Yukon Wolves Survived Ice-Age Extinction Thanks to Changes in Their Diet

Apr 12, 2021 by News Staff / Source

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) from the Yukon Territory, Canada, survived the extinction at the end of the last Ice Age by adapting their diet over thousands of years — from a primary reliance on horses (Equus sp.) during the Pleistocene, to moose (Alces alces) and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) today.

Gray wolves take down a horse on the mammoth-steppe habitat of Beringia during the Late Pleistocene, around 25,000 years ago. Image credit: Julius Csotonyi.

A research team led by Dr. Danielle Fraser from the Canadian Museum of Nature, Carleton University, and Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, investigated if and how diets of Yukon gray wolves changed from the Pleistocene (50,000 to 26,000 years ago) to the recent times.

“We can study the change in diet by examining wear patterns on the teeth and chemical traces in the wolf bones,” said Zoe Landry, a student at Carleton University.

“These can tell us a lot about how the animal ate, and what the animal was eating throughout its life, up until about a few weeks before it died.”

Dr. Fraser, Landry and their colleagues relied on established models that can determine an animal’s eating behavior by examining microscopic wear patterns on its teeth.

Scratch marks indicate the wolf would have been consuming flesh, while the presence of pits would suggest chewing and gnawing on bones, likely as a scavenger.

The analysis showed that scratch marks prevailed in both the ancient and modern wolf teeth, meaning that the wolves continued to survive as primary predators, hunting their prey.

Their modern diet is well established; the diet of the ancient wolves was assessed by looking at the ratios of carbon and nitrogen isotopes extracted from collagen in the bones. Relative levels of the isotopes can be compared with established indicators for specific species.

The results showed that horses, which went extinct during the Pleistocene, accounted for about half of the gray wolf diet. About 15% came from caribou and Dall’s sheep, with some mammoth mixed in.

At this time, the ancient wolves would have co-existed with other large predators such as scimitar cats and short-faced bears.

The eventual extinction of these predators could have created more opportunity for the wolves to transition to new prey species.

“This is really a story of Ice Age survival and adaptation, and the building up of a species towards the modern form in terms of ecological adaptation,” said Dr. Grant Zazula, a paleontologist with the Palaeontology Program of Government of Yukon.

The team’s paper was published in the journal Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology.

_____

Zoe Landry et al. 2021. Dietary reconstruction and evidence of prey shifting in Pleistocene and recent gray wolves (Canis lupus) from Yukon Territory. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 571: 110368; doi: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2021.110368

 

West Africans Hunted for Honey 3,500 Years Ago

Apr 15, 2021 by News Staff / Source

Historical and ethnographic literature from across Africa suggests bee products, honey and larvae, had considerable importance both as a food source and in the making of honey-based drinks. To investigate this, a team of researchers from the University of Bristol and Goethe University analyzed lipid residues from 458 prehistoric pottery vessels of the Nok culture, Nigeria, West Africa, an area where early farmers and foragers co-existed.

Modern-day straw beehive in a tree in Nigeria. Image credit: Dunne et al., doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22425-4.

Today, honeybees are an integral part of socio-ecological landscapes and beekeeping plays an important global economic role with around 1.6 million tons of honey being produced annually.

Wild honey is also known to be widely collected by foragers globally, except in environments such as the Arctic and Subarctic where bees do not survive.

However, evidence for ancient human exploitation of the honeybee is rare, saved in Paleolithic rock art depicting bees and honey, found in Spain, India, Australia and Southern Africa, spanning the period 40,000-8,000 years ago.

The majority of prehistoric rock art, with over 4,000 sites portraying bees, honeycombs and honey-collecting, is located in Africa, at Didima Gorge in Namibia and other locations.

Furthermore, the archaeology of honey-collecting is largely invisible, in contrast to the, often excellent, survival of other organic materials such as animal bones or plant remains.

Recently, lipid residue analysis identified evidence for the presence of beeswax in prehistoric pottery vessels from across Neolithic Europe, the Near East and Mediterranean North Africa, providing evidence for human exploitation of the honeybee from at least the 7th millennium BCE.

However, little is known of its importance in other areas globally, for example, in the subsistence of hunter-gatherer groups and early farming communities in West Africa, a vast geographic area extending from the Atlantic Ocean in the west, and south to Cameroon.

One of the most well-known cultures in prehistoric West Africa is the Nigerian Nok culture, which spans a period of around 1,500 years, beginning around the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE.

The Nok culture is characterized by its remarkable terracotta figurines, which constitute the earliest large-sized figurative art objects in Africa outside Egypt and early evidence for iron production in West Africa, ca. 1st millennium BCE.

In new research, Dr. Julie Dunne from the University of Bristol and colleagues performed organic residue analysis on a total of 458 potsherds from 12 archaeological sites in Central Nigeria, covering the Early, Middle and Late Nok periods.

