Friday, September 23, 2016

Ambassador ret, Yoram Ettinger: The Islam-Driven Terrorism Volcano (part 2)




The following is the latest "19 th",  6-minute-video on-line seminar by Ambassador ret, Yoram Ettinger on US-Israel and the Mideast.  We strongly suggest you to take a good look at the entire series and subscribe to the latest updates directly from Ambassador Ettinger fantastic You Tube channel.

This sort of smart reality checking will become the norm in the future for people wishing to focus on the US-Israeli relations. Which in is endemic knowledge in order to understand our traditions Western diplomatic mindset. 

As always with the truth, it tends to be a very logical. Here you get a clear and undistorted view which enables you to stay focused and actually "feel the matter like you would be right within it".  

At last but not least we would like to to ask your self the following : What is a diplomatic road map? 

The answer is clear to anyone following this on-line seminar, because you where just given a lecture on the matter by one of the most distinguished diplomatic road map legends today. 

video
The Islam-Driven Terrorism Volcano
























Barry Shaw: A World In Denial


I am gravely concerned that the Obama-Clinton team is involved in an ongoing subversion policy not only on a national scale but on a global one. Certainly, as far as Israel is concerned there is a grand deception going on.
In his UN General Assembly speech, President Obama spoke about “deep fault lines in the existing international order.”  He’s right. He’s responsible for a lot of the mess.
Unfortunately, politicians like Obama like to see what they want to see and ignore gross realities that do not jive with what they want to achieve. Take the Israeli-Palestinian issue, for example. At the UN podium Obama said, “Surely Israelis and Palestinian will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land.”
To the uninitiated (i.e. the progressives who live in a virtual world that enables them to block out sounds and truth that invades their cocooned ‘safe spaces’), massive and ongoing Palestinian terror coming at Israeli civilians from the Hamas political front based in Gaza and the Fatah political front based in Ramallah is ignored, tippexed out of his song sheet. In his narrative, it simply doesn’t exist.
In this he is backed by Ban Ki Moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who sang off the same song sheet. “Ten years lost to illegal settlement expansion. Ten years lost to intra-Palestinian divide, growing polarization and hopelessness. This is madness.”
Yes it is, Ban Ki. It’s madness not to see the violent passion to destroy Israel. He spoke as Israel endured another weekend of Palestinian terror attacks, eight in number.  It’s madness for them to talk about Israel “illegally occupying Palestinian land” when 2000 year old Jewish coins were recently dug up on land that was evidently Jewish.
If you want to hear three lies in four words try “illegally occupied Palestinian land.” As long as Israel does not build on private land owned by an Arab it’s not “illegal,” it’s not “occupied,” and it’s not “Palestinian land” until we say it is, and no false talk about “international law” can make it so. 
After fifty years of failure in trying to impose a two-state solution isn’t it time for these diplomatic experts to wake up to the fact that the so-called Palestinian society is so divided the chasm looks wider than the Canyon.
So what Palestine are they so desperate to create?  Is it one headed by the corrupt, undemocratic Fatah rule of Mahmoud Abbas, he of the “Palestine must be Jew-free” and “Haifa, Jaffa, the Negev and the Galilee is Palestine” persuasion? Or is it the one headed by the “Oh Muslim, there’s a Jew hiding behind me. Come out and kill him” Hamas regime?
Either way, by the ballot (if they should ever hold free and open elections) or the bullet (a more likely outcome if Gaza is an example) Hamas would inevitably usurp control of this Palestine should Israel be foolish to retreat to a defenseless slim coastal strip wedged between a lethal Hezbollah in the north, a rampant Hamas in the south and a seething new entity, a forced creation of a blind, deaf international community who chooses not to use their Realpolitik spectacles and see things as they really are, to the east, a short fifteen minute car ride from the cliffs of the Mediterranean, and within RPG range of our major Ben Gurion Airport, not to mention having us poor suckers sharing  a capital with these malcontents.
Anyone who thinks that the imposed creation of a Palestinian state will turn these people with an ongoing agenda for the termination of the Jewish state into liberal democrats is in such a radical form of denial that they need psychological therapy. 
Anyone who thinks that such a state will remain demilitarized for longer than five minutes is delusional. What, you mean demilitarized like the Gaza Strip, Or southern Lebanon that was supposed to be patrolled by United Nation peacekeepers. Peacekeepers? Give me a break!
The problem is these career politicians have mortgaged their personal and professional prestige to the cause of a Palestinian state and they will discover, after they have forced a rapidly anti-Semitic, even Islamic, regime onto the world they will cover their embarrassment by washing their hands of any responsibility for the inevitable inability of Palestine to be a pragmatic, peae-loving democracy.
Why should it? Show me one Middle East regime that is a tolerant liberal democratic society sharing the free values of the West. Even when they head to Europe in their millions they do not leave their culture and traditional hatreds behind, they bring them with them into Europe.  So why is Palestine being touted in the highest diplomatic circles? What is the inevitable outcome of such a phenomenon? Polls, surveys and historic evidence show us that it will be a repressive regime that will not abandon their determination to continue their struggle to liberate the rest of Palestine (i.e. Israel).  This is why they continue to call Israeli Arabs “Palestinians of the Interior.”  
When they insist that Israel must sign a deal with Abbas, make dangerous concessions to him and then let the chips fall where they may, what they are ordering us to do is to go to bed with Mahmoud and wake up in the morning with Hamas. 
The international community headed by President Obama and Ban Ki Moon may be in denial, but Israelis, having to deal real politics and gruesome facts on the ground, are not. 

Barry Shaw is the Senior Associate for Public Diplomacy at the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. He is the author of “Fighting Hamas, BDS and Anti-Semitism.” 










Thursday, September 22, 2016

The FBI Chief´s advice to you: Put Tape Over Your Webcam





FBI director James Comey is just as concerned about data security as anyone else — that’s why he covers his webcam with a piece of tape. On Wednesday, Comey recommended others do the same at a conference at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“There’s some sensible things you should be doing, and that’s one of them,” said Comey, as reported by The Hill. “You do that so that people who don’t have authority don’t look at you. I think that’s a good thing.”From Comey, that strikes many as a bit hypocritical. In April, when Comey first said he covered his camera, many in the internet security community found his remarks laughable, given that the FBI has used malware to attack computer cams, and last year went after Apple to compel the company to access the phone of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, which they were later able to crack on their own. 
Security researcher and activist Chris Soghoian expressed the irony of Comey using a piece of tape to protect from surveillance in April. So cover your cam!










The U.S Army Is Finally Developing Left-Handed Grenades



Left and right-handed people will find it equally easy to activate and launch their hand grenades.


