Thailand is pursuing closer ties - and possible arms deals - with Russia, with relations between Thailand and its traditional partner, the United States, cooling in the wake of a May 2014 coup.

Two Thai deputy prime ministers will travel to Russia, just weeks after a visit to Bangkok by the powerful head of Russia's security council, Nikolai Patrushev.

On the table, officials from both countries say, are wide-ranging talks on trade and security cooperation, as Russia seeks to develop its position as an Asian power.

Most attention has been focused on Thailand's warming ties with China, including talks on a massive rail project and the possible purchase of $1 billion worth of Chinese-made submarines.

But Russia appears keen to compete for Thailand's attention.

In the last 18 months, Thai junta leader General Prayuth Chan-ocha has met three times with Russian Prime Minister Dimitry Medvedev, who visited Thailand in April 2015, the Russian ambassador to Thailand, Kirill Barsky, told Reuters. Prayuth will travel to Russia in May for a meeting between Russia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

"The US won't sell"

The big prize of talks - and of most strategic concern to the United States - is in defense.

Thailand served as a staging ground for American forces during the Vietnam War, and the Pentagon values its strategic access to the Southeast Asian nation’s airfields and ports. But for a second straight year, the United States scaled back regional military exercises, known as "Cobra Gold", which Thailand hosted earlier this month.

Thai media have reported that Thailand is seeking to buy dozens of Russian T-90 tanks to replace part of its aging -made fleet.

In an interview, Thai Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Prawit Wongsuwan told Reuters no decision had been made on the tanks. But restrictions on the sale of arms to the military-ruled country means Thailand needs to shop elsewhere for the roughly 50 tanks it needs, he said.

"The won't sell weaponry to us, and as of late we've been on a tight budget and can't afford them," Prawit said. A 2011 deal to buy 49 tanks from Ukraine fell through after only 10 were delivered, he noted.

Thailand is on course to sign an agreement with Russia covering counter-terrorism and is looking to buy Russian hardware, such as helicopters, for disaster response, he said.

"It's not that we've decided to be on good terms with China and Russia and not with the We're equally good to all of them." 

"This is our destiny"

Russia has made it clear that its approach to Thailand is part of a broader push for Asian influence. But this will not necessarily be at the expense of China or the United States, Barsky, ambassador Barsky said.

"Russia does not need to prove to anybody that Russia is an Asian power, an Asia-Pacific power, a Euro-Pacific power. This is our destiny as a country which stretches from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific coast," he said.

Next week's visit will include talks on 25 separate draft agreements, including on trade, culture, technology and security, he said.

Prawit will meet Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin and Trade Minister Denis Manturov for talks on military and technical cooperation, Barksy said.

"If Thailand selects Russian tanks, more than welcome, more than welcome."

Matthew Sussex, a Russia expert at Australian National University, said any deal on tanks "would certainly make Washington sit up and take notice".

Russia already refuels its nuclear-capable bombers in Vietnam and is probing Southeast Asia for a possible strategic "toehold", he said.

Even if they remain all talk, warming Thai-Russia relations would still worry the United States, Sussex said.

"The fact that the Thai government is starting to say 'well, you know, what about the Russians?' sends pretty worrying signs to D.C."

SEE ALSO: 22 brutal dictators you've never heard of

Join the conversation about this story »

The main Syrian opposition group said Saturday it would be ready "in principle" to implement a provisional truce, slamming Russia and the Syrian government after a deadline set for a temporary cessation of hostilities passed.

The Saudi-backed group, known as the High Negotiations Committee, said any potential truce would require the Syrian government to first lift blockades from rebel-held communities and release thousands of detainees.

The statement followed a meeting among opposition groups held in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, on Saturday to discuss the situation after the passing of a deadline set by world powers, including Russia and the US

A Feb. 12 meeting in Munich of 18 nations supporting opposing sides in Syria's five-year civil war agreed to bring about a cessation of hostilities within a week to allow for peace talks to resume in Geneva. But the truce never took hold amid intense fighting, including a massive Russian-backed government offensive near the Turkish border.

U.N. envoy Staffan de Mistura told the Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet on Friday that he cannot "realistically" get the parties in the Syrian conflict back to the table by Feb. 25 as he had hoped.

The HNC said any truce must include all parties to the conflict, notably Russia and Iran, key supporters of President Bashar Assad's government. Russia has said that it would continue to strike at "terrorists" in Syria even during a cease-fire.

"The deadline set in Munich for a cessation of hostilities has passed without response from Russia or the regime, who show disdain for the international community and disregard for the lives of Syrians," said HNC spokesman Salem Al Meslet in a statement.

He said Assad and Russia have spent "yet another week annihilating defenseless Syrians" and called on the international community to implement a new approach that holds the two to account.

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister meanwhile said he favors equipping Syrian rebels with surface-to-air missiles.

"We believe that introducing surface-to-air missiles in Syria is going to change the balance of power on the ground," Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir was quoted as telling the German weekly Der Spiegel in an interview published Saturday.

He said the moderate opposition could "neutralize" helicopters and aircraft that have been bombing them, adding that the move would have to be studied carefully, "because you don't want such weapons to fall into the wrong hands."

The US has long opposed equipping rebels with such weapons, fearing they would fall into the hands of extremist groups. Al-Jubeir said it's a decision that the international coalition will have to make. "This is not Saudi Arabia's decision."

Meanwhile, the spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin said the Kremlin is disappointed by the rejection of a proposed United Nations resolution aimed at stopping cross-border shelling and foreign ground intervention in the Syrian conflict.

The draft resolution was put forth by Russia on Friday at an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council and was immediately turned down by France.

It did not name Turkey but it was clearly aimed at the Turkish government, which has threatened ground action and is shelling US-backed Kurdish militia positions in Syria.

On Saturday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said "Russia views such trans-border strikes by Turkish artillery and artillery strikes at Syrian territory as unacceptable," according to the state news agency Tass.

"We can only express our regret that this draft resolution was not supported," he said.

Syria's government described the Turkish artillery shelling inside Syria as an "outrageous violation" of international law.

Turkey has been shelling Kurdish militia positions in Syria in recent days, saying it is exercising its right to self-defense and responding to fire from Syrian soil. It has also threatened to send in ground forces.

The main Kurdish group in Syria, the People's Protection Units, or YPG, has denied firing at Turkey from Syria. The group has been on the offensive near the Turkish border, seizing territory from Turkey-backed Syrian rebels as well as the extremist Islamic State group.

Turkey views the YPG as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, which has waged a decades-long insurgency against Ankara.

The YPG dominates a military alliance made up of Kurdish, Arab and Christian fighters known as the Syria Democratic Forces, which on Friday captured the town of Shaddadeh in northeastern Syria after three days of battles with IS militants. The town was one of the biggest strongholds of the extremist group in Syria.

The capture of Shaddadeh was reported by the SDF as well as by Syrian activist groups opposed to President Bashar Assad on Friday.

A militant website affiliated with IS disputed the reports, saying the militants were still in control of the town. A statement published by the Aamaq news agency said fighting was still raging around the town with Kurdish units trying to advance under US air cover.

SEE ALSO: Turkey just received a huge 'political gift' — but its opponents are warning it could lead to a ‘big war'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ashton Kutcher just made a surprise appearance on Ian Bremmer's weekly digital video series

Belgrade (AFP) - A US air strike believed to have killed an Islamic State group operative behind the mass murder of tourists on a Tunisian beach also killed two kidnapped Serbian embassy employees, Belgrade said on Saturday.

The attack on Friday targeted a jihadist training camp near the Libyan coastal city of Sabratha, killing dozens of people.

But Belgrade said the victims of the strike also included two employees from its embassy in Libya, who were taken hostage on November 8 in Sabratha from a convoy of cars heading to the Tunisian border.

US officials said the raid likely killed Noureddine Chouchane, also known as "Sabir," who along with other jihadists had been planning attacks against American and other Western interests.

Chouchane is suspected of being behind both the beach attack in July 2015 near the Tunisian city of Sousse that killed 38 tourists, including 30 Britons and an attack on the National Bardo Museum in Tunis that killed 21 tourists and a policeman in March 2015.

Both attacks were claimed by the Islamic State group.

"It has just been officially confirmed that two Serbian citizens who were foreign ministry employees, Sladjana Stankovic and Jovica Stepic, were killed," Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic told reporters. 

"They were killed by explosions, obviously we are talking about American bombs," he said, expressing "deepest condolences" to the families.

"This is the first big hostage crisis that our state has been faced with. Our people would have been released had they not been killed," insisted Vucic.

A Pentagon spokeswoman said they were still assessing the results of the strike and would "make further statements if and when appropriate".

"We are aware of the reports, but, at this time, have no indications that confirm this reporting," she said, referring to Belgrade's announcement.

Vucic said the bodies of Stankovic, the embassy's communications chief, and her driver Stepic were expected to be repatriated on Monday.

Sabratha, which lies 70 kilometres (42 miles) west of Tripoli, is considered a stronghold of extremism in lawless Libya, where militants are trained in jihadist camps before launching deadly attacks in other countries.

The country spiralled into chaos after longtime dictator Moamer Kadhafi was ousted and killed in October 2011, with two governments vying for power and armed groups battling to control vast energy resources.

Belgrade maintains an embassy in Tripoli, and Serbian citizens -- mostly doctors, other medical staff and construction workers -- have been working in Libya for decades due to close bilateral relations during Kadhafi's regime.

ISIS training in Libya

The Pentagon estimates that around 5,000 IS fighters are in Libya, and Friday's strike was the second US air raid in the past three months targeting the fast-expanding group in the North African country.

