Politics

[mdwest]

Company Grade ( Lt, Capt) Field Grade (Maj-Col) & Flag Grad (Generals).

Correct... O1 - O3 (2LT, 1LT, CPT) = Company Grade... O4 - O6 (MAJ, LTC, COL) = Field Grade... and O7 - O10 = General Officer / Flag Officer (BG, MG, LTG, GEN)

 

[Red Leg]

All of the above is correct. When promoted to General Officer in the US Army one receives four things - A raise, a special serial numbered pistol that one is allowed to purchase from the Army upon retirement (in my case, the standard issue Berretta, but with a "GO XXXXXXXX" serial number), a leather belt with a General Officer buckle, and a flag. In the Army, it is red in color and as a Brigadier will have a single white star. Whenever a general officer is present in a tactical unit headquarters or a ceremony such as a change of command, his flag flies. If promoted to Major General, one receives another raise and a new flag with two stars. Lieutenant General gets three and General gets four.

Like Paton's vehicle, they are displayed on the GO's vehicle in a tactical unit (though obviously not in combat! ) It is good to give the troops a few seconds warning if the Assistant Division Commander is on the prowl. Unlike WWII it is simply a red front "license plate" with the appropriate star.

Most of us are pretty proud of them - promotion to GO is a very serious needle to have squeezed through.

I "fly" mine in my library. A friend of mine who is a retired four star flies his on his vacation home whenever he and his wife are present.

 

[WillMFerguson]

Screenshots, but still readable. I am addicted to Spicy Friday.

 

[WAB]

All of the above is correct. When promoted to General Officer in the US Army one receives four things - A raise, a special serial numbered pistol that one is allowed to purchase from the Army upon retirement (in my case, the standard issue Berretta, but with a "GO XXXXXXXX" serial number), a leather belt with a General Officer buckle, and a flag. In the Army, it is red in color and as a Brigadier will have a single white star. Whenever a general officer is present in a tactical unit headquarters or a ceremony such as a change of command, his flag flies. If promoted to Major General, one receives another raise and a new flag with two stars. Lieutenant General gets three and General gets four.

Like Paton's vehicle, they are displayed on the GO's vehicle in a tactical unit (though obviously not in combat! ) It is good to give the troops a few seconds warning if the Assistant Division Commander is on the prowl. Unlike WWII it is simply a red front "license plate" with the appropriate star.

Most of us are pretty proud of them - promotion to GO is a very serious needle to have squeezed through.

I "fly" mine in my library. A friend of mine who is a retired four star flies his on his vacation home whenever he and his wife are present.

View attachment 534407

Very impressive sir.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

https://link.foreignpolicy.com/view/64428506aced183da6246f56irq6x.1ex4/9104e7d7

U.S. Ties With South Africa Going South, and Fast

The U.S. ambassador to South Africa kicked up a diplomatic storm when he declared that the United States had intelligence that weapons were being covertly shipped from a South African port bound for Russia.

Up in arms over arms. That claim led to a heated swirl of accusations and counter-accusations, followed by vehement denials from South African government spokespeople, a vow by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to launch an investigation into the matter, and vague statements from Washington that left more questions than answers.

Global south calling. The whole saga showcased how seriously the United States and its Western allies take the prospect of any countries around the world offering support to Russia as war rages in Ukraine—while Ukraine itself works to make inroads in the global south to blunt Moscow’s influence.

It also highlights how the U.S.-South Africa relationship—once viewed as a linchpin of U.S. engagement across the continent—seems to be teetering on the brink of a massive upheaval.

The U.S. ambassador to Pretoria, Reuben Brigety, said he would “bet [his] life” on the accuracy of the U.S. intelligence on the matter, despite the fierce backlash from the South African government.

That broadly leaves three options.

Pick one of three doors. The first scenario is that the U.S. intelligence is wrong. Current and former U.S. officials who have spoken to SitRep say that is highly unlikely, given Brigety’s reputation as a straight shooter who wouldn’t go out on such a far limb without serious evidence to back it up, but it’s hard to independently verify claims stemming from classified intelligence. And, of course, U.S. intelligence has gotten things wrong before.

Second, the South African government secretly and knowingly supplied weapons to Russia, brazenly defying Western sanctions and undercutting its supposedly neutral position on the war. Again, this is a charge that the South African government denies.

Third, the arms shipment was arranged without the government’s knowledge—a not unlikely possibility given the rampant levels of corruption and dysfunction gripping the South African government today. (One data point to consider: Viktor Vekselberg, a wealthy Russian oligarch close to Russian President Vladimir Putin who is under U.S. sanctions, is reportedly a major donor to South Africa’s ruling party.)

Things are getting tense. Even if there’s no answer yet to which of these three options is right, South Africa’s deepening relationship with Russia and continued stance on the war in Ukraine have drawn intense scrutiny in the West.