The humble hand grenade hasn’t been updated by the United States military in about 40 years, leaving our soldiers with a model that works just fine for right-handed people, who hold it with their right hand, pull the pin with their left to release the safety lever, and then throw the grenade.  For lefties, however, it’s a little more complicated: they are advised to hold the grenade upside down, because that allows them to keep their thumbs over the safety lever.   Soon, the army might treat right and left-handed people equally, as far as hand grenades are concerned. Currently in development, according to the Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center, is a grenade that can be thrown with either hand, no special adjustments necessary. Perhaps more importantly (to right-handed people, at least), the grenade also has two modes: concussive and fragmentation, and soldiers can switch between the two depending on what is needed for the situation.   The Army hasn’t had concussion grenades since 1975, when they were taken out of service because they contained asbestos.  This means, ARDEC project officer Jessica Perciballi said, that soldiers won’t have to carry different types of grenades — meaning the update is both multipurpose and considerate of sinister-handed servicemen and women.
The Enhanced Tactical Multi-Purpose grenade, or ET-MP, also has an electronic fuze rather than a mechanical one, like the grenade it will replace has. Electronic fuzes, according to War Is Boring, are more reliable and precise. That said, lefties will have to wait some time before the ET-MPs hit the battlefield.   War Is Boring says the grenade appears to still be in the design stage. ARDEC says it estimates the grenades won’t be deployed until fiscal year 2020.










US: As awaited Anti-Islam Sentiment Soars After Chelsea Explosion





An analysis of hashtags used in the days following the bombing of Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood reveals a sharp rise in anti-Islamic sentiment on Twitter in relation to the days prior. Ahmad Khan Rahami, the prime suspect in Saturday’s attack, is a Muslim of Afghan origin, the liberal press writes as stupid as it possibly can get the following: There’s still little detail about the motive behind the attack.... To anyone with a brain larger than that of an amoeba its very clear that Islam and the war in so called infidel western Christian Jews Buddhists and Hindus etc is the main reason.




An analysis of the five biggest anti-Islam hashtags over the past week on Twitter showed a large spike on Saturday, September 18, the evening of the attack, and continuing into the next two days. 

The largest hashtag was #BanIslam, used at least 22,291 times in the past week. In the four days leading up to the Chelsea explosion, the hashtag was used in 10,339 tweets. 

Since then #BanIslam featured in 11,952 tweets, more than double the daily rate. Other hashtags that showed a similar trend over the past week are #IslamIsTheProblem, #NoRefugees, and #ReligionOfPeace. 

The three hashtags were used in 14,534, 12,716, and 7,259 tweets over the past week, respectively. 

Since September 18, #IslamIsTheProblem was used in 10,152 tweets, meaning nearly 70 percent of all uses of the hashtag occurred since the Chelsea explosion. 

In the same time period #NoRefugees and #ReligionOfPeace were used in 7,111 and 3,540 tweets, respectively.

SDR asks the following: How can it be Islamophobic  to write that the against Islam on twitter when the bomber Ahmad Khan Rahami himself wrote a handwritten journal with entries praising Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki! This is the same man who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011, Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, and “Brother Osama bin Laden.” The journal ended, the complaint said, with “Inshallah, the sounds of bombs will be heard in the streets. Gun shots to your police. Death To Your OPPRESSION.”














New York bomber as awaited a Muslim named as Ahmad Khan Rahami


SDR is not going to write anything about him that's unnecessary as we don't think getting to know a killer like this is of any importance to our readers...Just as little as its important to know Stalin Hitler or Saddam Hussein´s sick and sadistic lives. 
All that we can prove with great  certainty is that the only  connection between him and all other terror we have seen in the US and EU in recent years, is that he is a Muslim!
And a very straight forward fact is that we are fed up of reporting day in and day out about the same group pf people committing sick and sadistic actions ...
Stabbings on the streets shootings murdering of Christian priests in France killing of tourists , and endlessly more bad things. 
We have not had even one Jew, or Buddhist or Hindu committing any of these actions! 
And its time that not only the politicians wake up but also law enforcement should protest against the so called "politically correct" that gives Muslims special tabu treatment. 

Because if not .....The people WILL take justice in their own hand if justice is not served.
US President Obama is one of the people who is denying the facts along with Germany's Merkel and the EU leaders like Sweden. FACT IS AND REMAINS:The more Muslims we have the more terror we get! There is no one who can deny this, so why not just submit to the facts at hand.?

For those who say we are Islamophobe's we wish to hear what the bomber himself wrote and tell us if it does not relate to the Muslim religion Islam.
When he was arrested this Monday, Ahmad Khan Rahami had a handwritten journal with entries praising Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed in a drone strike in Yemen in 2011, Nidal Hasan, who murdered 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, and “Brother Osama bin Laden.” The journal ended, the complaint said, with “Inshallah, the sounds of bombs will be heard in the streets. Gun shots to your police. Death To Your OPPRESSION.”


ISIS Supporters Rush To Celebrate NYC Explosion

"We cause you pain inside your house," one ISIS supporter bragged online

Supporters of the Islamic State rushed to celebrate Saturday night’s powerful explosion in New York’s Chelsea neighborhood that injured at least 29 people, even as no group or individual has been arrested or claimed responsibility.
“The lions of the Caliphate roar in New York, we cause you pain inside your house, the carrier of the Cross,” wrote one Twitter user who went by the name “I am ISIS, come and block me.” The account was soon suspended. Another, called “The Lone Wolves,” tweeted with the Arabic hashtag #ExplosionManhattanNewYork “Oh God burn America, take revenge in the name of your oppressed slaves and believers’ blood.”
Others tweeted about “good tidings that keep coming” from New York, and one user affiliated with al-Qaeda in Syria tweeted: “Oh God go against America, the head of infidels. Oh God, count them and kill them one by one, and do not spare anyone of them.”
The hashtag #ExplosionManhattanNewYork was popular among other Arab users, mostly from Saudi Arabia, who don’t seem to be affiliated with terror groups but still criticized America, Vocativ found. One user said “ISIS is an American product, their goods come back to them.” Another wrote: “This is all your doing Mister Obama, you are the reason for the spread of ISIS in the region. I wish you would listen to the words of King Abdallah and his warning for the Arabs from ISIS.”


Others raised concerns, tweeted that the explosion was “another pretext for America to intervene in another country” and that ‘the dog Trump will blame the Muslims in order to win the elections, an expected scenario”.





















Wednesday, September 21, 2016

Ambassador ret, Yoram Ettinger: Have rolled-back sanctions rolled-back Iran's rogue policy?



The July 2015 nuclear agreement with the Ayatollahs of Iran is perceived by the USA as a binding, strategic agreement of peaceful coexistence with Iran.  In contrast, the Ayatollahs view it as a tenuous, tactical agreement, advancing an offensive strategy against "the arrogant, infidel American Great Satan," to be abrogated as is the fate of agreements with "infidels" according to the Quran and the legacy of Muhammad. The Ayatollahs consider the agreement a phase in the removal of "the modern day infidel American crusader" from the Persian Gulf and the India Ocean, in order to advance Iran's 2,500-year-old historic goal of dominating the Persian Gulf, the Middle East and the globe. 

Moreover, the Ayatollahs consider the agreement a reaffirmation of Western vacillation and retreat, thus intensifying their rogue conduct, as documented by their domestic, regional and global track record and
 school textbooks. The latter are the most authentic reflection of the strategy, tactics, character, worldview and general direction of rogue regimes, such as the Ayatollahs, effectively producing cadres of "martyrs" (terrorists and suicide bombers).
Reaching a constructive agreement with the Ayatollahs requires a dramatic transformation of their school textbooks, strategy and tactics. On the other hand, reaching an agreement with the Ayatollahs, while the current school textbooks, strategy and tactics are in place, could start the countdown to the first ever nuclear war (please see below on Iran's indoctrinating curriculum).