A statement from the Tripoli-based general prosecutor said that one of those wounded in the US strike had confirmed that he and the others killed in the raid were IS members.

The wounded man said they "came to Libya to train and then carry out terrorist attacks in Tunis", the prosecutor's statement said.

The Sabratha Municipal Council confirmed the deaths of the Serbian hostages and called on Tunisian and Libyan authorities to "take responsibility and help in fighting these terrorist organisations".

Vucic said Washington was probably unaware that the Serbian hostages were held at the bombed location, "but it will remain unknown".

He said relations with the United States were "historically not easy", referring to the 11-week bombing campaign by NATO against Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo war.

"I am not ready... to strain and worsen relations with the United States because we need them as a friend and partner, not as an enemy," he added.

SEE ALSO: That proposed halt in fighting in Syria is now looking like a complete failure

Join the conversation about this story »

Long-time Ugandan leader Yoweri Museveni was on Saturday declared the winner of the country's disputed presidential election, but his main rival rejected the results as fraudulent and called for an independent audit of the count.

Museveni got more than 60 percent of the votes, and his nearest rival Kizza Besigye got 35 percent, according to final results announced by the election commission.

Besigye was under house arrest as Museveni was declared the winner, with heavily armed police standing guard near his residence on the outskirts of the capital, Kampala. In a video obtained by The Associated Press, Besigye said he rejects the results.

"We knew right from the beginning the electoral commission that was organizing and managing these elections was a partisan, incompetent and discredited body as from the previous elections," Besigye said. "We knew that the military and security organizations were going to be engaged in a partisan and unfair way like they did in the past."

Besigye urged the international community to reject the official tally.

The capital was calm following the announcement of results amid a heavy security presence.

Museveni's ruling party, the National Resistance Movement, urged "all candidates to respect the will of the people and the authority of the electoral commission and accept the result. We ask all Ugandans to remain calm and peaceful and not to engage in any public disruptions."

The voting on Thursday was marred by lengthy delays in the delivery of polling materials, some incidents of violence as well as a government shutdown of social media sites like Twitter and Facebook, which remained inaccessible Saturday.

The election was marked by an "intimidating atmosphere, which was mainly created by state actors," said the European Union observer mission. Uganda's election commission lacks independence and transparency and does not have the trust of all the parties, EU mission leader Eduard Kukan told reporters Saturday. Opposition supporters were harassed by law enforcement officials in more than 20 districts, according to the EU's preliminary report.

Uganda's elections "fell short of meeting key democratic benchmarks," former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the head of the Commonwealth observer mission, said, talking about his group's interim assessment.

"The Ugandan people deserved better," said U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner.

"We encourage those who wish to contest the election results to do so peacefully and in accordance with Uganda's laws and judicial process, and urge the Ugandan government to respect the rights and freedoms of its people and refrain from interference in those processes," Toner said.

Police on Friday surrounded the headquarters of the FDC opposition party as Besigye met with members and a helicopter fired tear gas at a crowd outside. Police then moved in and took away Besigye, a 59-year-old doctor. He was later taken to his house which was guarded by police who prevented access to journalists.

After Besigye's arrest on Friday, his supporters took to the streets. Riot police lobbed tear gas and stun grenades at them and fired warning shots from automatic rifles, then chased them through narrow alleys, arresting some.

Besigye's party is alleging massive vote rigging and accuses the government of deliberately stalling voting in opposition strongholds in Kampala and the neighboring Wakiso district.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke by phone with Museveni "to underscore that Uganda's progress depends on adherence to democratic principles in the ongoing election process," the State Department said. Kerry urged Museveni to rein in the security forces.

The 71-year-old Museveni took power by force in 1986 and pulled Uganda out of years of chaos after a guerrilla war. He is a key U.S. ally on security matters, especially in Somalia. Critics fear he may want to rule for life and they accuse him of using security forces to intimidate the opposition.

Besigye was Museveni's personal physician during the bush war and served as deputy interior minister in his first Cabinet. He broke with the president in 1999, saying Museveni was no longer a democrat.

Join the conversation about this story »

When Germany began its assault on Holland on May 10, 1940, the international community was not just worried about the lives of the Dutch people but also about the massive stocks of industrial diamonds in Amsterdam.

Industrial diamonds were used for many manufacturing purposes and the country that controlled the diamonds could create more weapons, vehicles, and sophisticated technology like radar.

That’s why two diamond traders in England, Jan Smit and Walter Keyser, offered their services to the British government.

Jan’s father ran a large trading interest in Amsterdam and was friends with many more traders. Smit was certain that if he were allowed passage into and out of Amsterdam, he could get many diamonds out before the Nazis could seize them.

Approval for the mission went all the way to the new prime minister Winston Churchill himself. Churchill ordered a military officer to escort the two men and granted them the use of an old World War I destroyer, the HMS Walpole, to get them into the city.

The Walpole had to thread a mile gap between German and British minefields at night under blackout conditions to get across the English Channel.

During the transit, the Walpole almost struck another British ship sneaking through the darkness. Those on the Walpole would learn years later that the other ship was evacuating members of the Dutch Royal family.

Keyser and Smit arrived in the harbor just before daybreak and spent the day working with Smit’s father to convince traders to release the diamonds to the Keyser and Smit. From their landing at the docks to their trips around the city, the men were driven by a Jewish woman, Anna, who protected them from possible German spies.

Throughout the men’s day in Amsterdam, Dutch police and soldiers were attempting to root out pockets of German paratroopers wreaking havoc in the city. Across the country, German forces were quickly taking over and quashing resistance. Gunfire interrupted a few of their meetings.

Many of the diamond traders were Jewish and could have bribed their way out of the country with their stocks and possibly escaped the Holocaust. Instead, they took the chance to get them away from German hands. Most of the traders even refused receipts out of fear that the Germans would learn how many diamonds they had prevented the Third Reich from getting their hands on.

While the men gave many of their diamonds to the English agents, the attack had come during a bank weekend and many were in safes that couldn’t be opened for another day or more.

Luckily another British agent, Lt. Col. Montagu R. Chidson, made his way to the massive vault at the Amsterdam Mart and spent hours breaking into it, even as German paratroopers forced their way into the building. He escaped with the diamonds as the soldiers forced their way down the stairs.

At the end of the day, Chidson escaped on his own while Anna rushed Smit, Keyser, and their military escort back to the docks just in time to rendezvous with the HMS Walpole. Smit carried a thick canvas bag filled with the diamonds and forced a tug driver at gunpoint to take them to the British destroyer.

Chidson’s diamonds made their way to Queen Wilhelmina while the diamonds recovered by Smit and Keyser were held in London for the duration of the war.

(h/t David E. Walker for his 1955 book, “Adventure In Diamonds” where he recounts much of the first-hand testimony of the men who took part in the operations to recover diamonds ahead of the Nazi advance).

SEE ALSO: Rare insight into the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter ForceRare insight into the Royal Navy’s Commando Helicopter Force

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 of the most elite special forces in the world

LONDON (Reuters) - U.S. estimates of the number of Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria have been reduced while cuts in their pay are evidence they are on the defensive, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition fighting the group said on Monday.

But the task of defeating Islamic State is complicated by Russian air strikes in Syria which are 90 percent targeted at opposition fighters and not at the jihadist group, U.S. Army Colonel Steve Warren said.

Warren said increases in forced conscription, the recruitment of child soldiers and the use of elite fighters in common units were all evidence that Islamic State was seeing a slowing in the influx of foreign fighters.

"We believe that Daesh is now beginning to lose. We see them in a defensive crouch," Warren told reporters in London, using an Arabic acronym for Islamic State.

U.S. intelligence estimates of the number of Islamic State fighters, which for the first 17 months of coalition operations ranged from 19,000 to 31,000, had been revised to 20,000 to 25,000 - a level he said the group would struggle to maintain.

"They have been able to replenish their forces at roughly the same rate as we've been able to kill their forces. That's hard to sustain," he said.

Warren said that until recently the average local Islamic State fighter was paid about $400 a month, while foreign fighters, who tended to be "better" because they were more committed and fanatical, were on $600 to $800 a month.

However, recent announcements by the group and other evidence suggested that common fighters' pay had been cut by half, while it had also reduced pay for the foreign recruits, though perhaps not by such a large proportion, he said. 

Russians "reckless and irresponsible"

Warren said the group had lost 40 percent of the territory it once controlled in Iraq, and 10 percent in Syria, where the coalition's job was much harder, partly due to the Russian air strikes.

"The Russians have said they're here to fight terrorists, they're here to fight Daesh. We've seen very little evidence to support that. About 90 percent of Russian air strikes have been against the opposition, not against Daesh," he said.

"The Russians conduct their air strikes using imprecise methods. I find them reckless and irresponsible. They simply drop dumb bombs out of the back their aircraft," he said, adding that the coalition believed the Russians had used cluster bombs.

Asked about efforts to build up Syrian forces on the ground to fight Islamic State, Warren contrasted the fighting in the northwest corner of the country with the conflict further east, near the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa.

In the northwest, he said the large number of groups operating made it harder for the coalition to generate a "meaningful ground force" there.

But in the strip of land from the town of Kobani to the Iraqi border, the coalition-backed Kurdish YPG group and allies were in control and beginning to drive south toward Raqqa city.

In Syria's northeastern province of Hasaka he highlighted the battle for al-Shadadi, a crossroads town east of Raqqa controlled by 400 to 600 Islamic State fighters, which the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Friday had been captured by forces including the YPG.

