Month: February 2019

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday suspended the Cold War-era Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty in response to a similar move by the United States on Friday.

“The American partners have declared that they suspend their participation in the deal. We suspend it as well,” Putin announced during a televised meeting with foreign ministers and military brass.

The U.S. vowed to withdraw from the INF Treaty in six months unless Moscow ended what it called violations of the landmark 1987 arms control pact.

Putin said Russia would start work on creating new missiles, including hypersonic weapons, and told ministers not to initiate disarmament talks with Washington.

During the meeting, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov accused the United States of violating the INF and other arms deals, joining a chorus of Russian defense officials and legislators who condemned Washington for gambling with global security. Yury Baluyevsky, former chief of the General Staff, even said Russia was prepared to respond “militarily.” 

Impact assessments vary

Numerous Moscow-based arms control experts, however, offered a more measured assessment of the standoff.

“U.S. withdrawal from #INF doesn’t presage nuclear crisis on the model of early 60s or early 80s, but it ushers in new strategic environment where stability is no longer regulated by arms control agreements,” tweeted Dmitri Trenin, director of the Moscow-based Carnegie Center and a former Soviet army official who was directly involved in U.S.-Russia nuclear talks in Geneva.

“In that [environment], survival requires deterrence [plus communication and] restraint,” he wrote. “Cool heads, above all.”

Independent Russian military analyst Aleksandr Goltz, however, offered a much bleaker view.

“My assessment is that for the next three, four or maybe five years, we’re reasonably safe, as it will take the United States years to design, test and deploy medium-range missiles,” said Goltz. “But make no mistake, we are now witnessing the total destruction of all systems of nuclear arms control.

“The problem is that the INF Treaty is very deeply interconnected with the New START Treaty,” he said, referring to a separate arms pact that limits both countries to fewer than 1,550 strategic nuclear warheads. “If START does not survive, in 2021 we’ll find ourselves in a situation shaping up for the next Cuban missile crisis.”

WATCH: What’s the INF Treaty Dispute About?

Asked whether there’s a chance the INF treaty could still be saved, Goltz said there was none.

“No, absolutely no chance. Because Trump has said he would only continue with the INF Treaty if China joined, and this is completely impossible,” said Goltz, explaining that 90 percent of China’s arsenal is deployed for medium range, implying that Beijing INF compliance would be tantamount to  eradicating its arsenal.

Blaming both countries for the mutual suspension, he said Russia, in his opinion, stood to lose far more in a new arms race.

“This is an absolute strategic catastrophe for the Kremlin,” he said. “We are returning to the situation of the 1970s or early 1980s, where the U.S. can deploy warheads that reach Moscow or St. Petersburg in six or seven minutes, which is just a strategic disaster. I mean, within minutes you can do nothing.”

Arms control expert Alexei Arbatov, a full member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, however, called himself a “hopeless optimist” who called six months “a very long” time to resolve differences.

“U.S. and Russian officials are centimeters apart on key differences,” he said, describing technical discrepancies that violate INF strike range guidelines.

According to the Washington-based Arms Control Association, the treaty requires the United States and Russia “to eliminate and permanently forswear all of their nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.”

Arbatov said the treaty could be resuscitated immediately if Russia could prove its missiles are technically INF-range compliant, and the U.S. can prove that anti-ballistic launch systems in Poland and Romania aren’t designed to defend against a Russian nuclear assault on Europe. 

“This has been at the surface for quite a long time … but only political hostilities, intransigence and total distrust” between the countries is impeding a swift resolution. 

Neither side liked treaty

“And I blame both sides,” he added. “Americans have never much cared for the treaty, because it doesn’t really concern their security,” he said, alluding to the fact that the INF strike range includes Russia’s European neighbors, but not U.S. soil.

“And Russians never cared for it because many argued that it required Russia to destroy too many missiles and left the country unable to target American missile defenses,” he said. “Neither side was really interested in saving the treaty, for the wrong reasons, and both sides were mistaken. 

“I only hope that during the next six months, the position on both sides will change.”

Asked whether he anticipated any kind of nuclear standoff reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Arbatov was dismissive.

“Unless Russia positions nuclear warheads in Cuba, Venezuela or Nicaragua, then, no, we’re not even close,” he said.

Accusations on both sides 

The U.S. and NATO accuse Russia of violating the INF restrictions by developing land-based, intermediate-range cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and hitting European cities on short notice, but the Kremlin, which last week displayed its missiles to foreign military attaches in Moscow, says the missiles’ short range puts them outside the INF Treaty.

U.S. officials said there was no way of verifying that information because the missiles have been shown publicly only in a “static display” that gives no indication of their flying distance.

On Saturday, Russia’s Lavrov told Putin that the U.S. has been in breach of INF provisions since 1999, a charge the U.S. denies.