According to 
Human Rights Watch, "Iran is, again, the regional leader of executions."  Since the signing of the 2015 nuclear agreement, and under the presidency of Hassan Rouhani, human rights standards have deteriorated.  

Bolstered by billions of dollars in cash transfers, the reclaimed $150BN of frozen assets, and the suspension of US and global sanctions, the Ayatollahs have expanded their subversive and terrorist involvement in each pro-US Arab country in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula (e.g., the oil-rich al-Hasa region in Saudi Arabia). Moreover, while the US has rolled-back its sanctions against the Ayatollahs, the latter have rolled-back most inhibitions in their strategic ties with Russia. Furthermore, pro-US Arab regimes such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Morocco have softened their position on Russia, in response to the dramatic erosion of the US posture of deterrence since the signing of the April 2015 nuclear agreement with the Ayatollahs, who are perceived, by the pro-US Arab regimes, as a clear and present machete at their throats.

The Ayatollahs have intensified their involvement in the civil war in Yemen, striving to control the most critical oil and military waterways of the Bab al-Mandab Straits (connecting the Indian Ocean to the Red Sea and the Mediterranean) and the Hormuz straits (connecting the Indian Ocean to the Persian Gulf). Meddling in Yemen also advances the Ayatollahs goal of regime-change in Saudi Arabia, which borders Yemen.

The Ayatollahs' long-hand has reached Latin America, bolstering strategic and cultural ties with Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia, deepening their presence – directly and via Hezbollah and other Islamic terror organizations – in the tri-border region of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay.

Reflecting the Ayatollahs' determination to become a nuclear power, they have tightened their nuclear and ballistic 
cooperation with, and in, North Korea, which facilitates circumvention of the monitoring of the nuclear program in Iran. They have exceeded their quota for heavy water production, acquired illegal technology and have test-fired ballistic missiles, which are capable of delivering nuclear weapons, in violation of the July 2016 UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which calls for Iran to desist from such testing for eight years. 

Relying on Western eagerness to sustain the July 2015 agreement at any price, they have repeatedly harassed US military forces in the Persian Gulf.

The rolled-back sanctions have not rolled-back the Ayatollahs' hate-education, as 
recently documented by Prof. Eldad Pardo, of the Hebrew University and the Institute of Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education, who has researched Iran's school textbooks for the last 11 years: “In a sixth grade textbook, child martyrdom is revered (The Little Leader, grade 6, pp. 58-64)…. The martyrdom of girls has recently been introduced into the curriculum (Defense Readiness, grade 10, pp. 59-63)…. Students are instructed to join a millenarian frenzy of training and preparation, constant emergency, blind obedience and actual participation in conflicts, at home and abroad (Religion and Life, grade 12, p. 124)…. 

"Iranian students study about dissimulation [taqiyeh] and misleading the enemy. They learn that in times of need, dissimulation and temporary pacts—even with 'un-Godly, idolatrous governments'—are proper, but only until such time as the balance of power should change (Religion and Life, Grade 12, pp. 103–4). We know from Khamenei’s own words, that the recent nuclear negotiations followed the pattern of a historical treaty with an 'illegitimate' government… which was concluded in 661 CE between Imam Hassan and Mu’awiyah - intending to gain time, build power and gradually undermine the rival dynasty, but never genuinely reconciling, leading to the fateful battle of Karbala two decades later (Religion and Life, grade 12, p. 104). 

"[Iran's curriculum stipulates] the need for Jihad, child martyrdom and inevitable sacrifices are intensively and vividly inculcated into young minds…. [Iranian students] know that a Jihad war - requiring their possible martyrdom, for which they practice from first grade – could be launched as part of an attack on countries ruled by 'oppressive regimes….'   

"Education for child martyrdom continues, beginning with the first grade, all the way to grade 12…. Iranian girls and boys are educated to go to war at any moment, taught to see the world as overflowing with enemies of the Revolution, who resist the 'true program of God….' The students receive much instruction about the martyrs from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War [500,000 children who cleared the minefields for Iran's troops]…. Children are instructed not to obey their parents in matters regarding martyrdom (Religious Rulings, grade 11, p. 14)…. 

According to Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad 
Javad Zarif, the US is the chief target for the wrath of the Ayatollahs, because it constitutes the most effective obstacle on the Ayatollahs' megalomaniacal road to Islamize the global order and subjugate humanity to their agenda: "We have a fundamental problem with the West and especially with America ['the arrogant ones']…. This is because we are claimants of a mission, with a global dimension…."

The linkage between the Ayatollahs' curriculum and overall supremacist, global strategy behooves the US Congress – the 
coequal and codetermining branch of government - to conduct a series of hearings on the merit of adherence to the July 2015 nuclear agreement, while the Ayatollahs do not roll-back their millenarian, anti-US curriculum.  











Monday, September 19, 2016

U.S: New York bombing motivation yet "unknown"



A bomb attack in New York City was a terrorist act, officials say, but no links have been found to global groups and the motivation remains unclear.

"Was it a political motivation? A personal motivation? We do not know," said Mayor Bill de Blasio.

Saturday night's blast in Manhattan injured 29 people. 
They have all now been released from hospital.

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo said: "Whoever placed these bombs - we will find them and they will be brought to justice."
A second device - reportedly a pressure cooker attached to wiring and a mobile phone - had been found four blocks from the site of the explosion in the Chelsea district and was removed safely.
Police said the device would be destroyed in a controlled explosion later on Sunday.

Mr de Blasio told reporters: "We know there was a bombing. We know it's a very serious incident. But we have a lot more work to do to be able to say what kind of motivation was behind this.
"All possible theories of what's happened here and how it connects will be looked at but we have no specific evidence at this point in time."
The mayor vowed: "We will keep the public informed every step of the way."

What was the first reaction of New Yorkers?
Mayor warns of no quick answers to NY bombing

Speaking earlier near the site of the blast, Mr Cuomo said significant damage had been caused and "we were lucky there were no fatalities".
Some 1,000 extra security personnel are being deployed to New York's transport hubs.
Mr Cuomo said: "A bomb exploding in New York is obviously an act of terrorism."
But he said that, as yet, no international organisation such as so-called Islamic State had claimed they were behind it.

Mr Cuomo said: "We will not allow these type of people and these type of threats to disrupt our life in New York. This is freedom. This is democracy, and we are not going to allow them to take that from us.
"They want to instil terror. They want to make you worry about going into New York. We're not going to let them instil fear."
Mr Cuomo said that the attack was one of the "nightmare scenarios" a governor must face, but he added: "We have no reason to believe at this time that there is any further immediate threat."
He said the two devices in New York appeared similar in design, but different from the pipe bomb that detonated earlier on Saturday on the route of a charity race in New Jersey. That explosion caused no injuries.

The Chelsea explosion occurred at about 21:00 (01:00 GMT on Sunday), outside a residence for blind people on West 23rd St.
The force of the blast blew out windows and could be heard several blocks away.
Some reports said the bomb went off in a black metal construction toolbox, others that it was in a rubbish bin.

New York eyewitnesses say the blast sounded like thunder or fireworks

Police refused to give many more details on Sunday, although New York Police Commissioner James O Neill said that "components indicative of an IED" (improvised explosive device) had been found.
Chelsea is among the most fashionable districts of Manhattan and its bars and restaurants are usually crowded at the weekend.