"When we're able to seize that it's yet another piece of the supply lines into Raqqa that becomes seized," he said.

(Editing by Dominic Evans)

SEE ALSO: Watch coalition airstrikes obliterate 2 ISIS financial-storage centers holding hundreds of millions of dollars

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: An AT&T spokesperson and former refugee is now helping Syrian refugees in Greece

Increasing Russian aggression coupled with China’s modernization of nuclear missiles and North Korea’s ambitions to develop and field advanced strategic weapons means nuclear arms are more relevant today than they were a decade ago.

While it is critical for Washington to outpace potential future threats by modernizing its nuclear deterrent, some policymakers are questioning the Air Force’s next-generation air-launched cruise missiles which are called Long-Range Standoff (LRSO) weapons that are crucial to sustaining the deterrent credibility of the manned bomber fleet.

America’s current air-launched cruise missiles consist of AGM-86Bs that have a range of 1,500 miles and are self-guided – they find their preselected target by comparing prerecorded contour maps with terrain “seen” by their sensors.

B-52s can carry as many as 20 AGM-86Bs, allowing a bomber force to saturate defenses by launching missiles in large numbers. Air-launched cruise missiles are hard to detect on radar because of their small size and low-altitude flight profile. The Air Force plans to replace these missiles with about 1,000 Long-Range Standoff weapons for $9 billion to ensure that the US nuclear deterrent remains effective.

In addition, the W80-4 warhead the new cruise missile will carry will undergo a life extension program estimated to cost $7 billion to $9.5 billion. The first Long-Range Standoff weapon will likely reach completion in 2026 and the upgraded warhead in 2025.

Some congressional leaders claim spending money on modernizing air-launched cruise missiles is redundant and destabilizing, asserting existing gravity bombs and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) could accomplish the same goal. Long-Range Standoff weapons are not redundant – they reassure allies and provide a unique and flexible dimension of US nuclear deterrence by allowing the ability to signal intent and control escalation when facing adversary air defenses.

The air-launched cruise missiles the US has today were fielded in 1982, intended to remain in service for 10 years. However, multiple life extension programs have kept the missiles in service for more than 30 years.

Critics have stated modernizing air-launched cruise missiles will destabilize security since they can be launched without warning and come in both nuclear and conventional variants. Nuclear cruise missiles are no more destabilizing than other weapons, and they have been around for a long time. During the Cold War, the Soviets and Americans developed second strike capabilities because they were aware of the uncertainty that dual use weapons produce.

Gravity bombs and ICBMs cannot be utilized in the same manner as nuclear cruise missiles. These missiles can access unsafe enemy territory for bombers by penetrating rival airspace and striking multiple targets without compromising a plane or its aircrew – losing a cruise missile to enemy air defenses is insignificant when compared to losing a bomber and its crew.

Unlike ICBMs, bombers can be deployed to allies’ territory to signal America’s commitment to their protection and can be recalled in flight.

Opponents have also pointed out that the development of 1,000 or so Long-Range Standoff weapons would double the current force size. However, only a fraction of the total number purchased will be deployed. One thousand Long-Range Standoff weapons are necessary to have enough spare missiles to test and also meet US Strategic Command’s operational requirements.  

New air-launched cruise missiles will be far more accurate than the ones we have today, and equipped with modern technology that was not available in 1982. The president will thus have more options in an extreme crisis if a limited nuclear war were to occur.

Those against funding Long-Range Standoff weapons have claimed that they violate the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review which states the US will not support new military missions or capabilities, but this is simply not true.  Long-Range Standoff weapons are an upgrade to the cruise missiles we have today to support the nuclear mission.  

Even Moscow is fielding its new KH-102 nuclear cruise missile, which allows Russian bombers to launch an attack and strike the US from outside its airspace, and it recently launched 26 Kalibr-NK cruise missiles from ships into Syria, more than 900 miles away. The nuclear mission that has been in existence for decades continues.

Finding funds to purchase Long-Range Standoff weapons will be challenging with the Budget Control Act in place and the cost of modernizing other components of the US strategic arsenal. Congress must modernize America’s archaic nuclear cruise missiles because they provide the president with more options, protect the bomber fleet and airmen, and ensure the US strategic deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective.

Given the reduced size of the nuclear arsenal and the types of delivery systems, the US and its allies are more susceptible to strategic surprise than at any point since the development of these dangerous weapons.

SEE ALSO: CHINA: South China Sea military buildup is no different than the US defending Hawaii

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia's military is more advanced than people thought

Following the earlier attacks on medical facilities in Syria run by Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) the Russian Defence Ministry has published a statement explaining why it’s not responsible for the attacks. 

Much of the statement is a mess of barely coherent claims, and reads closer to a conspiracy theory than a statement from a serious organization. The Russian Defence Ministry attacks MSF, questioning whether or not the facilities actually had anything to do with MSF in the first place;

First of all, it is to be claimed that only Turkish authorities new about the fact that there had been hospitals of the “Doctors Without Borders” organization in Idlib and Azaz by the previous day. There is no information concerning these establishments anywhere including the website of the “Doctors Without Borders”.

In a Foreign Policy article dated February 16th, Syrian MSF Hospital Kept Location Secret to Avoid Being Bombed, the reason for this is quite clear. Those running the medical facility in Idlib were concerned that sharing the location would more likely make them a target, having seen many other medical facilities attacked in Syria.

The Russian Defence Ministry then moves onto slightly more bizarre accusations:

Moreover, messages concerning the allegedly destroyed hospitals and schools in Azaz dated February 10 can be simply found on the website.

In other words, this fabrication had been prepared but not realized the day before the meeting of the heads of foreign ministries of Russia and the USA in Munich, the results of which, as the Russian Defence Ministry assumes, are so opposed by Turkey.

This appears to refer to articles on the MSF website published on February 10th, Syria: Health system close to collapse in war-torn Azaz district and Syria: Escalation of Conflict in Azaz District Could Have Dire Consequences, which refer to the situation in the Azaz district:

Meanwhile, the fighting continues to put extreme pressure on the already devastated healthcare system. This includes several hospitals and smaller health facilities in Azaz and the rural areas around Aleppo city, having been hit by airstrikes in the last two weeks, including at least three MSF-supported hospitals.

“Azaz district has seen some of the heaviest tolls of this brutal war, and yet again we are seeing healthcare under siege,” said Muskilda Zancada, MSF head of mission, Syria. “We are extremely concerned about the situation in the south of the district, where medical staff, fearing for their lives, have been forced to flee and hospitals have either been completely closed, or can only offer limited emergency services.”

To claim, as the Russian Defence Ministry does, that these reports are fabrications some how accidentally published ahead of time, is frankly bizarre, something you’d expect to see on a badly written conspiracy blog rather than an official statement from any Defence Ministry. Next the Russian Defence Ministry claims:

In the message dated February 15 concerning the allegedly destroyed hospital in Idlib, there is no photo or video of this building: neither undamaged nor destroyed.

Two article on the MSF website were posted on February 15th about the attacks, At Least Seven Killed and Eight Missing in Attack on MSF-Supported Hospital in Northern Syria and MSF-Supported Hospital in Northern Syria Destroyed in Attack, both of which carry photographs of the building destroyed in Idlib:

Next, the Russian Defence Ministry raises where the stories are being reported from:

It is to be emphasized one more time: neither Syria, nor Idlib or Aleppo; it was the Turkish city of Gaziantep near the border with Syria.

By the way, that was the city where, by a strange coincidence, the largest training camps had been organized under the aegis of the Turkish secret services for militants arriving into the country from other countries including CIS who were then sent to Syria to fight within terrorist groupings.

If anybody in the Turkish Republic thinks that the Russian party does not guess that, they should not indulge in illusions.

Both messages concerning the allegedly destroyed hospitals and schools in Azaz dated February 10 and Idlib dated February 15 have the same origin – “Gaziantep. Turkey”.

This seems to refer to location the MSF articles are filed from, which seems to have confused the Russian Defence Ministry. As with many articles, the location of where the story is filed from is reported, in fact on one of the February 15th articles the location is Gaziantep/Paris. To imagine this is indicative of some sort of conspiracy is yet another bizarre statement by the Russian Defence Ministry. The Russian Defence Ministry finishes with:

The information concerning the place where these fabrications had been made has been published, apparently due to negligence of authors or editors of the website.

It’s unclear whether or not the Russian Defence Ministry actually believes this absolute nonsense, or have reached the point of being so desperate to deflect criticism that they make up any rubbish to defend themselves, even if it’s laughable conspiracy theories about MSF and Turkey plotting against them.

SEE ALSO: Russia wants to fly over the US with advanced digital cameras

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia's military is more advanced than people thought

It may have taken five years, but Canada may finally be getting some green artillery that won't poison people.

In the process, military scientists have found a more effective and cheaper type of ammunition that could reduce the environmental impact of war across the board.

A research project in the Canadian Armed Forces began looking for a new type of ammunition in 2011 in response to fear that its shooting ranges were posing a threat to local water sources.

Explosive rounds, especially from its Howitzer artillery, were being scattered around their training sites, and the military feared that the toxic chemicals inside the water-soluble rounds could seep into drinking water.

So scientists with the Canadian military began researching how to fix the problem. Their solution: make sure the rounds explode fully, and replace the decades-old explosive solution inside them with less-toxic material.

The project was called RIGHTTRAC — an acronym for Revolutionary Insensitive, Green and Healthier Training Technology with Reduced Adverse Contamination — and it was undertaken by Defence Research & Development Canada (DRDC).