“According to our information, the United States started violating that undated treaty in 1999 when it began trials of combat unmanned flying vehicles with specifications similar to those of ground-launched cruise missiles banned by the treaty,” he told Russia’s state-run TASS news outlet.

Lavrov also castigated the U.S. for a Romania-based anti-ballistic missile system capable of firing Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles. The United States says that system is designed to defend against “rogue” states such as Iran and provides no protection against Russia’s nuclear arsenal.

The INF has largely deepened Russia’s international isolation, and Russia accuses the United States of inventing a false pretext to abandon the treaty in order to develop new missiles. 

Some information for this report came from AP and Reuters. 
…

The United States and Russia are making tit-for-tat moves with their participation in a nuclear treaty, and some politicians and analysts see it as a burgeoning arms race. Russian President Vladimir Putin announced Saturday that Russia is suspending its participation in the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The Russian move follows similar action Friday by the U.S.
…

As portions of the United States shovel out from snow and ice and bundle up against a brutal cold snap, weather watchers across the U.S. are poised Saturday to hear whether they can count on an early spring, or six more weeks of winter.

But the accuracy of this annual forecast is dubious, as the prediction is made by a groundhog.

Feb. 2 marks Groundhog Day, when traditionally a Pennsylvania groundhog known as Punxsutawney Phil makes an appearance above ground, near the cozy tree stump he calls home. Legend has it that if he sees his shadow, North America is in for six more weeks of winter weather.

If not, spring will arrive soon.

Other furry forecasters

Punxsutawney Phil is the most famous of the furry prognosticators. Generations of groundhogs, which are members of the marmot family known as woodchucks, have been predicting the weather since 1887.

Records going back to 1887 show Phil has predicted many more winters than an early spring.

Other states have their own groundhogs, like Sir Walter Wally of North Carolina. In West Virginia, there is French Creek Freddie. Georgia has General Beauregard Lee.

Canada’s most famous groundhog is Wiarton Willie of Ottawa.
…

The president of the United States has lambasted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, calling her “very bad for our country” and saying that “she doesn’t mind human trafficking” because she opposes designating money for a wall at the U.S. border with Mexico.

In an interview Friday with CBS News, Donald Trump said Pelosi is “very rigid” and that she is attempting “to win a political point’ by refusing to give him money for the wall that was a major component of his successful presidential campaign.

During the campaign, however, Trump promised that Mexico would pay for the wall. Mexico has refused. Now Trump wants Congress to give him money for the border wall, and the Democrats who are in control of the House of Representatives have refused.

“Democrats have put forward strong, smart and effective border security solutions in the bipartisan conference committee,” said Drew Hammill, a Pelosi spokesman, adding that the president “still refuses to take a second shutdown off the table.”

Trump recently ended a 35-day partial government shutdown without getting the $5.7 billion he wanted for the wall.

​National emergency option

The president said Friday he will consider calling for a “national emergency” as the path forward to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border because he doesn’t think negotiations among lawmakers will produce the necessary funding.

“We will be looking at a national emergency because I don’t think anything is going to happen. I think Democrats don’t want border security. And when I hear them talking about the fact that walls are immoral, walls don’t work — they know they work,” Trump said Friday.

On Thursday, the president called bipartisan congressional talks over border wall funding a “waste of time.”

In a White House interview with The New York Times Thursday, Trump again hinted he may declare a national emergency in order to bypass Congress and build the wall without its approval.

“I’ll continue to build the wall and we’ll get the wall finished. Now whether or not I declare a national emergency, that you’ll see … I’ve set the table, I’ve set the stage for doing what I’m going to do.”

Government shutdown option

In less than three weeks, if there is no deal on border security that Trump would sign, there could be another government shutdown.

If Trump does declare a national emergency, Democrats who don’t want any money for a border wall will probably immediately challenge Trump in court.

The president had strong words for Pelosi who has said over and over again she will not agree to give Trump the $5.7 billion he wants for a wall.

Pelosi has said she was open to other kinds of barriers along the border, but Trump said that was unacceptable.

​More troops to the border

Meanwhile, the Pentagon said it is sending an additional 3,500 troops to the U.S. southern border with Mexico to assist with border security measures.

Democrat Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, released the latest troop numbers after slamming the Pentagon’s lack of transparency in a letter to Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan.

A defense official confirmed that the Pentagon was sending 3,500 more active duty troops to the border, for a total of 5,800 active duty troops and 2,300 National Guard troops supporting the Department of Homeland Security’s request for additional border security.

The official, who spoke to VOA on the condition of anonymity, added that this “initial pop” in the number of troops would not be sustained through September.

Some of these 3,500 will be replacing troops who will be leaving soon, while others are only assigned to the border for 30 or 60 days in order to set up large coiled barbed wire in specific areas, according to the official.

Without giving any details, Trump tweeted Thursday “More troops being sent to the Southern Border to stop the attempted Invasion of Illegals, through large caravans, into our Country. We have stopped the previous Caravans, and we will stop these also. With a Wall it would be soooo much easier and less expensive.”