On Tuesday President Obama and other world leaders are due to attend the UN General Assembly in New York.

Mr de Blasio said there would be a "bigger than ever" police presence in New York in the coming week. Usually all terrorist attacks in recent years have been by so called Muslim Jihadists, which the Koran actually calls upon each muslim to practice...
For the sake of any Muslim community be it in the US or EU we hope that they understand that the common mans patience with so called,  "Islamist almost daily violence" is growing thinner and thinner each day ...












U.S DoS media - India: Attack at Indian Army Brigade Headquarters in Uri





Press Statement

John Kirby
Assistant Secretary and Department Spokesperson, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
September 18, 2016




The United States strongly condemns the terrorist attack on an Indian army base in Kashmir during the early morning of September 18. We extend our condolences to the victims and their families. The United States is committed to our strong partnership with the Indian government to combat terrorism.














U.S Dos media: Egypt Non-Governmental Organization Asset Freezes





Press Statement

John Kirby
Assistant Secretary and Department Spokesperson, Bureau of Public Affairs
Washington, DC
September 18, 2016




The United States is troubled by the decision by an Egyptian court to freeze the assets of some of the country's leading human rights organizations – including the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, the Hisham Mubarak Law Center, and the Egyptian Center on the Rights to Education – and their leaders.
These human rights organizations are documenting violations and abuses and defending the freedoms enshrined in Egypt's constitution, and this decision comes against a wider backdrop of closing space for Egyptian civil society. Such restrictions on the space for civil society activity will produce neither stability nor security. We urge the Government of Egypt to lift these asset freezes, take all legally available measures to end the investigations into human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and ease restrictions on association and expression so that these and other NGOs can operate freely.














Sunday, September 18, 2016

Dr. R. Evan Ellis: Characteristics and Assessment of Russian Engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean



Introduction.  The following article assesses the challenge posed by Russian engagement in Latin America and the Caribbean to U.S. strategic interests in the region.  It highlights some of the most salient characteristics of that challenge, then examines the general approach pursued by Russia in engaging with the region, followed by a more detailed analysis of specific Russian military and commercial activities there.  It concludes by postulating conditions under which the currently modest, albeit non-trivial challenge posed by Russia could expand into a phenomenon of greater concern for the United States and the region.
Framing the Russian Challenge in Latin America and the Caribbean.  Of the major extra-hemispheric actors conducting political, military, and commercial activities in Latin America and the Caribbean, Russia most openly challenges U.S. equities there.  Nonetheless, when viewed over the long-term, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) arguably poses the greatest danger to the U.S. strategic position in the region, indirectly but significantly undermining U.S. attempt to promote its values and its agenda of democracy, human rights and rule of law in the Western Hemisphere, and potentially challenging U.S. domestic security.
The relatively smaller long-term challenge posed by Russia in Latin America and the Caribbean, by contrast to that posed by the PRC, owes to limitations on resources available to finance and sustain major Russian initiatives in the region, particularly under the current regime of low international oil prices.  Russia also has a limited number of countries in the region which it has sufficiently close relations and leverage to engage in activities that openly undercut the United States.  Indeed, not even all of the regimes within the Bolivarian Alliance of the Peoples of the Americas (ALBA) have been willing to embrace Russian military deployments and base access agreements in recent years.[1]
Similarly, Russian economic engagement with the region is focused on a limited number of sectors: arms sales, petroleum, mining, construction, nuclear technology and space,[2] as detailed later.  Latin American businessmen and governments simply do not dream of access to Russian markets and financing in the same fashion that they do with respect to the PRC.
To understand the challenge posed by Russia to the U.S. in Latin America and the Caribbean, it is important to assess Russian activities in the region through the lens of their linkage to Russian initiatives and security challenges in other parts of the world in which Russia has an interest.  The two occasions in recent years in which Russia has significantly expanded its activities in Latin America have each grown out of its perceived challenge to Russian interests in its own near abroad: in 2008, in response to rising tensions with the U.S. and NATO over Russian support to Georgian break-away republics South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and in 2014, as the U.S. and Europe similarly challenged Russia over its role in the civil war in Ukraine.
The challenge posed by Russia to the U.S. in Latin America and the Caribbean is also linked to the activities of other extra-hemispheric actors in the region, including the PRC.  Commerce with, and loans from the PRC and other parties to anti-U.S. regimes such as those of ALBA increases the financial solvency of those regimes, and indirectly, their latitude to engage with Russia in ways provocative to the U.S., including Venezuela’s conduct of exercises with Russian military forces in May 2015,[3] or Nicaragua’s February 2015 agreement to receive Russian warships in its ports.[4]
In addition, Russian activities in Latin America and the Caribbean affect not only the United States, but also its partners in the region.  Russian military support to Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba, and the November 2013 violation of Colombian airspace by nuclear-capable Russian bombers,[5] for example, arguably created concern in the latter, which saw its lines of communication to Europe and U.S. Atlantic-coast markets through the Caribbean threatened by a ring of unpredictable, Russia-allied states.  Similarly, Russia’s announcement in 2014 that it was considering long range patrol flights into the Gulf of Mexico,[6] arguably raised concern not only in the U.S., but also in Mexico, which shares the Gulf with its neighbor to the north.
Finally, although the challenge that Russia poses to the U.S. in Latin America and the Caribbean is real and significant, it has arguably suffered important strategic setbacks which must be considered in order to achieve a balanced assessment. 
On one hand, Russia has lost important ground in its attempt to sell arms to the region.  This includes U.S. victories in foreign military sales at the expense of Russian options, such as the sale of Blackhawk helicopters to replace Russian Mi-17s in the inventory of the Mexican Army and Navy.  It also includes Russian losses to the PRC in selling arms to important clients in the region including Peru and Argentina.[7]
At the same time the sustained fall in international oil prices has taken away from Russia important resources required to underwrite its commercial projects, and to finance its military sales to the region, as well as to sustain Russian initiatives globally. 
Finally, Russia has lost political leverage with its most important allies in the region: Venezuela, Cuba, and Argentina.
In Venezuela, the unfolding economic and political collapse of the regime of Nicholas Maduro has thrown into doubt the future of Russia’s most important arms purchaser, and the Latin American partner most willing to collaborate with Russia in provocative actions against the U.S. in the region.
In Cuba, faced with the collapse of its principal economic patron, Venezuela, the Castro regime has pursued a reapproachment with the United States in which it has avoided actions excessively provocative toward the U.S. as it has sought the end to U.S. economic sanctions and renewed access to U.S. markets. As it has courted the U.S., Cuba has refrained from diplomatic positions and military cooperation with Russia that would excessively antagonize the U.S. such as the reopening of the signals intelligence facility at Lourdes.[8] 
Finally, in Argentina, the October 2016 election brought conservative Mauricio Macri to power, defeating Daniel Scioli, the preferred candidate of the outgoing pro-Russian government.  The political change has thrown into doubt important Russian projects in the country, including sales of Russian arms, and three nuclear reactors, as well as Russia-Argentina political cooperation.
Russia’s Modus Operandi in Engaging Latin America.  Russia has generally pursued four lines of effort to strengthen its ties in Latin America and the Caribbean.  First, it has sought to rebuild the political relationships which served as the pillars of its position in Latin America during the Cold War, principally those with Nicaragua and Cuba.  In Nicaragua, Russia leveraged the return to power of Daniel Ortega and his Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN) in January 2007, to make Nicaragua a centerpiece of its activities in the region, including Nicaraguan support to Russian activities in Georgia, the Ukraine and Syria, as well as commercial deals and security cooperation such as the Marshal Zhukov center for military training in Managua, opened in April 2013.[9]  Although Cuba was similarly Russia’s closest ally in the region during the Cold War, Russia’s efforts to rebuild its relationship with Cuba have only been partially successful due to the perception among some Cuban party officials that the nation suffered greatly following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, due to the abruptness and the extent of Russia’s withdraw of financial assistance.  Nonetheless, Russia has managed to rebuild some of its ties with Cuba, helped by its forgiveness of $30 billion in Cuban debt accumulated during the cold war.[10]
Beyond the reconstruction of Cold War networks, Russia has also sought to strengthen relationships in the region through military sales, targeting countries which purchased significant amounts of equipment from the Soviet Union.  The partner with which Russia has most successfully leveraged former military sales, despite the absence of a strong Patron-Client relationship during the Cold War has been Peru. Peru acquired principally Russian equipment for its Armed Forces during the presidency of General Juan Velasco Alvarado from 1968-1975, and continued to buy Russian equipment during the presidency of Alberto Fujimori, including the purchase of 12 Mig-29 fighters as late as 1997.[11]  Correspondingly, when Peru sought to modernize and upgrade its arsenal, and buy new equipment, Russia’s arms export agency Rosboronexport marketed itself as the logical supplier.