It served essentially as a proof of concept, and the results are expected to be replicated on other types of ammunition.

The final report is dated May 2015, but the results were only just published by the DRDC.

"This project has proven that it is possible to develop [insensitive munitions] and green munitions that perform better than current munitions and that will help to ease the environmental pressures on [ranges and training areas]," the report concludes.

"The end result is that military personnel will be able to train and fight with ammunition having comparable or better properties than current munitions, with the added benefit of decreasing the environmental pressure and the health hazards on soldiers, sailors or airmen."

The report notes that the project was unique, in that it put environmental considerations at the forefront — without regard for cost — and ended up saving money in the long run, as well as developing a superior product.

The trouble with munitions, like artillery shells, is that they're designed to only explode in specific conditions. As such, there's all sorts of cases where the rounds only partially explode, or where they turn out to be duds and don't explode at all.

"Unexploded or deflagrated RDX does not degrade in soil and, because of its solubility in water, migrates easily to groundwater and off military property," the report says, referring to Research Department Formula X, a powerful and very common explosive developed during WWII. "This may trigger a serious environmental problem and becomes a public health concern if the groundwater is used for drinking."

One of the researchers on the project told La Presse newspaper that "we never know in which state of instability we'll find these non-exploded munitions."

The Canadian military, under this project, developed a formula for the shells that doesn't include RDX.

The 80-year-old chemical compound wasn't the only problem. Researchers also looked to improve the engineering of the rounds to avoid duds, and sought to replace toxic and carcinogenic compounds in the rounds with more earth-friendly chemicals. And, by and large, they succeeded.

This breakthrough may mean that the Department of National Defense won't have to pay to continually remediate these training sites to detoxify the soil.

The new ammunition was primarily designed just for training ranges in Canada, but the fact that the new rounds are both more effective, and cheaper, than regularly ammunition means that they could become the military standard for other militaries, both at home and in theatre.

In 2009, Patrick Brousseau, one of the researchers responsible for the project, noted that the Canadian Forces were working alongside the American, Swedish, British, Dutch, and Australian militaries on the project.

The international impact of toxic ammunition can be disastrous. A report on the effect of shelling in Syria says the ravaged country will also be facing "problematic soil and water contaminant" in the long-term, after the bombing ends.

Motherboard reported in 2015 that one Canadian Forces training base was re-building its firing range in order to prevent the littering of ammunition. More than a decade ago, the American military tried to green itself by reducing the amount of lead in its bullets — though that effort appeared, ultimately, to be counter-productive.

SEE ALSO: Russia's bizarre, barely coherent defense that it didn't bomb hospitals in Syria

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia's military is more advanced than people thought

Effective camouflage can be the difference between life and death in a combat situation. And for US Marine Brent Downing, camouflage is also an art. An expert in camouflage techniques, Downing runs a YouTube segment called the "Camouflage Effectiveness Series" in which he documents techniques from militaries around the world.

Downing's ability to hide in plain sight is amazing. We have compiled screenshots from some of his videos below. See if you can see him, because he sees you.

SEE ALSO: 13 extraordinary photographs of World War II snipers

SEE ALSO: See if you can find the camouflaged Marine hiding in these videos

A recently published video purports to show a tank crew using the massive turret to capture footage and selfies. While the video could not be independently identified, it shows creative use of a tank cannon. 

In the slides below see the highlights of the video.

SEE ALSO: A guide to Russia's T-14 Armata tank

The first shots of the video show the rag-tag, Cold-War era T-64BV tank rolling around Eastern Ukraine almost completely covered in explosive reactive armor plating, but also missing the cover of its left tread.

RAW Embed

Next we see the we're given a shell's eye view of the older tank's rather mechanical and involved loading process.

RAW Embed

Inside the tank we see the loader arm the cannon and then the firing is viewed from the outside.

RAW Embed

The internet has no shortage of basement-dwelling commandos beating at their keyboards like chimpanzees as they forcefully insist upon one incorrect factoid or another regarding Special Operations units. All SEALs are considered Tier One, right?

No. Rangers pull security for Delta, correct? Time to throw away that scratched-up "Black Hawk Down" DVD, hero.

Since the internet stupidity goes on and on, two people at Sofrep decided to team up to write a definitive article about the differences between SEALs and Rangers. This article was written by Brandon Webb, who served in SEAL Team Three, and Jack Murphy, who served in the 3rd Ranger Battalion.

SEa Air Land. It always amazes me how many people that acronym is lost on. They think water, Navy, and marine mammal.

History

The history of the modern SEAL team dates back to the 1940s and World War II. They began as the Navy construction and demolition units and then saw a transformation with Draper Kauffman (great story here) and the Underwater Demolition Teams. John F. Kennedy would officially welcome the first SEAL teams: SEAL teams one and two in the 1960s. The US military desperately needed a maritime Special Operations fighting force; the SEALs were the answer. Come from the water and fight on land or sea.

For the UDTs, the operational pace in the combat zone frequently found two of their platoons–approximately 30-men forward deployed to a particular Amphibious Personnel Destroyer (APD) for periods of six to eight weeks. Embarked UDT platoons usually ran between 10 and 20 demolition or beach reconnaissance missions while aboard the APDs; depending on weather and enemy activity. Moreover, individual UDT personnel were often away on temporary duty with other military or CIA units; usually for advisory and training duties. This included the forward-basing of small teams on islands close to the North Korean coastline, where they stood alert duty with UN Escape and Evasion organizations assisting in the recovery of downed airmen. (Source: Navy SEAL Museum)

Historical UDT weapons and demolitions

Individual weaponry taken by UDT men behind enemy lines was usually limited to the submachine guns, pistols, and knives found most useful for the close-quarters combat that characterized most raiding missions. Though presumably available, sound suppressors for the weapons are not known to have been used. The men used a variety of demolitions in their work, but the standard Mark-135 Demolition Pack, which contained twenty pounds of C-3 plastic explosive was foremost. (Source: Navy SEAL Museum)

The modern SEAL mission

Navy SEALs and the Naval Special Warfare Combatant-Craft Crewmen form the operational arms of the Naval Special Warfare (NSW) community, headed by the Naval Special Warfare Command. NSW acts both as the Navy's Special Operations force as well as the Navy component of the US Special Operations Command. Their roles include:

• Surveillance and reconnaissance operations to report on enemy activity or to provide a better understanding of the operational situation. These missions can include swimming ashore at night, tracking enemy units, monitoring military and civilian activity, and gathering information about beach and water conditions prior to a beach landing.
• Direct action — offensive strikes against an enemy target using tactics such as raids, ambushes, and assaults.
• Foreign Internal Defense (FID) — Training and assisting foreign counterparts to increase their capacity to respond to threats.
• VBSS (Visit, Board, Search, and Seize) — Maritime hostile ship boardings in the middle of the night on the high seas.

• Combat swimmer — Exactly what it sounds like. General Noriega's boat didn't blow itself up in Panama during the invasion of 1989; it was combat swimmers from SEAL Team Two. There's some other special stuff the SDV teams do, but you'll have to join to find out.
• Tier-one counterterrorism — This is Devgru's (AKA SEAL Team Six) turf. Granted, the edge goes to the Army's Delta Force for remaining much quieter about their jobs. Culturally, Delta does a much better job of cloaking their mission in secrecy. Several former command members in Devgru have apparently violated their disclosure agreements, and this has created a lot of internal strife in the community.

Modern SEAL culture

Unit culture is incredibly different from other branches of Special Operations such as the Army, the USMC, and the USAF. Only recently have SEAL candidates become immersed in small-unit tactics immediately after boot camp, and this is a good thing.

In times of war or uncertainty, there is a special breed of warrior ready to answer our nation's call: a common man with an uncommon desire to succeed. Forged by adversity, he stands alongside America's finest Special Operations forces to serve his country, the American people, and protect their way of life. I am that man.

 Navy SEAL ethos

My Trident is a symbol of honor and heritage. Bestowed upon me by the heroes that have gone before, it embodies the trust of those I have sworn to protect. By wearing the Trident I accept the responsibility of my chosen profession and way of life. It is a privilege that I must earn every day. My loyalty to Country and Team is beyond reproach. I humbly serve as a guardian to my fellow Americans always ready to defend those who are unable to defend themselves. I do not advertise the nature of my work, nor seek recognition for my actions. I voluntarily accept the inherent hazards of my profession, placing the welfare and security of others before my own. I serve with honor on and off the battlefield. The ability to control my emotions and my actions, regardless of circumstance, sets me apart from other men. Uncompromising integrity is my standard. My character and honor are steadfast. My word is my bond.

We expect to lead and be led. In the absence of orders I will take charge, lead my teammates and accomplish themission. I lead by example in all situations. I will never quit. I persevere and thrive on adversity. My Nation expects me to be physically harder and mentally stronger than my enemies. If knocked down, I will get back up, every time. I will draw on every remaining ounce of strength to protect my teammates and to accomplish our mission. I am never out of the fight.

We demand discipline. We expect innovation. The lives of my teammates and the success of our mission depend on me – my technical skill, tactical proficiency, and attention to detail. My training is never complete. We train for war and fight to win. I stand ready to bring the full spectrum of combat power to bear in order to achieve my mission and the goals established by my country. The execution of my duties will be swift and violent when required yet guided by the very principles that I serve to defend. Brave men have fought and died building the proud tradition and feared reputation that I am bound to uphold. In the worst of conditions, the legacy of my teammates steadies my resolve and silently guides my every deed. I will not fail.

