamente i materiali compositi. Impiegato a partire dal 2007 dalle Forze armate tedesche (Bundeswehr) e dal 2008 dall’Esercito Italiano, è stato ordinato dalle forze armate di molti paesi nel mondo.
La denominazione utilizzata dal Ministero della difesa italiano è UH-90A per la versione terrestre (TTH), e SH-90A per la versione navale (NFH). Tale sigla fa riferimento alla denominazione Sea Helicopter; gli aeromobili SH90 della Marina Militare sono dislocati presso la stazione elicotteri di Sarzana-Luni e la stazione aeromobili Taranto-Grottaglie, nella versione NFH.» [Fonte]
*
«L’Amministratore delegato di Leonardo, Alessandro Profumo, ha chiuso a Doha il contratto per la fornitura al Qatar di 28 elicotteri militari medi bimotore multiruolo Nh 90 del consorzio europeo Nh Industries»
*
«Leonardo è prime contractor per la commessa: ha nel consorzio una quota del 32%»
*
Si dovrebbe notare una cosa.
L’NH90 avrebbe un costo unitario di 16 milioni di euro. Di conseguenza, 28 elicotteri dovrebbe costare 448 milioni. I restando due miliardi e mezzo del contratto sono il pacchetto completo di supporto, manutenzione, addestramento e interventi infrastrutturali. Questa ultima cifra genera un indotto di tutto riguardo.
E’ prime contractor per la commessa: ha nel consorzio una quota del 32%. L’Amministratore delegato: «Orgogliosi della firma. Risultato straordinario»
*
L’Amministratore delegato di Leonardo, Alessandro Profumo, ha chiuso a Doha il contratto per la fornitura al Qatar di 28 elicotteri militari medi bimotore multiruolo Nh 90 del consorzio europeo Nh Industries. Leonardo è prime contractor per la commessa: ha nel consorzio una quota del 32%. Alla firma è presente anche il ministro della Difesa, Roberta Pinotti. Il valore dell’intero programma per il Consorzio Nhi è superiore a 3 miliardi di euro e comprende 16 NH90 Tth per operazioni terrestri, 12 NH90 Nfh per missioni navali e un pacchetto completo di supporto, manutenzione, addestramento e interventi infrastrutturali.
Il programma potrebbe essere ulteriormente ampliato in futuro con l’aggiunta di ulteriori 12 unità (6 + 6) in un mix di Tth e Nfh. Leonardo agirà in qualità di “prime contractor” per la gestione dell’intero programma presso il cliente. L’azienda sarà inoltre responsabile dell’assemblaggio finale e della consegna dei 12 NH90 Nfh navali dal suo stabilimento di Venezia-Tessera, unitamente alla fornitura di un pacchetto di servizi di supporto e addestramento della durata di otto anni per equipaggi e tecnici. Airbus sarà, a sua volta, responsabile dei 16 NH90 Tth terrestri. Le consegne cominceranno prima del giugno 2022 e continueranno fino al 2025. Leonardo fornirà o contribuirà all’integrazione di vari equipaggiamenti, sistemi avionici e sensori.
«Siamo orgogliosi della firma di questo contratto – ha commentato Profumo – Leonardo si conferma ancora una volta un partner affidabile per il Qatar al quale sta fornendo un’ampia gamma di tecnologia all’avanguardia e di soluzioni customizzate nel campo della difesa e della sicurezza. L’annuncio di oggi rappresenta un risultato straordinario in uno dei settori chiave per l’azienda. Siamo fortemente impegnati a rafforzare il nostro posizionamento sui mercati, in linea con il piano Industriale 2018-2022».