Particularly in the Southern Cone, Russia has also courted Latin American countries by purchasing their commodities.  The most prominent examples are Argentina and Uruguay, from which Russia has imported significant quantities of beef.[12]
Finally, Russia has also sought to exploit the desire of some countries of the region to escape from dependence on the U.S. and western institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.  Principal examples include Venezuela, which turned to Russia as an arms supplier in July 2006 when the United States refused to sell it spares for its U.S.-built F-16 fighters,[13] and Argentina, which, isolated from international creditors over its 2001 debt default, embraced both Russia and China as a source of investment, technology projects, and political support on issues such as its claim over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas).[14]
With respect to style, the Russian approach to Latin America contrasts with the other principal extra-hemispheric actor engaging with the region, the PRC.  Russia is far less apologetic than China in engaging the region, seeing itself not as intruding in the region, but having a legitimate presence there, dating to the cold war.
As Russia has engaged with the region, it has also maintained a complex strategic communication posture, featuring deliberate mixed messages.  When, for example, Russia sent T-160 Backfire bombers to the region in 2008 to remind the United States that it could deploy nuclear-capable weapons into its backyard,[15] it was careful to remind the United States that those bombers were not actually carrying nuclear weapons.  Similarly, in 2014, during the escalation of tension with the U.S. and Europe over the conflict in the Ukraine, Russian government officials mentioned Russian interest in re-opening the cold-war era signals intelligence facility at Lourdes, Cuba, and negotiating base access agreements throughout the Caribbean basin.  Yet Russian President Vladimir Putin seemingly contradicted his own personnel, declaring that Russia had no intention of re-opening Lourdes.[16]
Russian Military Engagement in Latin America.  Military sales and counterdrug cooperation has been the principal vehicle for Russian engagement in Latin America and the Caribbean during the contemporary period, although it has pursued commercial projects in the region as well. 
Since its re-engagement with the region in 2008, Russia’s principal military partners in the region have been Venezuela, Peru and Brazil, although it has also maintained important relationships with Nicaragua, Argentina and Mexico, among others.  Russia’s principal military export product to the region has been helicopters, with more than 400 currently in service in Latin America and the Caribbean,[17] of which, an estimated 320 are transport helicopters of the families Mi-8/Mi-17.
Venezuela has been the principal purchaser of Russian military equipment in the region, accounting for $11 billion of the $14.5 billion in sales to the region by the Russian arms export agency Rosboronexport, between 2001 and 2013.[18]  As noted previously, Venezuela turned to Russia beginning in 2006, purchasing military rifles, helicopters, and Su-30 fighter aircraft, although since the original sales, Russia has gone on to supply Venezuela with a broad range of equipment from T-72 tanks to BMP-3 and BTR-80 armored personnel carriers, to self-propelled rocket launch systems, and coastal defense missiles, among other items.[19]  Venezuela has, however, had difficulties with Russian aftermarket support for the equipment provided, including the supply of spare parts for the engines of Su-30 fighters previously sold by Russia, leading to the temporary grounding of the Venezuelan Su-30 fleet.
In addition, in recent years, however, Venezuela has also made important acquisitions of Chinese military equipment, including K-8 and L-15 fighters, and VN-1 armored personnel carriers,[20] leading to comparisons unfavorable to Russia regarding the perceived good quality of the electronics package and maintenance support for its military goods.  Indeed, Russia’s offer, in 2015, to sell Venezuela 12 additional Su-30 fighters in a deal valued at $480 million,[21] at a time in which the Venezuelan economy was in a state of crisis, and the Russian ability to finance the deal was limited due to low international petroleum prices, may be attributed to Russian concerns over losing its market share in military sales to the Chinese.
Beyond Venezuela, Russia has also sold significant quantities of military goods to Peru.  Building on the preponderance of Russian equipment in the Peruvian Armed Forces since the era of General Velasco (1968-75), in 2008, Russia won an important contract for the maintenance and upgrade of Peru’s Mig-29s,[22] and in 2010 Rosboronexport sold 6 Mi-17 transport helicopters and 2 Mi-35 attack helicopters to Peru in support of operations against the Sendero Luminoso terrorist organization and narcotrafficking in the Apurimac, Ene, and Mantaro river valleys (VRAE-M).  Building on the successful sale, in 2013, Rosboronexport sold Peru an additional 24 Mi-17 helicopters, accompanied by the establishment of a maintenance center in the Peruvian city of Arequipa.[23]
As in Venezuela, however, Russia has lost ground in recent years to the PRC with respect to arms sales, including an important victory by the PRC in a contract replacing Peru’s aging BM-21 artillery system with Chinese-built Type 90B truck-mounted multiple launch rocket system, beating out the Russian system SMERCH.[24]
Brazil has arguably been Russia’s greatest hope, because of the size of its armed forces and economy, and thus its potential as a market.  Yet Brazil has also arguably been Russia’s greatest disappointment in the region with respect to such sales.  In 2008, Rosboronexport sold Brazil 12 Mi-35 attack helicopters.  Nonetheless, Russia was hesitant to provide its most sophisticated arms and electronics package with the helicopters, possibly out of concern that Brazil’s own arms industry would incorporate such technology into its own arms, which compete with those of Russia in some markets.  As a consequence, in 2011, the Mi-35 contract was not renewed.[25]  Similarly, Russia hoped to sell its Su-35 fighter to Brazil as part of the nation’s FX-2 fighter modernization program, yet the Brazilians ultimately chose to purchase the Swedish Saab JAS-39 Gripen, with the Russian Su-35 not even included among the final contenders.[26]
In 2015, in the context of the approaching 2016 Olympic games to be hosted by Brazil in Rio de Janeiro, Rosboronexport hoped to sell Brazil its Pantsir S-1 air defense system in a deal worth an estimated $1 billion,[27] yet Brazil’s deepening recession, combined with its corruption scandal, sidetracked the deal.[28]
Beyond Russia’s three principal clients in Latin America, it has also sold its military helicopters and other equipment to a range of other actors, including Nicaragua, Argentina and Mexico. 
In 2013, Russia signed an agreement with Nicaragua to support the modernization of its armed forces, eventually leading to the sale to Nicaragua of two Mi17s,[29] as well as  aircraft,  BMP-1 armored personnel carriers, BM-21 mobile rocket launchers, and PT 76 light armored vehicles. [30]
With respect to Argentina, Although Russia sold the government of Christina Fernandez 3 new Mi-17 helicopters,[31] as noted previously, larger deals involving the sale of its older generation Su-24 Flanker aircraft were sidetracked by the pursuit of deals with the PRC which, although involving different equipment, ultimately competed for the same limited Argentine resources.
With respect to Mexico, although the Mexican Army and Navy purchased Russian helicopters in the 1990s and 2000s, and subsequently spent money on upgrading them and extending their service lives,[32] in 2015, Mexico took important decisions to replace its aging fleet of Russian helicopters with the U.S. Blackhawk.
With respect to counterdrug cooperation, Russia has made Nicaragua the focal point of its engagement with the region.  It has constructed, and is currently in the process of expanding, a training center in Managua, Nicaragua, the Marshal Zhukov center,[33]  where it provides counter narcotics training to security personnel from across the region, including states who would not otherwise engage directly with Russia in the arena of military cooperation. 
More recently, Russia has also opened a second counter narcotics center in Peru, as well as sharing intelligence and coordinating operationally with Brazil, Peru, Bolivia and other states against transnational criminal organizations engaged in smuggling drugs from Latin America to Russia.
Russian Commercial Engagement in Latin America.  Beyond military activities, Russian companies are commercially active in a subset of Latin American and Caribbean countries, in a limited number of sectors, including petroleum, construction, mining, nuclear technology, and the space industry.