The SEAL pipeline

After their SEAL contract, the candidate goes off to boot camp. Then they get a shot at BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL) training — seven months of pain and suffering. In the unlikely event a candidate makes it through BUD/S, then it's on to the three-month SEAL Qualification Training. Some guys don't make it through SQT, usually for bad tactical performance. Those who do get their trident and are assigned to their SEAL team. That doesn't mean they can rest on their laurels. My swim buddy in class 215 got canned and sent back to the fleet during his first platoon. You have to earn your trident every day in the teams.

Before naval special warfare operator (SO) was an official Navy job title (we call it a rating in the Navy), we had an alphabet soup of job titles for enlisted SEALs. I started off in the Navy as a helicopter SAR swimmer and sonar operator (AW), and then went to BUD/S with class 215.

Quick fact for potential candidates: If you want to operate, really operate, then enlist. Officers don't get the same choice in schools or the same operational experience (sniper, race car driving, flying, stinger missile gunner, and on and on).

BUD/S

1. First Phase: The basic conditioning phase is seven weeks long and develops the class in physical training, water competency, and mental tenacity, while continuing to build teamwork. Each week, the class is expected to do more running, swimming, and calisthenics than the week before, and each man's performance is measured by a four-mile timed run, a timed obstacle course, and a two-mile timed swim. Because of its particularly challenging requirements, many candidates begin questioning their decision to come to BUD/S during First Phase, with a significant number deciding to drop on request (DOR).
2. Second Phase: The combat diving phase lasts seven weeks. This phase introduces underwater skills that are unique to Navy SEALs. During this phase, candidates become basic combat swimmers and learn open- and closed-circuit diving. Successful Second Phase candidates demonstrate a high level of comfort in the water and the ability to perform in stressful and often uncomfortable environments. Candidates who are not completely comfortable in the water often struggle to succeed.
3. Third Phase: This phase is seven weeks long and involves basic weapons, demolitions, land navigation, patrolling, rappelling, marksmanship, and small-unit tactics. The second half of training takes place on San Clemente Island, about 60 miles from Coronado. On the island, the class practices the skills they learned in Third Phase. Men who make it to Third Phase have demonstrated extraordinary commitment to becoming SEALs. They graduate BUD/S as special warfare operators but have a long way to go before pinning on a trident and becoming a SEAL.

SEAL Qualification Training (SQT)

SQT is designed to provide candidates with the core tactical knowledge they will need to join a SEAL platoon. Before graduation, candidates attend survival, evasion, resistance, and escape training. It is this intermediate skills course that prepares candidates for the advanced training they will receive once they arrive at a SEAL team.

SQT includes:

• Weapons training
• Small unit tactics
• Land navigation
• Demolitions
• Cold-weather training
• Medical skills
• Maritime operations

Before graduating, candidates also attend SERE training:

• Survival
• Evasion
• Resistance
• Escape

SQT training will also qualify candidates in:

• Static-line parachute operations
• Freefall parachute operations (High Altitude, Low Opening "HALO")
• Freefall parachute operations (High Altitude, High Opening  "HAHO")

Upon completing these requirements, trainees receive their SEAL trident, designating them as Navy SEALs. They are subsequently assigned to a SEAL team to begin preparing for their first deployment.

Reality of modern SEAL training

As Jack Murphy has pointed out before, most SEALs don't have the basic soldiering skills that other branches of service have before showing up for SOF selection. Their candidates are usually a bit older and more mature.

You can easily make an argument for older candidates or younger ones — both have their advantages. Admittedly, there are some major advantages in fundamental training that other branches have over newly minted SEALs. In all fairness, SEALs are quick studies and relentless in the pursuit of knowledge and training, and it's a gap that is quickly made up in certain areas. Some areas that Jack points out will never get made up; SEALs just don't focus on certain things. I talk about this in my first book, "The Red Circle."

The SEALs of 2012 (they've since ramped up) were way behind when it came to maritime operations. The community is catching up, but we should be leading from the front, leaning in — not playing catch-up.

A few years ago Admiral McRaven rightly pointed the SEAL ship back in the right direction toward maritime operations. But the equipment didn't match the new training requirements. A modern SEAL team resembled a Cousteau museum when it came to diving equipment (don't get me started on two-stroke outboard engines and clunky rubber boats).

"Some of our partners have equipment that, quite frankly, is better than ours because we spent a decade fighing ashore."—Admiral (SEAL) Pybus

Being a career officer in Special Ops has never been easy, until the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the new Force 21 initiative opened up the doors for promotional growth. Before 9/11, most (not all) smart NSW (Naval Special Warfare) SEAL officers punched their ticket up to 0-3, hit the glass ceiling of being an operator and any chances at advancement stopped abruptly. A lot of great officers gave up their career because of this.

SEAL equipment

Modern SEALs get some of the best equipment available despite some setbacks with regards to maritime equipment.

There's still a do-it-yourself culture within the teams that has team members modifying their own gear to their liking, and blending off-the-shelf gear and technology with standard SOF issue. Weapons are very similar among all branches of SOF, especially since the advent of US Socom.

A typical SEAL will carry a primary weapon (M4 or SCAR) and a secondary (Sig Sauer or HK are both popular in .45 or 9mm). Specialty weapons are carried by snipers (SCAR, SR-25, .338 Lapua), machine gunners, and breachers. Breachers often carry specialty explosive packages including breaching tools. Safe to say you'll see a variety of pocket tools and knives as well. Emerson, Microtech, and SOG are favorites.

Night vision, laser sights, thermal, and fusion (IR and thermal) devices are all in play as well. SEALs have developed their own special blend of camo that incorporates material technology to defeat certain spectrums, but we won’t go into detail here.

SEAL organization

The teams are organized into the following:

West Coast

• Team 3, San Diego
• Team 5, San Diego
• Team 7, San Diego
• SEAL Delivery Vehicle Team-1  Oahu, Hawaii
• SEAL Team 17- San Diego (Reserve Unit)

East Coast

• SEAL Team 2- Virginia Beach, Virginia
• SEAL Team 4- Virginia Beach
• SEAL Team 8- Virginia Beach
• SEAL Team 1o- Virginia Beach
• SEAL Team 18- Virginia Beach (Reserve Unit)

Rangers

Rangers History

The Rangers are arguably the oldest existing unit in our military. Rangers fought in a number of American conflicts before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, such as the French and Indian War and King Philip's War. In the Revolutionary War, Francis Marion organized and fought in a Ranger unit against the British. Marion was known as the Swamp Fox because his men would attack and quickly disappear into the swamps to evade the British military.

Six Ranger battalions fought in World War II. It was during D-Day, at Omaha beach, that the Rangers came upon their unit motto. During the assault, Colonel Norman Cota asked Major Max Schneider which unit he belonged to. When someone replied that they were 5th Ranger Battalion, Cota replied, "Well, then goddammit, Rangers, lead the way!" Today, all Rangers sound off with the unit motto "Rangers lead the way" when saluting an officer, to which any officer worth his salt responds, "All the way!"

Rangers also served in the Korean War with distinction, including 2nd Ranger Company, an all-African-American company of Rangers. For the first time, Rangers were now airborne-qualified. In the Vietnam War, there were long-range reconnaissance patrol (LRRP) teams that executed some of the hairiest missions of the war. Penetrating deep into the jungle in their distinctive tiger-stripe uniforms to conduct reconnaissance, ambushes, and more, these men were later reorganized into Ranger companies. Despite what the press might have said, our Vietnam-era Rangers served with distinction and have plenty to be proud of.

With Rangers reformed after Vietnam in 1974, their next deployment was the failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980 — known as Desert One. First and 2nd Battalion conducted a combat jump into the island nation of Grenada in 1983, where they successfully captured the Point Salines airfield and rescued the American medical students being held on the True Blue facility. Third Ranger Battalion was formed shortly after, in 1984. In 1989, the entire regiment jumped into Panama as a part of Operation Just Cause.

Alpha and Bravo Company of 1/75 played a role in Operation Desert Storm, while Bravo Company of 3/75 participated in Operation Gothic Serpent — the infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia in 1993.

Since 9/11, elements of the Ranger Regiment have been continuously and constantly deployed to combat.

Ranger mission

The 75th Ranger Regiment is America's premier raid force, specializing in direct action and airfield seizures. Strategic-level missions, airfield seizures are also known as forcible entry, but in this case we are talking about a forcible entry into a country — not simply a building. Also written into the 75th Ranger Regiment's mission-essential task list (METL) is counterterrorism. While traditionally an elite light infantry unit, the 75th has been conducting extensive counterterrorism operations throughout the War on Terror.

Ranger pipeline

Prospective Rangers usually enter the Army on an Option 40 contract, which gives them a guaranteed shot at going to the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program (RASP). Note that I said it gives you a shot at it, and that's it. These prospective Rangers will then attend basic training, their advanced individual training (specific to their job in the military, i.e., infantry, radio operator, forward observer, etc.), and then will go on to Airborne School at Fort Benning.

Upon graduating Airborne School, these trainees are then marched (or run) down the road to begin the Ranger Assessment and Selection Program (RASP). This is an eight-week course which is designed to not just select who is mentally and physically prepared for service in the Regiment, but to also provide these new Rangers with the training they will need when they are assigned to a Ranger Battalion and deployed to combat shortly thereafter.

From the US Army:

RASP 1 is an 8 week selection course broken down into two phases.  Ranger candidates will learn the basics of what it takes to become a member of an elite fighting force.  Candidates are tested on their mental and physical capabilities, while learning the advanced skills all Rangers are required to know to start their career with the 75th Ranger Regiment. Phase 1 focuses more on the critical events and skill level 1 tasks and Phase 2 focuses on training in Marksmanship, Breaching, Mobility, and Physical Fitness.