South Africa agreed to joint military exercises with Russia and China this February—exercises that coincided with the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, even as this scandal rages, South Africa’s army chief visited Moscow this week in a meeting that the South African government insists was “planned well in advance” and part of a “goodwill visit” at the Russian military’s invitation. Regardless of how well in advance the trip was planned, the optics are less than great in the eyes of policymakers in Washington and European capitals.

A peace mission? Meanwhile, as its militaries cozy up, South Africa is part of a new diplomatic initiative with other African powers to try to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. The leaders of South Africa, Zambia, Senegal, Republic of Congo, Uganda, and Egypt plan to travel to Moscow and Kyiv to meet separately with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to discuss pathways to end the war. Most experts believe Russia has no interest in backing down from its fight, and Ukraine is reportedly in the beginnings of a major counteroffensive.

Every relationship has a history. South Africa has always maintained close ties with Russia, both as a fellow member of the BRICS bloc of emerging powerhouse economies and during Moscow’s efforts to support the anti-apartheid movement that finally ended the country’s brutal apartheid regime in 1994. Those ties go deep, as a “large number of cadres from the African National Congress or ANC (formerly an anti-apartheid organization, now the ruling party of South Africa) went to Moscow for military training during the apartheid era, chiefly in sabotage work,” as Stephen Chan, a renowned scholar on African affairs at SOAS, University of London, wrote in The Conversation. The United States, meanwhile, offered diplomatic support to the apartheid regime during much of the Cold War, including watering down U.N. sanctions in the 1960s and 1970s—a fact not forgotten by many in the ANC.

(It’s worth noting that Ukraine was part of the former Soviet Union that provided so much support to the ANC during the Cold War.)

Mounting pressure from Western countries for South Africa to rethink its ties with Moscow haven’t paid off so far, even as fresh evidence of war crimes and possibly genocide by Russian forces in Ukraine piles up. That has only heightened tensions between Washington and Pretoria.

Is this the final straw? The whole saga could lead to a radical rethink in how Washington views its ties with South Africa going forward. “It’s long past time to stop romanticizing U.S.-South Africa relations, or pretending that a one-sided enthusiasm for cooperation with the South African government is a critical linchpin in U.S.-Africa policy,” Michelle Gavin of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote in a new piece for the think tank this week. (Gavin is a veteran of the Obama administration National Security Council and a former ambassador to Botswana.) “Over and over, South African words and deeds demonstrate that what would seem to be fertile ground of shared interests and values in democratic societies is, for the time being, a mirage.”

 

[Newboomer]

https://link.foreignpolicy.com/view/64428506aced183da6246f56irq6x.1ex4/9104e7d7

U.S. Ties With South Africa Going South, and Fast

The U.S. ambassador to South Africa kicked up a diplomatic storm when he declared that the United States had intelligence that weapons were being covertly shipped from a South African port bound for Russia.

Up in arms over arms. That claim led to a heated swirl of accusations and counter-accusations, followed by vehement denials from South African government spokespeople, a vow by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa to launch an investigation into the matter, and vague statements from Washington that left more questions than answers.

Global south calling. The whole saga showcased how seriously the United States and its Western allies take the prospect of any countries around the world offering support to Russia as war rages in Ukraine—while Ukraine itself works to make inroads in the global south to blunt Moscow’s influence.

It also highlights how the U.S.-South Africa relationship—once viewed as a linchpin of U.S. engagement across the continent—seems to be teetering on the brink of a massive upheaval.

The U.S. ambassador to Pretoria, Reuben Brigety, said he would “bet [his] life” on the accuracy of the U.S. intelligence on the matter, despite the fierce backlash from the South African government.

That broadly leaves three options.

Pick one of three doors. The first scenario is that the U.S. intelligence is wrong. Current and former U.S. officials who have spoken to SitRep say that is highly unlikely, given Brigety’s reputation as a straight shooter who wouldn’t go out on such a far limb without serious evidence to back it up, but it’s hard to independently verify claims stemming from classified intelligence. And, of course, U.S. intelligence has gotten things wrong before.

Second, the South African government secretly and knowingly supplied weapons to Russia, brazenly defying Western sanctions and undercutting its supposedly neutral position on the war. Again, this is a charge that the South African government denies.

Third, the arms shipment was arranged without the government’s knowledge—a not unlikely possibility given the rampant levels of corruption and dysfunction gripping the South African government today. (One data point to consider: Viktor Vekselberg, a wealthy Russian oligarch close to Russian President Vladimir Putin who is under U.S. sanctions, is reportedly a major donor to South Africa’s ruling party.)

Things are getting tense. Even if there’s no answer yet to which of these three options is right, South Africa’s deepening relationship with Russia and continued stance on the war in Ukraine have drawn intense scrutiny in the West.