In the petroleum sector, the most significant activities of Russian companies are concentrated in Venezuela, where the firm Rosneft has five ongoing projects, including the Junin-6 oilfield in the Orinoco tar belt, and the joint venture Petromonogas.[34]  The head of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, is reportedly close to Russian President Vladimir Putin and shares a background in the intelligence services with him.  Rosneft has progressively acquired the stakes of other Russian companies such as Lukoil, Gazprom, TNK, and Surgutneftegas, as each has withdrawn from the country in recent years due to difficulties in operating there.  Most recently, despite the ongoing political crisis in Venezuela and the collapse of its economy, Rosneft paid $500 million to the Venezuelan state oil company PdVSA to expand it share in the joint petroleum venture Petromonogas.[35]
Beyond Venezuela, the Russian company Lukoil committed to an oil project in Mexico in January 2014 as the country opened its oil sector to foreign investors,[36] while Gazprom has expressed interest in exploring for gas and developing Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) facilities in Bolivia.[37] 
Despite such advances, however, current low international oil prices have significantly limited the resources of Russian oil companies to pursue investments in the region, and Lukoil was forced, in 2012 to sell off its operations in Colombia in order to have sufficient resources to pursue more lucrative projects in the Middle East.[38]
Beyond petroleum, Russia Aluminum Corporation (RUSAL) has a presence in the Caribbean basin in Guyana since 2006,[39] and Jamaica since 2007,[40] although as in the petroleum sector, its projects have been hampered by low international mineral prices.  Most of Russia’s operations in both Guyana and Jamaica have been closed down, and Russia is reportedly in negotiations with Chinese companies to sell its Alpart facility in Jamaica.[41]
In the construction sector, the Russian firm Inter RAO is involved in hydroelectric projects in Ecuador (Toachi-Pilaton)[42] and Argentina (Chihuido-2), financed by Russia’s development bank Vnesheconombank.[43]  Energolatina has a contract for hydroelectric turbines in Panama, and the Russian construction equipment firm Power Machines sells limited quantities of equipment, often in support of Russian projects, throughout the region.
With respect to nuclear energy, in March 2016, Rosatom signed a $300 million contract with the government of Bolivia to construct a small nuclear reactor and research complex in the country,[44] and hopes to supply three reactors for power generation to the Atucha nuclear complex south of Buenos Aires, Argentina.[45]
In space services, Russia has signed contracts with various nations of the region (which) including Peru, to secure services from its GLONASS satellite constellation, the Russian equivalent of the Global Positioning System.[46]
Factors Potentially Increasing the Russian Challenge in the Region.  While the challenge posed by Russia to U.S. interests in Latin America and the Caribbean is serious albeit modest in character, a number of plausible developments could rapidly expand the risk that such engagement poses:
First, an increase in international oil prices, possibly brought on by a conflict in the Middle East or the eventual success by OPEC members to limit supply,[47] could increase the revenue stream from Russia’s petroleum exports, helping to restore its resources for financing investments, arms sales, and other initiatives in the Western Hemisphere and elsewhere in the word.
Second, escalating tension between Russia and the U.S. over its near abroad, or in other areas in which it is strongly engaged such as Syria, could motivate Russia to launch new initiatives in Latin America to distract the U.S. from engaging Russia in those other areas, just as it did in 2008 during the Georgia civil war, and in 2014, at the outset of the civil war in the Ukraine.
Third, if Cuba loses hope that avoiding conflict with the U.S. will help it to regain access to U.S. markets, it could return to its historical disposition to collaborate with Russia against U.S. interests in the Western Hemisphere in a more aggressive fashion than it has since January 2015 when it officially began its reapproachment with the U.S.
Fourth, the government of El Salvador, whose current president Salvador Sanchez Ceren and other leaders worked closely with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, could decide to more openly embrace Russia.  Reportedly, significant goodwill exists toward Russia among the current Salvadoran leadership, but to date, it has avoided overtly close ties because of El Salvador’s substantial economic dependence on the U.S., including remittances from the more than 3 million Salvadorans living in the United States, U.S. aid to El Salvador under the CARSI program, and the immigration status of hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans currently in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status.
Fifth, if the Maduro regime in Venezuela fears that it is on the verge of losing power, it could more aggressively embrace Russia and China than it has to date, in order to preserve its own political future in return for Russian loans and expanded investment in sectors such as petroleum and mining.
Sixth, ALBA states Bolivia and Ecuador could embrace Russia more aggressively than they have to date.  It is notable that both countries participated in Russia’s wave of diplomatic and economic initiatives as it re-engaged with the region in 2008, yet neither were mentioned among those ALBA states with which Russia highlighted in 2014 as candidates for military base access agreements.[48]
In yet another scenario, increased tensions between China and Taiwan could lead the PRC to return to its pre-2008 practice of “checkbook diplomacy,” openly supporting construction of the Nicaragua Canal in return for Nicaragua’s diplomatic recognition of the PRC. 
Finally, either Peru or Mexico, both of whose Armies have historically close relations to Russia with respect to both equipment and personnel contacts, could retreat from their current moderately pro-U.S. posture, to more evenly balance cooperation with the U.S. and Russia.  For Peru, such change could be driven by a change in government following the nation’s May 2016 presidential elections.  While such a change by Peru or Mexico might not directly threaten the United States, it would potentially undermine an important pillar of the U.S. position in the region. 
Recommendations.  The good news for the U.S. with respect to Russian engagement in Latin America and the Caribbean is that, by contrast to the PRC, Russia is not currently a resource-rich competitor to the U.S. which can tempt the region with billions of dollars in loans, investments, and purchases of the region’s commodity exports.  Yet Russia is a skillful, determined, nuclear-armed competitor with significant knowledge of, and historical presence in the region.  Moreover, absent unforeseeable changes in the U.S. political landscape, the resources and political interest on the U.S. side for responding to Russian engagement in Latin America and the Caribbean are not likely to expand either. 
The U.S. must thus skillfully play a limited hand in addressing Russian engagement with the region.  On the one hand, it must continue to be a reliable partner to the states of Latin America and the Caribbean, avoiding, where possible, “self-inflicted wounds,” such as cutting theater security assistance to its partners during future budget crises, as the U.S. Department of Defense was forced to do in 2013.
The U.S. should also consider working more extensively in the region with extra-hemispheric partners whose strategic goals with respect to the region are compatible with its own.  Candidates include India, Japan, and Korea, as well as major in-region actors such as Brazil.  Each of these potential partners may provide interested countries in Latin America and the Caribbean a range of engagement opportunities in the security domain, as well as options for investment and commercial engagement that do not threaten U.S. strategic interests.
Finally, the U.S. should continuously monitor the situation in Latin America and the Caribbean for signs of the type of game-changing scenarios highlighted in the previous paragraphs, which could both require, and help create the disposition among U.S. policymakers for a better-resourced and more aggressive U.S. response.
By contrast to Russia, the U.S. is connected to Latin America with respect to its geography, families, and the interdependence of its economies.  What transpires in the region will affect U.S. interests, as well as those of the region, whether or not the U.S. anticipates and effectively rises to that challenge.