After a year or two of service in one of the three Ranger Battalions or regimental headquarters, these young Rangers are then sent to Ranger School. The "school house" as it is referred to is a separate entity from the Ranger Regiment. The 75th is a SOF unit assigned to USASOC, while Ranger School is a training course open to most of the Army and is a part of Tradoc. Nonetheless, Ranger School provides important lessons in leadership and tactics, so 75th members will need to graduate before they are considered for leadership roles in the Regiment.

One of the main differences between the 75th Ranger Regiment and other Special Operations units like Special Forces and Delta Force is that we "grow our own," meaning we raise young soldiers from the time they are privates rather then getting them showing up at our doors as sergeants as those other units do.

Ranger training

Rangers train constantly while in garrison. Typically, the attitude is that spending two or three nights out at the range is a more efficient use of time rather than driving back and forth every day, so it isn't uncommon to work three or four days straight before being released for a three or four day weekend. After the range, there will usually be some recovery and refit time to clean weapons, maintain equipment, and tend to administrative issues before going back out to the field.

A normal day will start with a morning formation at 7 a.m. for accountability purposes before physical training. At times, your platoon or company may have a competition, which is often some insane combination of ruck marching, running, swimming, and land navigation, followed up by a stress shootout on the range. On normal days, PT is squad led with your squad leader or team leader taking their privates out for whatever PT events he has planned. Ruck marches are usually conducted on Thursdays.

After PT, you could be preparing for the range and signing out weapons, or moving on to individual training. Yes, there is some admin stuff that needs to get done, but Rangers do not get tasked out for post details such as post beautification or any such nonsense. Parachute jumps are conducted as often as possible to keep all Rangers current, usually once a month or so. As a general guide, Rangers focus on the Big Five, which are: small-unit tactics, mobility, marksmanship, PT, and medical training.

Other more intensive training exercises are frequent, such as squad and platoon evaluations that test critical Ranger skills and battle drills. These evaluations also became a type of pre-deployment training that incorporates direct-action raids. Rotary-wing training is often conducted with 160th Special Operations Aviation, and fixed-wing training is also mandatory, as airfield seizures are part of the 75th Ranger Regiment’s mission-essential task list.

One of the big strengths of the Ranger Regiment is how much training and spreading of knowledge is done "in-house." Take, for instance, the Special Forces CIF teams, which specialize in direct action. They get a fancy eight-week course called the Special Forces Advanced Reconnaissance, Target Analysis, and Exploitation Techniques Course (SFARTAETC) to teach them advanced urban-warfare techniques. Rangers don't get that; we do all of that training in-house and we train privates to do the same breaching, room clearing, and sensitive site exploitation techniques that Special Forces reserves for senior NCOs.

Ranger organization

The Ranger Regiment is organized as an airborne light infantry unit, and this is reflected in the Regiment's table of organization and equipment. Each Ranger platoon consists of four squads, with nine to 12 men per squad. Of those four squads, three are rifle squads and one is a weapons squad.

A weapons squad is responsible for laying down a base of fire with machine guns while the rifle squads maneuver to contact. There are four platoons in each Ranger company. Three of those platoons are rifle platoons/maneuver elements, and one is a headquarters platoon.

There are three rifle companies in each Ranger battalion and one support company. During the War on Terror, each Ranger battalion added an additional rifle company (D/co) and a support company (E/co).

The Regiment consists of three battalions, a regimental headquarters, and a regimental support battalion.

Ranger equipment

Because it is organized as an infantry regiment, the weapons and gear found in the Ranger Regiment start with the standard issue you would find in any infantry unit, such as the M4 rifle, M249 SAW, M240B, 60mm, 81mm, and 120mm mortars, and M2HB .50-caliber machine gun, but because the Regiment is like an infantry unit on steroids, the kit significantly deviates from there by comparison with the rest of the Army.

This includes specialized optics for rifles, the latest night vision and thermal systems, and even black-side Techint devices that can't be written about here.

Ranger culture

The culture of the Ranger Regiment is built upon the Ranger Creed, which is often recited in formation, and each word is taken very seriously.

The Ranger Creed

Recognizing that I volunteered as a Ranger, fully knowing the hazards of my chosen profession, I will always endeavor to uphold the prestige, honor, and high esprit de corps of my Ranger Regiment.

Acknowledging the fact that a Ranger is a more elite soldier who arrives at the cutting edge of battle by land, sea, or air, I accept the fact that as a Ranger my country expects me to move further, faster and fight harder than any other soldier.

Never shall I fail my comrades. I will always keep myself mentally alert, physically strong and morally straight and I will shoulder more than my share of the task whatever it may be, one-hundred-percent and then some.

Gallantly will I show the world that I am a specially selected and well-trained soldier. My courtesy to superior officers, neatness of dress and care of equipment shall set the example for others to follow.

Energetically will I meet the enemies of my country. I shall defeat them on the field of battle for I am better trained and will fight with all my might. Surrender is not a Ranger word. I will never leave a fallen comrade to fall into the hands of the enemy and under no circumstances will I ever embarrass my country.

Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on to the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor.

Rangers Lead The Way!!!

As implied by the term "regiment," the 75th is very regimented in terms of its culture. Rangers are expected to do everything 100% and then some. The competitiveness between Ranger squads and platoons cannot be overstated, as they are constantly trying to show that they are the best. Having seen fistfights break out during banner-day games, you can believe that Rangers take any and all types of competition seriously.

Secret Squirrel

The 75th Ranger Regiment established a small recce element to scout out Ranger objectives in 1984. Organized into six-man recce teams, the Regimental Reconnaissance Detachment would do recon on airfields that the Ranger battalions were to jump into and seize. Over time, RRD became RRC, the Regimental Reconnaissance Company.  Sometime around 2004, RRC was absorbed into JSOC and went on to play a big role in one of the most distinctive and sensitive programs in the War on Terror.

Commentary and observations on the Rangers

Rangers are now going back to training for worldwide deployments with the war in Afghanistan winding down. Rangers are doing training rotations to Korea, participating in winter warfare training in Alaska, and conducting training in Australia. Sexy high-speed, time-sensitive counterterrorism missions may, or may not, be in the future for the Ranger Regiment.

When it comes to examining the differences between Rangers and SEALs, I think one thing you have to consider is that Rangers are infantrymen first. SEALs are sailors first. Navy basic training has absolutely nothing to do with ground combat, which partially explains why the BUD/S pipeline has to be as long as it is. It isn't that these young men are "bad" sailors; it is just that they have to be brought up to speed on small-unit tactics and land navigation.

In the Navy, everything is big, gray, and floating. As the only real ground combat element in the Navy, SEALs are special within the entire branch of service. In the Army, Rangers are yet another type of infantry unit, albeit a Special Operations infantry unit.

Say what you will about the Navy, though one thing I always respected about the SEALs is that their officers seem to actually support them. SEALs seem able to get away with just about anything, no matter how ridiculous, and their chain of command supports them. Not so in Army Special Operations. Our officers are a bunch of Jesus-crazed careerists desperate to get to the top, and they will bow down to the powers that be faster than you can blink an eye.

I also think that the organizational differences between one unit set up for infantry operations and the other set up for maritime operations has a bigger impact on everything from unit training to unit culture than many would think. A lot of Army SOF soldiers were shocked to see SEALs show up in Afghanistan in the early days not even knowing how to write an operations order. Things have changed a lot since then, but even the fabled Dev Group had to have operators detached to Delta so they could learn and help their unit get up to speed during those first few Afghan deployments.

Another thing I think the Regiment has gotten right is not making "Ranger" an MOS. The Regiment has had this opportunity and turned it down. Retaining the 11B (infantry) MOS for Rangers allows the unit to purge underachievers very easily. This is not the case with the SEALs, as they now have a SO rating meaning "special operator," which is their version of a MOS. The same goes for Army Special Forces, who receive an 18-series MOS upon completion of the Q-course.

Another difference is in weapons handling. I think the SEALs get a bit more training with sidearms, as they place more of an emphasis on it than Rangers do. One funny story I heard was about a former Ranger who went to vetting for the CIA's GRS program. Despite being a former Ranger, he had never actually fired a pistol and had to learn on the fly during testing! However, SEALs don't seem to have the same proficiency with crew-served weapons and other machine guns. One friend of mine had a SEAL armorer come into his arms room and look at a M249 SAW as if he were completely baffled. He had never even seen such a weapon. Nevermind mortar systems; I don't think they are even organic to the SEAL Team's TO&E.

Culturally, I think SEALs are way more laid back than Rangers. They don't call one another by rank or place much emphasis on proper military grooming standards. This sort of stuff would never fly in the Regiment.

I think that the SEALs-versus-Rangers debate is one of the most enduring rivalries (and pissing contests) within the US military. When you have two units from separate branches, one focused on ground combat and another focused on maritime combat, and both of these units are pitted against each other in competition for the direct action mission within Socom, well it is no wonder that this rivalry exists. Since working for Sofrep, I've come to discover that having a rift between naval and Army SOF is by no means limited to America, either. The same rivalry exists in Italy, Denmark, and other countries as well.

But with that, we also have to remember the great cooperation that has occurred between SOF units during the War on Terror. Yeah, you will be hard pressed to find a Ranger with anything nice to say about Dev Group, but there have been times when Army SOF and Navy SOF conducted joint operations quite successfully.