South Africa agreed to joint military exercises with Russia and China this February—exercises that coincided with the first anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Meanwhile, even as this scandal rages, South Africa’s army chief visited Moscow this week in a meeting that the South African government insists was “planned well in advance” and part of a “goodwill visit” at the Russian military’s invitation. Regardless of how well in advance the trip was planned, the optics are less than great in the eyes of policymakers in Washington and European capitals.

A peace mission? Meanwhile, as its militaries cozy up, South Africa is part of a new diplomatic initiative with other African powers to try to bring Russia and Ukraine to the negotiating table. The leaders of South Africa, Zambia, Senegal, Republic of Congo, Uganda, and Egypt plan to travel to Moscow and Kyiv to meet separately with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to discuss pathways to end the war. Most experts believe Russia has no interest in backing down from its fight, and Ukraine is reportedly in the beginnings of a major counteroffensive.

Every relationship has a history. South Africa has always maintained close ties with Russia, both as a fellow member of the BRICS bloc of emerging powerhouse economies and during Moscow’s efforts to support the anti-apartheid movement that finally ended the country’s brutal apartheid regime in 1994. Those ties go deep, as a “large number of cadres from the African National Congress or ANC (formerly an anti-apartheid organization, now the ruling party of South Africa) went to Moscow for military training during the apartheid era, chiefly in sabotage work,” as Stephen Chan, a renowned scholar on African affairs at SOAS, University of London, wrote in The Conversation. The United States, meanwhile, offered diplomatic support to the apartheid regime during much of the Cold War, including watering down U.N. sanctions in the 1960s and 1970s—a fact not forgotten by many in the ANC.

(It’s worth noting that Ukraine was part of the former Soviet Union that provided so much support to the ANC during the Cold War.)

Mounting pressure from Western countries for South Africa to rethink its ties with Moscow haven’t paid off so far, even as fresh evidence of war crimes and possibly genocide by Russian forces in Ukraine piles up. That has only heightened tensions between Washington and Pretoria.

Is this the final straw? The whole saga could lead to a radical rethink in how Washington views its ties with South Africa going forward. “It’s long past time to stop romanticizing U.S.-South Africa relations, or pretending that a one-sided enthusiasm for cooperation with the South African government is a critical linchpin in U.S.-Africa policy,” Michelle Gavin of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote in a new piece for the think tank this week. (Gavin is a veteran of the Obama administration National Security Council and a former ambassador to Botswana.) “Over and over, South African words and deeds demonstrate that what would seem to be fertile ground of shared interests and values in democratic societies is, for the time being, a mirage.”

Wonder if they will sanction US hunters just for spite. That could throw a kink in people's safari plans. Wuldn't do their failing economy any good, either.

 

[cpr0312]

 

[bowjijohn]

My bet is on the second of your scenarios

generally, African leaders have an uncomfortable relationship with truth and democracy

Although that hardly makes them unique, many of them line their own pockets the instant they get into power, making them an easy target for manipulation

Just about all have been in the pockets of Russia, North Korea and China for decades

the West has relinquished influence in Africa as a consequence of poor strategic decisions and a desire to create all societies in their own image

you turned your back on those that shared your history, thinking that other cultures just required a bit of education in order to be like you

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I heard on the radio this morning that Saudia Arabia extended another big fat to the U.S. by welcoming Assad to the Arab summit. Score another one for good ol' Brandon and his merry men/women/who the hell really knows...

 

[Wheels]

Amazing how transformative a year in a Russian jail can be regarding respect for the Star Spangled Banner.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

@Wheels

It is still early in Alaska. I am going to allow a little bit of curmudgeonly end-of-the-work-week cynicism to creep in: I don't believe her ilk can be transformed, not really. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Wheels]

 

[cls]

It looks like the chickens have come home to roost. Hope the link works.

'In a lot of the world, the clock has hit midnight': China is calling in loans to dozens of countries from Pakistan to Kenya

Keeping schools open, the lights on and even food on the table is being threatened by debt payments from the $1 trillion Belt and Road program.

fortune.com

 

[geoff rath]

State governments here in Australia have signed up, or plan on signing up to "Belt and Road" initiatives from the PRC. It already owns the port of Darwin (99 year lease) so another port is being built to handle joint US-Australian military shipping related to exercises in the N T. They "own" airports in Western Australia, and more ...
Our stupid, avaricious politicians approve, most likely with a backhander coming their way.
This is why I'm a strong opponent of multinational bodies such as the U N, W HO, World Bank having influence here. Canada seems to like some Chinese influence, and I suspect some in the
U S and Europe have gone the same way. I have grave fears for our futures ...