This article  (is a customized version) of the  English-language article:  "Characteristics and Assessment of Russian Engagement with Latin America and the Caribbean,"  was FIRST published by the journal of the Strategic Studies Institute of the Chilean Army War College,  "Ensayos Militares." 





links:
[1]The author is Professor of Latin American Studies at the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute.  The views expressed in this article are strictly his own.  The author thanks his research assistant, Jenny Ng, for her contributions to this work.[2] In February 2014, for example, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced his interest in establishing agreements for access to ports and other facilities in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela.  “Russia with plans for military bases in Nicaragua, Cuba and Venezuela,”  Mercopress, February 27, 2014, http://en.mercopress.com/2014/02/27/russia-with-plans-for-military-bases-in-nicaragua-cuba-and-venezuela.  Yet to date, only Nicaragua has signed an agreement, of very limited scope. [3] For a detailed exposition of Russian activities in the region country-by-country, see R. Evan Ellis, “The New Russian Engagement With Latin America: Strategic Engagement, Commerce, and Dreams of the Past,” U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, June 2015, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1275.[4] Jose Gregorio Meza, “Rusia participa en ejercicio militar defensivo de Venezuela,” Russia Beyond the Headlines, May 15, 2015, http://es.rbth.com/internacional/2015/03/15/rusia_participa_en_ejercicio_militar_defensivo_de_venezuela_48259.[5] “Acuerdo entre Rusia y Nicaragua para el atraque de buques de guerra rusos en el país Centroamérica,”  Defensa, February 13, 2015, http://www.defensa.com/frontend/defensa/acuerdo-entre-rusia-nicaragua-para-atraque-buques-guerra-rusos-vn14676-vst339.[6] “Colombia Protests Violation of Airspace by Russian Bombers,” The Moscow Times, November 7, 2013, http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/colombia-protests-violation-of-airspace-by-russian-bombers/489062.html.[7] Greg Botelho and Faith Karimi, “Russia flexes muscles with long-range bomber flights near U.S. shores,” CNN, November 13, 2014,  http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/13/world/europe/russia-bombers-plan/index.html.[8] For more details, see R. Evan Ellis, “Russian Influence in Latin America,” The Cipher Brief, January 5, 2016,  http://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/russian-influence-latin-america.[9] “Russia to reopen spy base in Cuba as relations with US continue to sour,” The Guardian, July 16, 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/16/russia-reopening-spy-base-cuba-us-relations-sour.[10] “Russian Military Chief Arrives in Nicaragua to Develop Ties,” Sputnik News, April 21, 2013, http://sputniknews.com/russia/20130421/180765330/Russian-Military-Chief-Arrives-in-Nicaragua-to-Develop-Ties.html#ixzz42SGX2dfS.[11] Andrey Ostroukh and José de Córdoba, “Russia Writes Off Cuba Debt,” The Wall Street Journal,  July 12, 2014, http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-writes-off-cuba-debt-1405083869.[12] Calvin Sims, “Peru's Cut-Rate Fighter Jets Were Too Good to Be True,” The New York Times, May 31, 1997, http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/31/world/peru-s-cut-rate-fighter-jets-were-too-good-to-be-true.html.[13] Víctor Kuzmín, “La carne argentina vuelve al mercado ruso,” Russia Beyond the Headlines, October 8, 2013, http://es.rbth.com/internacional/2013/10/08/la_carne_argentina_vuelve_al_mercado_ruso_33047.[14] “Venezuela comprará aviones Sukhoi-30 por $1.000 millones,” El Universal, July 21, 2006, http://www.eluniversal.com/2006/07/21/pol_art_21106D.[15] “Putin's Russia supports Argentina's Falklands claim,” Mercopress, December 11, 2008, http://en.mercopress.com/2008/12/11/putin-s-russia-supports-argentina-s-falklands-claim.[16] “Russian Tu-160 Strategic Bombers Land in Venezuela,” Sputnik News, October 29, 2013, http://sputniknews.com/military/20131029/184402932/Russian-Tu-160-Strategic-Bombers-Land-in-Venezuela.html.[17] “Putin denies reopening of US-targeting listening post in Cuba,” Russia Today, July 16, 2014, https://www.rt.com/news/173092-russia-sigint-facility-cuba/.[18] Claudio Agostini, “Russian Helicopters Continues Latin Expansion,” Rotor & Wing, June 6, 2012, http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/topstories/Russian-Helicopters-Continues-Latin-Expansion_76497.html#.VuDGAY-cHtQ.[19] Estimate of total arms imports by Latin America derived from SIPRI figures, adjusting for inflation.[20] “Venezuela es el cuarto cliente mundial de la industria militar rusa,” Infodefensa, December 21, 2012, http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2012/12/21/noticia-venezuela-es-el-cuarto-cliente-mundial-de-la-industria-militar-rusa.html.[21] R. Evan Ellis, “Should U.S. be worried about Chinese arms sales in the region?” Latin America Goes Global, May 11, 2015, .http://latinamericagoesglobal.org/2015/05/should-u-s-be-worried-about-chinese-arms-sales-in-the-region/. [22] “Venezuela seeking an additional 12 Sukhoi fighter jets from Russia,” Mercopress, October 31, 2015, http://en.mercopress.com/2015/10/31/venezuela-seeking-an-additional-12-sukhoi-fighter-jets-from-russia.[23] “Fuerza Aérea Del Perú Firma Contrato Para Reparar MIG29,” Zona Militar, August 12, 2008, http://www.zona-militar.com/foros/threads/fuerza-a%C3%A9ra-del-per%C3%BA-firma-contrato-para-reparar-mig29.13317/. See also “RAC MiG upgraded MiG-29 fighters of Peruvian air forces,” Russia Aviation, August 22, 2012, http://www.ruaviation.com/news/2012/8/22/1159/?h.[24] “El ministro de Defensa de Perú revisa en Moscú con su homólogo ruso los avances del contrato para el suministro de 24 Mi-171Sh-P Hip H,” Defensa, September 4, 2014, http://www.defensa.com/frontend/defensa/ministro-defensa-peru-revisa-moscu-homologo-ruso-avances-para-24-vn13173-vst336. [25] “Peru gets 27 China-made rocket launchers,” The Business Standard, July 20, 2015, http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ians/peru-gets-27-china-made-rocket-launchers-115072100006_1.html.[26] “Brasil va a recibir sus últimos MI-35 en los próximos 90 días,” Defensa, September 23, 2014, http://www.defensa.com/frontend/defensa/brasil-va-recibir-ultimos-35-proximos-90-dias-vn13332-vst332.[27] “La Fuerza Aérea Brasileña estudia nuevas opciones para disponer de aviones de transición hasta la llegada del Gripen NG,” Defensa, September 15, 2014, http://www.defensa.com/frontend/defensa/fuerza-aerea-brasilena-estudia-nuevas-opciones-para-disponer-ng-vn13263-vst332. [28] “Militares brasileños evalúan en Rusia el Pantsir-S1,” Defensa, September 1, 2014, http://www.defensa.com/frontend/defensa/militares-brasilenos-evaluan-rusia-pantsir-s1-vn13136-vst332.[29] Robert Dsouza, “Brazilian MoD announces Pantsir procurement delay,” Defense Talk, May 13, 2015, http://defencetalk.net/threads/brazilian-mod-announces-pantsir-procurement-delay.4859/.[30] “Rusia confirma el suministro a Nicaragua de dos helicópteros civiles Mi-17,” Infodefensa.  July 29, 2009, http://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2009/07/30/noticia-rusia-confirma-el-suministro-a-nicaragua-de-dos-helicopteros-civiles-mi-17.html. [31] “Nicaragua recibe asistencia Rusia,” Defensa, September 2, 2014, http://www.defensa.com/frontend/defensa/nicaragua-recibe-asistencia-rusa-vn13145-vst339.[32] “Llegaron los helicópteros Mi-17 a la base argentina de la Antártida,” Defensa, December 24, 2013, http://www.defensa.com/frontend/defensa/llegaron-helicopteros-17-base-argentina-antartida-vn11115-vst330.[33] “Marina de México recibirá tres helicópteros de combate rusos MI-17B-5,” Sputnik News, November 2, 2012, http://mundo.sputniknews.com/mundo/20121120/155626417.html#ixzz42SabjC61[34] “Russia-Nicaragua: multifaceted cooperation,” The Voice of Russia, April 22, 2013, http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/2013_04_22/Russia-Nicaragua-multifaceted-cooperation/. [35] “Russia invests $500 million in Venezuela's Orinoco before oil hits $200,” Pravda, February 20, 2016,http://www.pravdareport.com/business/companies/20-02-2016/133600-russia_venezuela_orinoco-0/#sthash.snUxWoj4.dpuf.[36] “Venezuela offloads $500m oil project stake to Rosneft,” Financial Times, February 22, 2016, http://www.ft.com/fastft/2016/02/22/venezuela-offloads-500m-oil-project-stake-to-rosneft/.[37] “Mexico’s Pemex to Continue Cooperation With Russia,” Sputnik News, February 24 2016http://sputniknews.com/business/20160224/1035243426/pemex-continue-cooperation-with-russia.html.[38] “Bolivia y Rusia negocian exploración de nuevos campos gasíferos,” America Economia, February 18, 2016, http://www.americaeconomia.com/negocios-industrias/bolivia-y-rusia-negocian-exploracion-de-nuevos-campos-gasiferos.[39] “Lukoil sells stake in Colombia project,” World Oil, December 13,2012 http://www.worldoil.com/news/2012/12/13/lukoil-sells-stake-in-colombia-project.[40] “Bauxite Mining in Guyana,” Mbendi, accessed February9,2016,http://www.mbendi.com/indy/ming/baux/sa/gy/p0005.htm. [41] “Paulwell to outline solutions for bauxite plants,” Jamaica Gleaner,April16,2013,http://jamaicagleaner.com/gleaner/20130416/business/business2.html. [42] Alphea Saunders, “Chinese want a part of Noranda too?,” Jamaica Observer, February 15, 2016, http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/NEWS/Chinese-want-a-part-of-Noranda-too_51773.[43] “La Inter RAO rusa pondrá en marcha en el 2015 una gran hidroeléctrica en Ecuador,” Russia Times, November 16, 2011, https://actualidad.rt.com/economia/view/35448-La-Inter-RAO-rusa-pondra-en-marcha-en-2015-una-gran-hidroel%C3%A9ctrica-en-Ecuador.[44] “En septiembre comenzará la construcción de la represa Chihuido I con financiación de Rusia,” Telam, April 23, 2015, http://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201504/102648-represa-chihuido-financiacion-rusia.html.[45] “Bolivia y Rusia firman acuerdo para construir centro de investigación nuclear,” America Economia, March 6, 2016,http://www.americaeconomia.com/negocios-industrias/bolivia-y-rusia-firman-acuerdo-para-construir-centro-de-investigacion-nuclear?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=linkedincompanies.[46] “Rusia y Argentina podrían firmar contrato para un nuevo reactor de Atucha este año,” Sputnik News, February 11, 2016, Lea más en http://mundo.sputniknews.com/economia/20160211/1056647043/rusia-argentina-reactor-nuevo-nuclear.html#ixzz42Si345yn[47] See, for example, “Russia, Peru Mull Joint Use of Glonass Satellite Navigation System,” Sputnik News, November 7, 2014, http://sputniknews.com/business/20141107/1014506239.html#ixzz42SiYhZ9S[48] See, for example, “Venezuela says Iran and Russia support emergency meeting on oil prices: Shana,” Reuters, February 3, 2016, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-opec-meeting-idUSKCN0VC2ME.[49] Patrick Goodenough, “Russia Seeks Access to Bases in Eight Countries for Its Ships and Bombers,” CNS News, February 28, 2014, http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/russia-seeks-access-bases-eight-countries-its-ships-and-bombers.



SDR strongly recommends the following reading by Dr Ellis: 
"Cooperation and Mistrust Between China and the U.S. in Latin America."  
The article is a chapter in the new edited volume The Political Economy of China-Latin American Relations in the New Millennium.   (Carol Wise and Margaret Myers, Eds.  Routledge, 2016.  Pp. 31-49).  

This academically-oriented analysis attempts a balanced examination of both U.S. and Chinese concerns regarding expanding PRC engagement in the region, including recommendations for possible areas of Sino-U.S. collaboration in the hemisphere.   

The edited volume also contains a number of thoughtful chapters on specific aspects of Chinese engagement in Latin America by some of the leading scholars in the field which I recommend to students of the field, and for consideration in course syllabi.