The truth about SEALs and Rangers is that these units have way more in common than either would like to admit. They both pride themselves on being effective killing machines who can kick in your front door and shoot everyone inside. This of course is exactly what leads to that rivalry I mentioned.

SEE ALSO: Top US general: There are only 'four or five' US-backed Syrian rebels fighting

Join the conversation about this story »

US-led coalition airstrikes against the Islamic State (aka ISIS, ISIL, and Daesh) on February 15 destroyed a weapons storage facility near Abu Kamal, Syria.

The strike was just one of 30 carried out by the Combined Joint Task Force's Operation Inherent Resolve. 

Recently, the coalition's airstrikes have wreaked havoc on ISIS' ability to fund their operations and pay their workers, as multiple strikes earlier this month destroyed cash storage and tax collection facilities.

"The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the group's ability to project terror and conduct operations," the Combined Joint Task Force wrote about the video.

The footage below shows just one of more than 9,000 air strikes the coalition has carried out since beginning the operation in October of 2014.

SEE ALSO: The US military believes ISIS is 'in a defensive crouch'

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: EX-PENTAGON CHIEF: These are the 2 main reasons ISIS was born

As international conflicts continue unabated, international transfers of arms continue to rise.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the sale of arms and munitions increased by 14% between the time periods of 2011-2015 and 2006-2010. This increase in military acquisitions was largely driven by just five countries. 

SIPRI notes that the countries that bought the most weapons in 2011-2015 were responsible for 34% of all arms imports between 2011-2015. 

India was far and away the largest arms importer. During the 2011-2015 timeframe, it was responsible for 14% of all total international arms imports globally. India's imports, according to SIPRI, increased 90% as compared against the 2006-2010 timeframe.

By these measurements, New Delhi imports close to three times more than its closest regional rivals, Pakistan and China. India's reliance on imports is largely due to the country's slow start at creating a domestic arms industry. 

Saudi Arabia is the second largest importer, with the country being responsible for 7% of all global imports. This import rate spiked 275% compared to the 2006-2010 timeframe, with the country pledged to continue receiving high numbers of imports from the West over the following five years. 

China, the United Arab Emirates, and Australia round out the top five importers. The countries were responsible for 4.7%, 4.6%, and 3.6% of global weapons imports respectively. Whereas Australia's numbers largely held steady from previous years, both the UAE and China saw fairly large differences. 

China's imports fell by 25% compared to the 2006-2010 timeframe, largely due to the country's burgeoning technical ability which has translated to a growing domestic weapons market. 

The UAE, on the other hand, increased imports by 37%. 

The largest arms import increase came from Vietnam, however. The country went from being the 43rd largest importer in 2006-2010 to becoming the eighth largest importer, with a 699% increase in arms imports.

Vietnam's imports overwhelmingly came from Russia. The country is currently trying to upgrade its naval and aerial capabilities as it continues to butt heads against China over territorial disputes in the South China Sea. 

SEE ALSO: See if you can spot the armed camouflaged Marine watching you

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The US Navy's last line of defense is this ultimate gun

These 7 snipers reached out and touched the enemy from a long way away:

SEE ALSO: Watch a US-led coalition airstrike decimate an ISIS weapons facility

1. The British sniper who nailed three 1.53-mile hits

Each shot took 6 seconds to impact. He fired five times. Two shots missed but one round ripped through the gunner’s stomach, another took out the assistant gunner, and the last one destroyed the machine gun.

2. A Canadian sniper who took out a machine gunner in Operation Anaconda

During Operation Anaconda, the bloody hunt of Afghan militants in the Shahikot Valley in Mar. 2002, Canadian Cpl. Rob Furlong was watching over a group of US troops and saw an insurgent automatic weapons team climbing a ridge 1.5 miles away.

His first two shots narrowly missed but the third broke open the gunner’s torso and left him bleeding out on the ground. The shot barely beat out Master Cpl. Arron Perry’s shot discussed below.

3. Another Canadian sniper in Operation Anaconda who took out an observer from nearly the same distance

Canadian Master Cpl. Arron Perry was also supporting US troops in Operation Anaconda when he spotted an enemy artillery observer 1.43 miles away. Perry took aim at the observer and nailed him. Perry held the record for world’s longest sniper kill for a few days before Furlong beat it.

Senior Army and Pentagon strategists and planners are considering ways to fire existing weapons platforms in new ways around the globe – including the possible placement of mobile artillery units in areas of the South China Sea to, if necessary, function as air-defense weapons to knock incoming rockets and cruise missiles out of the sky.

Alongside the South China Sea, more mobile artillery weapons used for air defense could also prove useful in areas such as the Middle East and Eastern Europe, officials said.

Having mobile counter-air weapons such as the M109 Paladin, able to fire 155m precision rounds on-the-move, could prove to be an effective air-defense deterrent against Russian missiles, aircraft and rockets in Eastern Europe, a senior Army official told Scout Warrior.

Regarding the South China Sea, the US has a nuanced or complicated relationship with China involving both rivalry and cooperation; the recent Chinese move to put surface-to-air missiles on claimed territory in the South China Sea has escalated tensions and led Pentagon planners to consider various options.

Officials are clear to emphasize that no decisions have been made along these lines, yet it is one of the things being considered.

Pentagon officials have opposed further militarization of the area and emphasized that the territorial disputes in the South China Sea need to be resolved peacefully and diplomatically.

At the same time, Pentagon officials have publicly stated the US will continue “freedom of navigation” exercises wherein Navy ships sail within 12 miles of territory claimed by the Chinese – and tensions are clearly on the rise.  In addition to these activities, it is entirely possible the US could also find ways to deploy more offensive and defensive weapons to the region.

Naturally, a move of this kind would need to involve close coordination with US allies in the region, as the US claims no territory in the South China Sea. However, this would involve the deployment of a weapons system which has historically been used for offensive attacks on land. The effort could use an M777 Howitzer or Paladin, weapons able to fire 155m rounds.

“We could use existing Howitzers and that type of munition (155m shells) to knock out incoming threats when people try to hit us from the air at long ranges using rockets and cruise missiles,” a senior Army official said.

Howitzers or Paladins could be used as a mobile, direct countermeasures to incoming rockets, he said.  A key advantage to using a Paladin is that it is a mobile platform which could adjust to moving or fast-changing approaching enemy fire.

“A Howitzer can go where it has to go. It is a way of changing an offensive weapon and using it in dual capacity,” the official explained. “This opens the door to opportunities and options we have not had before with mobile defensive platforms and offensive capabilities.

Mobile air defenses such as an Army M777 or Paladin Howitzer weapon could use precision rounds and advancing fire-control technology to destroy threatening air assets such as enemy aircraft, drones or incoming artillery fire.

They would bring a mobile tactical advantage to existing Army air defenses such as the Patriot and Theater High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, which primarily function as fixed-defense locations, the senior Army officials said.

The M777 artillery weapon, often used over the years in Iraq and Afghanistan, can fire the precision GPS-guided Excalibur artillery round able to destroy targets within one meter from up to 30-kilometers or more away.  Naturally, given this technology, it could potentially be applied as an air-defense weapon as well.

Using a Howitzer or Paladin could also decrease expenses, officials said.

“Can a munition itself be cheaper so we are not making million dollar missiles to shoot down $100,000 dollar incoming weapons,” The Army official said.

While Pentagon officials did not formally confirm the prospect of working with allies to place weapons, such as Howitzers, in the South China Sea, they did say the US was stepping up its coordination with allies in the region.

“We continue work with our partners and allies to develop their maritime security capabilities,” Cmdr. Bill Urban, Pentagon spokesman, told Scout Warrior.

Strategic Capabilities Office

The potential use of existing weapons in new ways is entirely consistent with an existing Pentagon office which was, for the first time, recently announced publically.  It is called the Strategic Capabilities Office, or SCO, stood up to look at integrating innovating technologies with existing weapons platforms – or simply adapting or modifying existing weapons for a wider range of applications.

“I created the SCO in 2012 when I was deputy secretary of defense to help us to re-imagine existing DOD and intelligence community and commercial systems by giving them new roles and game-changing capabilities to confound potential enemies — the emphasis here was on rapidity of fielding, not 10 and 15-year programs.  Getting stuff in the field quickly,” Carter said.

Senior Army officials say the SCO office is a key part of what provides the conceptual framework for the ongoing considerations of placing new weaponry in different locations throughout the Pacific theater.  An Army consideration to place Paladin artillery weapons in the South China Sea would be one example of how to execute this strategic framework.

In fact, the Pentagon is vigorously stepping up its support to allies in the Pacific theater. A 2016 defense law, called the Southeast Asia Maritme Security Initiative, provides new funding to authorize a Department of Defense effort to train, equip, and provide other support to the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand, Urban explained.

“The Secretary (Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter) has committed $425M over Fiscal Years 2016-2020 for MSI (Maritime Security Initiative), with an initial investment of $50M available in fiscal year 2016 toward this effort,” Urban said.

Army Rebalance to the Pacific

While the Army is naturally immersed in activities with NATO to deter Russian movements in Eastern Europe and maintaining missions in Iraq and Afghanistan – the service has not forsaken its commitment to pursuing a substantial Army component to the Pentagon’s Pacific rebalance.

Among other things, this involves stepped up military-to-military activities with allies in the region, coordinating with other leaders and land armies, and efforts to move or re-posture some weapons in the area.“The re-balance to the Pacific is more than military, it is an economic question. the Army has its hands full with the Middle East and with Europe and is dealing with a resurgent problem in Europe and North Africa,” an Army official said. “We have been able to cycle multiple units through different countries,” the senior official said.