Trump, as he often has, claimed erroneously that “Large sections of WALL have already been built with much more either under construction or ready to go.” The U.S. has been repairing existing barriers, which Trump called “a very big part of the plan to finally, after many decades, properly Secure Our Border. The Wall is getting done one way or the other!”

At various times, Trump has called the barriers at the border an impenetrable concrete wall, and other times “steel slats,” or a see-through barrier, even “peaches,” if people preferred.

On Thursday, though, Trump said, “Let’s just call them WALLS from now on and stop playing political games! A WALL is a WALL!”
…

The trade dispute between the U.S. and China is disrupting Silicon Valley.

What had been a steady flow of Chinese money into tech firms appears to be slowing. Investors are concerned about the “headline risk” of doing business with Chinese investors.

And in some cases, U.S. startups are shunning Chinese investment.

These changes come after years of investment and collaboration between China and Silicon Valley. But the trade dispute, coupled with U.S. policymakers’ concerns about Chinese investments in sensitive technologies, such as artificial intelligence, have increased scrutiny of cross border deals on all sides.

A drop in investment

In 2018, Chinese firms invested more than $2 billion in U.S. technology firms, but that was a drop of nearly 80 percent from the year before, according to a Forbes report citing S&P Global Market Intelligence.

While Chinese investors took stakes in roughly the same number of U.S. tech deals — 80 compared to 89 in 2017 — that was off from the peak in 2016 when Chinese investors were part of 107 deals. Among the biggest recipients of Chinese investment in 2018 were Farasis Energy, a battery maker, and Epic Games, a gaming company, according to the Rhodium Group.

While deals continue to come together in 2019, the recent indictment of a Huawei executive has added to a new chill between the two regions, according to observers in Silicon Valley.

​A technology war

In China, the battle is seen as less about Huawei and its alleged wrongdoing and more as a proxy for a “technology war” between countries over technological supremacy.

“The Huawei incident seems like an action against an individual corporation, but it is actually bigger than this,” said Hu Xingdou, a Beijing-based scholar. “This is about one state’s technology war against another state, about which one will occupy the technology high ground in the future.”

One recent change in the U.S. has been the expansion of a government program that reviews foreign investment in areas deemed sensitive.

Despite the expanded U.S. regulatory reviews, Chinese investments in U.S. tech firms are mostly getting through, said Chuck Comey, a partner at Morrison Foerster, a law firm.

As for Chinese companies buying or merging with U.S. tech ones? 

“It ain’t happening,” he said.

​Saying ‘no’ to Chinese investment

The increased tensions have given investors — and even some potential recipients of investment — some pause. One U.S. company, which had accepted Chinese investment in the past, told Reuters that it declined investment from Chinese investors in its most recent round.

“We decided for optical reasons it just wouldn’t make sense to expose ourselves further to investors coming from a country where there is now so much by way of trade tensions and IP tensions,” said Carson Kahn, CEO of Volley, an artificial intelligence training firm.

At a recent event in Silicon Valley about China and U.S. investments, speakers on a panel discussed how the geopolitical tensions affected their business. While several predicted that in the long run, the current friction between the two countries will have a minimal effect on cross-border business between China and Silicon Valley, there was a sense that an era has ended.

“We’ve kind of taken for granted,” said Kyle Lui, a partner at DCM, a global venture capital firm, “that the prior decade plus there’s been lots of strong collaboration between the U.S. and China.”
…

The Boy Scouts of America welcomes girls into its ranks Friday.

For almost a year young girls have been able to join the Cub Scouts.

But starting Friday, girls 11-17 years old, can participate in the Boy Scouts program, now called Scouts BSA. That curriculum is the path to becoming an Eagle Scout, the organization’s highest rank.

Co-ed troops, however, are not planned for Scouts BSA. Boys and girls will be able to earn the same merit badges and advance through the same ranks.

According to a statement on the the Boy Scouts of America’s website, “The leadership of the BSA determined that the best way to welcome girls and serve today’s families was to offer a unique model that builds on the proven benefits of our single-gender program, while also providing character and leadership opportunities for both boys and girls.”

 
…

The Boy Scouts of America welcomes girls into its ranks Friday.

For almost a year young girls have been able to join the Cub Scouts.

But starting Friday, girls 11-17 years old, can participate in the Boy Scouts program, now called Scouts BSA. That curriculum is the path to becoming an Eagle Scout, the organization’s highest rank.

Co-ed troops, however, are not planned for Scouts BSA. Boys and girls will be able to earn the same merit badges and advance through the same ranks.

According to a statement on the the Boy Scouts of America’s website, “The leadership of the BSA determined that the best way to welcome girls and serve today’s families was to offer a unique model that builds on the proven benefits of our single-gender program, while also providing character and leadership opportunities for both boys and girls.”

 
…