 

[CoElkHunter]

What is up with this singular preoccupation of providing F16 fighter jets to Ukraine? With Ukraine's "primitive" available runways and the low intake of the F16 sucking everything from vegetation, rocks and beer cans into the intake, I'm sure there are a lot of other choices available in fighter jets without the frontal intake problem inherent in the F16? Why not the F15?

 

[Red Leg]

What is up with this singular preoccupation of providing F16 fighter jets to Ukraine? With Ukraine's "primitive" available runways and the low intake of the F16 sucking everything from vegetation, rocks and beer cans into the intake, I'm sure there are a lot of other choices available in fighter jets without the frontal intake problem inherent in the F16? Why not the F15?

It is a single engine fighter. That makes it much easier to maintain than a F-15. Yes, they are using highways in some cases as satellite strips, but Mig 29's, with two below wing engines, have intake that will suck up as much, likely far more, as any F-16. The F-15's dual engines would do the same. I suspect the Ukrainians have learned to pick up the beer cans over the last year. Secondly, maintenance support and supply chain access for F-16's are very deep across Europe to include shared production in several countries. European co-producers and operators include Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Turkey! Several of these countries are taking delivery of F-35's making their F-16 inventory available. Other than the US, only Israel and Saudi Arabia have ever operated the F-15. Finally, because of all those other European operators, F-16 pilot and maintenance training can take place across Europe as necessary. It is the perfect choice for Ukraine which is why they are lobbying so hard for it.

 

[Red Leg]

How the US helping Ukraine acquire F-16s shows that for military aid, 'no' can become 'yes'

The U.S. has once again buckled under pressure from European allies and Ukraine’s leaders and agreed to provide more sophisticated weapons to the war effort

www.independent.co.uk

Rather like with tanks, it looks like the UK, Germany, and Poland have finally shamed the Biden administration into moving forward on F-16's. I suspect they won't be any flying in Ukrainian colors until next spring at the earliest, but it puts significant additional pressure on the Kremlin to find a way out of this mess - particularly with any significant Ukrainian offensive operations late spring or summer.

 

[CoElkHunter]

It is a single engine fighter. That makes it much easier to maintain than a F-15. Yes, they are using highways in some cases as satellite strips, but Mig 29's, with two below wing engines, have intake that will suck up as much, likely far more, as any F-16. The F-15's dual engines would do the same. I suspect the Ukrainians have learned to pick up the beer cans over the last year. Secondly, maintenance support and supply chain access for F-16's are very deep across Europe to include shared production in several countries. European co-producers and operators include Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, and Turkey! Several of these countries are taking delivery of F-35's making their F-16 inventory available. Other than the US, only Israel and Saudi Arabia have ever operated the F-15. Finally, because of all those other European operators, F-16 pilot and maintenance training can take place across Europe as necessary. It is the perfect choice for Ukraine which is why they are lobbying so hard for it.

Well, your expertise on the subject once again trumps my ignorance from just reading some articles about the F16 lower (than other jets) intake issue. And their availability in numbers throughout the world. I didn't realize that. Thanks for correcting me. Just wonder why the F15s weren't more widely dispersed throughout NATO countries as I believe they are a superior fighter than the F16? Israel didn't lose ANY in air combat against Soviet aircraft in the Middle East. Cost, maintenance? Thanks!

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

Well, your expertise on the subject once again trumps my ignorance from just reading some articles about the F16 lower (than other jets) intake issue. And their availability in numbers throughout the world. I didn't realize that. Thanks for correcting me. Just wonder why the F15s weren't more widely dispersed throughout NATO countries as I believe they are a superior fighter than the F16? Israel didn't lose ANY in air combat against Soviet aircraft in the Middle East. Cost, maintenance? Thanks!

They both have their advantages, which one would be preferred all other things being equal depends on the mission. Not all other things are equal, such as the cost of the aircraft. The F16 as I recall from my days at the facility in Fort Worh, TX ran about 1/2 that of an F15.

By the way, at that time one of the primary sources of combat experience came from the Israelis. As I understood it, they loved the F16. Now I’ll caveat my post with this was in the early 90s, and I only worked there for less than two years.

 

[CoElkHunter]

They both have their advantages, which one would be preferred all other things being equal depends on the mission. Not all other things are equal, such as the cost of the aircraft. The F16 as I recall from my days at the facility in Fort Worh, TX ran about 1/2 that of an F15.

By the way, at that time one of the primary sources of combat experience came from the Israelis. As I understood it, they loved the F16. Now I’ll caveat my post with this was in the early 90s, and I only worked there for less than two years.

But if you lose 1/2 of the F16s plus some experienced pilots to 0 F15 losses in air combat, then the F16s are MUCH more expensive? Like the losses of the Navy's Wildcat fighter in WW2 (plus experienced pilots) at half price of the later Hellcats or Corsairs with minimal losses? Just the way my feeble mind works. LOL