Also, the pentagon has made the Commander of Army Pacific a 4-star General, a move which enables him to have direct one-to-one correspondence with his Chinese counterpart and other leaders in the region, he added.

As of several years ago, the Army had 18,500 Soldier stationed in Korea, 2,400 in Japan, 2,000 in Guam, 480 in the Philippines, 22,300 in Hawaii and 13,500 in Alaska. The service continues to support the national defense strategy by strengthening partnerships with existing allies in the region and conduction numerous joint exercises, service officials said.

“The ground element of the Pacific rebalance is important to ensure the stability in the region,” senior officials have said. Many of the world’s largest ground armies are based in the Pacific.

Also, in recent years Army documents have emphasized the need for the service to increase fire power in the Pacific to increased fielding of THAAD, Patriot and the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS in the Pacific region. ATACMS is a technology which delivers precision fires against stationary or slow-moving targets at ranges up to 300 km., Army officials have said. In 2013, the Army did deploy THAAD missile systems to Guam.

Army officials have also called for the development of a land-based anti-ship ballistic missile, directed energy capability, and additional land-based anti-ship fires capabilities such as the Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System.

Army officials have also said man support a potential adaptation of the RGM-84 Harpoon and calls for the development of boost-glide entry warheads able to deploy “to hold adversary shipping at risk all without ever striking targets inland.

Boost-glide weapons use rocket-boosted payload delivery vehicles that glide at hypersonic speeds in the atmosphere. An increase in the Army’s investment in boost-glide technology now could fast track the Army’s impact in the Air-Sea Battle fight in the near term, Army papers have stated.

SEE ALSO: 7 charts that show why the tit for tat over crumbs in the South China Sea isn't for nothing

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Meet THAAD: America’s answer to North Korean threats

Russia filed a request Monday to fly a spy plane carrying advanced digital cameras over the United States.

The move presents the United States with a dilemma: How does Washington respond at a time when Moscow and Washington are at odds over Syria and Ukraine and senior US defense officials have identified Russia as the No. 1 existential threat to America?

It would be complicated for the United States to block Russia's request.

Both countries are required to do so as members of the Treaty on Open Skies, which was first approved in 1992 and went into effect in 2002.

It allow signatories to fly unarmed aircraft carrying video and still cameras, infrared scanning devices and certain forms of radar over the territory of other treaty members. Inspections are carried out to make sure the cameras used meet the terms of treaty and are not too powerful.

Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, said Monday that the treaty, which was ratified by the Senate, helps prevent any misinterpretation of military action that could lead to armed conflict.

"We have to remember that while we have pretty good intelligence on a lot of the world, a lot of other countries don't necessarily have that great of intelligence on us," Davis said.

"So, in the interest of transparency and [avoiding] miscalculation on their part, sometimes it's worthwhile to allow them to have a look at what you're doing or what you're not doing."

Davis said the United States carries out Open Skies flights regularly, and Russia "has done it many times before," as well. In 2014, for example, US pilots described flying Open Skies missions over Russia from Yokota Air Base in Japan.

But concerns have been raised about allowing Russia to carry out more Open Skies flights. In a letter from Adm. Cecil Haney to Rep. Mike Rogers (R.-Ala.) obtained by The Associated Press, the admiral said that the treaty has become a critical component of Russia's collection of intelligence against the United States.

"In addition to overflying military installations, Russian Open Skies flights can overfly and collect on Department of Defense and national security or national critical infrastructure," wrote Haney, the chief of US Strategic Command. "The vulnerability exposed by exploitation of this data and costs of mitigation are increasingly difficult to characterize."

Marine Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, the military's top intelligence officer, said during a House Armed Services Committee last year that he "very concerned" about how Russia was using the Open Skies treaty to observe the United States, but declined to elaborate in an open, unclassified hearing.

"The Open Skies construct was designed for a different era," Stewart said, adding that he would "love" to talk about it in a session closed to the public.

Treaty members have examined how to modernize the agreement to account for digital cameras, rather than "wet film" devices that were widely used when the treaty was adopted.

The new Russian request comes as Turkey and Russia argue over planned Russian Open Skies flights over southern Turkey that was planned for this month. Russian officials said the requests were denied by the government in Ankara in open violation of the treaty and "testifies to the desire of the Turkish side to hide some activity probably taking place in areas that the Russian plane was to have flown over," according to the Tass Russian news agency.

Turkey dismissed the allegations, saying in a statement that observation flights are performed when both parties reach an agreement on a mission plan. Russia and Turkey have exchanged a series of tense messages since Nov. 24, when Turkey shot down a Russian bomber near Turkey's border.

SEE ALSO: The US military may put more weapons in the South China Sea

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Russia's military is more advanced than people thought

China's deployment of missiles and radars and its building of runways on reefs in the South China Sea are "changing the operational landscape" there, the head of the US Pacific Command said on Tuesday.

China was "clearly militarizing the South China (Sea)," Admiral Harry Harris told the US Senate Armed Services Committee, adding: "You'd have to believe in a flat earth to think otherwise."

Speaking ahead of a meeting in Washington between China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi and US Secretary of State John Kerry, Harris said China was continuing to escalate the situation in the South China Sea with new deployments.

"I think China's SSMs - surface-to-surface missiles, surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island ... Its new radars on Cuarteron Reef ... The 10,000-foot runway on Subi Reef ... and on Fiery Cross Reef and other places; these are actions that are changing in my opinion the operational landscape in the South China Sea," he said.

Responding to a question, Harris said Chinese DF-21 and DF-26 anti-ship missiles could pose a threat to US aircraft carriers, but said the vessels were resilient and that the United States had "the capability to do what has to be done if it comes to that."

A US think tank reported on Monday that China may be installing a high-frequency radar system on the Cuarteron Reef in the Spratly Islands that could significantly boost its ability to control the disputed South China Sea.

The Asian Maritime Transparency Initiative at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies cited recent satellite images and also pointed to "probable" radars at Gaven, Hughes and Johnson South Reefs in the Spratlys as well as helipads and possible gun emplacements.

On Thursday, the United States accused China of raising tensions in the area by its apparent deployment of surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in the Paracel island chain.

China's has also built military-length airstrips on artificial islands in the South China Sea.

On Tuesday, Kerry said in congressional testimony that militarization of facilities in the South China Sea did not help efforts to resolve rival maritime claims and Washington was encouraging peaceful resolution of such disputes.

China's Foreign Ministry said ahead of Wang's visit Beijing's military deployments in the South China Sea were no different from US deployments on Hawaii.

China's Ministry of Defence said on its microblog on Tuesday China had established "necessary defensive facilities" that were "legal and appropriate".

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said China had every right to build on its own territory and deploy "limited" defensive means there.

SEE ALSO: China may be installing advanced radars on disputed South China Sea outposts

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: A Chinese bus crashed and a man flew out the window — landing totally unharmed

On Tuesday, President Obama announced his plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. 

Closing the facility would save the US an estimated $180 million annually. Such a move would also require the moving of the remaining 91 detainees still detained there. The following photos show what life is like inside the facility for the detainees. 

SEE ALSO: President Obama is unveiling his plan to close Guantanamo Bay — here's what it's like for US troops stationed there

The front gate of Camp Delta, September 4, 2007.

A holding pen used to transfer prisoners and materials is seen in an an unoccupied communal cell block at Camp VI, March 5, 2013.

The interior of an unoccupied cell showing standard issue clothing given to prisoners is seen at Camp VI, March 5, 2013.

Belarus has partially converted the S-200 surface-to-air missile site at Polatsk to support the highly capable S-300 system, commercial satellite imagery reveals.

As NATO beefs up contingency planning for the Baltic States in order to deter any potential aggression, plans for a Joint Regional Air Defense system between Belarus and Russia continue to show signs of progress.

DigitalGlobe space snapshots from 2015 show new “C” shaped drive-through revetments and a raised berm for a mobile engagement radar at the S-200 site at Polatsk. The conversion of the SAM site’s northern launch area has been ongoing since 2014, according to historical imagery. The south launch area, not pictured, still had all six 5P72 semi-fixed rail launcher in place with two 5V28 missiles loaded. A single 5N62 Square Pair radar remained at the nearby bunker complex.

Russia has said for the past several years that it was ready to send close allies like Belarus additional S-300 systems. Kazakhstan was also reported in December to have received further batteries. Recent satellite imagery however offers the first tangible signs that the resurgent power may be following through with statements that echo as far back as 2011.

The site at Polatsk joins two others at Brest and Grodno whose new revetments will probably support the advanced missile defense system. But, unlike those sites, which showed no units in residence, imagery from April 2015 showed a battalion of four TELs parked in a support area along with several bermed missile reloads. It’s likely, given the date of the imagery, that the system is fully deployed in the newly prepared firing positions. In total, new construction activity over the last two years suggests Belarus could add up to four battalion, corresponding with media reports.

That said, we don’t know if the Polatsk unit is a recently delivered S-300 battalion from Russia, or if this is a jumped Belarusian S-300 system. We currently haven’t acquired a full set of imagery of all current S-300 units deployed in Belarus.

Regardless, the new S-300 position at Polatsk, located approximately 80 kilometers from the Latvian border, will help increase overlapping fields of fire with existing S-300 deployed north and northeast of Minsk. Those battalions were in residence as of October 2015.

SEE ALSO: Russia wants to fly more spy planes over the US, and the Pentagon can’t stop it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ashton Kutcher just made a surprise appearance on Ian Bremmer's weekly digital video series