To their great surprise, the scientists revealed that around one third of the pottery vessels used by the ancient Nok people were used to process or store beeswax.

The presence of beeswax in ancient pottery is identified through a complex series of lipids, the fats, oils and waxes of the natural world.

The beeswax is probably present as a consequence either of the processing (melting) of wax combs through gentle heating, leading to its absorption within the vessel walls, or, alternatively, beeswax is assumed to act as a proxy for the cooking or storage of honey itself.

“This is a remarkable example of how biomolecular information extracted from prehistoric pottery, combined with ethnographic data, has provided the first insights into ancient honey hunting in West Africa, 3,500 years ago,” Dr. Dunne said.

“We originally started the study of chemical residues in pottery sherds because of the lack of animal bones at Nok sites, hoping to find evidence for meat processing in the pots,” said Professor Peter Breunig, a researcher at Goethe University.

“That the Nok people exploited honey 3,500 years ago, was completely unexpected and is unique in West African prehistory.”

A paper on the findings was published in the journal Nature Communications.

_____

J. Dunne et al. 2021. Honey-collecting in prehistoric West Africa from 3500 years ago. Nat Commun 12, 2227; doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22425-4

Lightning Strikes Played Role in Creating Prebiotic Phosphorus on Early Earth, Study Suggests

Phosphorus is one of the key elements for life, involved in biomolecules such as DNA, RNA, phospholipids, and adenosine triphosphate. Phosphide minerals — such as the mineral schreibersite — delivered to early Earth in meteorites have been advocated as a main source of prebiotic phosphorus. Planetary scientists believed minimal amounts of these minerals were also brought to our planet through billions of lightning strikes. But now a team of researchers from the University of Leeds and Yale University has established that lightning strikes were just as significant as meteorites in performing this essential function.

An illustration of early Earth, as it would have looked around 4 billion years ago. Image credit: Lucy Entwisle.

In the study, Yale University Ph.D. student Benjamin Hess and colleagues examined an exceptionally large and pristine sample of fulgurite.

The sample was formed when lightning struck a property in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, the United States, in 2016.

The scientists were initially interested in how fulgurite is formed but were fascinated to discover in their sample a large amount of schreibersite.

The phosphorous present on early Earth’s surface was contained in minerals that cannot dissolve in water, but schreibersite can.

“Many have suggested that life on Earth originated in shallow surface waters, following Darwin’s famous ‘warm little pond’ concept,” Hess said.

“Most models for how life may have formed on Earth’s surface invoke meteorites which carry small amounts of schreibersite.”

“Our work finds a relatively large amount of schreibersite in the studied fulgurite.”

“Lightning strikes Earth frequently, implying that the phosphorus needed for the origin of life on Earth’s surface does not rely solely on meteorite hits.”

“Perhaps more importantly, this also means that the formation of life on other Earth-like planets remains possible long after meteorite impacts have become rare.”

The authors estimate that phosphorus minerals made by lightning strikes surpassed those from meteorites when the Earth was around 3.5 billion years old, which is about the age of the earliest known microfossils, making lightning strikes significant in the emergence of life on the planet.

Furthermore, lightning strikes are far less destructive than meteor hits, meaning they were much less likely to interfere with the delicate evolutionary pathways in which life could develop.

“The early bombardment is a once in a solar system event,” said Dr. Jason Harvey, a researcher in the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds.

“As planets reach their mass, the delivery of more phosphorus from meteors becomes negligible.”

“Lightning, on the other hand, is not such a one-off event. If atmospheric conditions are favorable for the generation of lightning, elements essential to the formation of life can be delivered to the surface of a planet.”

“This could mean that life could emerge on Earth-like planets at any point in time.”

“Our exciting research opens the door to several future avenues of investigation, including search for and in-depth analysis of fresh fulgurite in early Earth-like environment; in-depth analysis of the effect of flash heating on other minerals to recognize such features in the rock record, and further analysis of this exceptionally well-preserved fulgurite to identify the range of physical and chemical processes within,” said Professor Sandra Piazolo, a researcher in the School of Earth and Environment at the University of Leeds.

“All these studies will help up to increase our understanding of the importance of fulgurite in changing the chemical environment of Earth through time.”

The research is described in a paper in the journal Nature Communications.

B.L. Hess et al. 2021. Lightning strikes as a major facilitator of prebiotic phosphorus reduction on early Earth. Nat Commun 12, 1535; doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21849-2

Mar 18, 2021 by News Staff / Source

Study Sheds New Light on Growth of Mysterious Stone Forests

A new study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reveals a mechanism that may contribute to the formation of sharply pointed rock spires in striking landforms called stone forests.


Stone forest in Yunnan province, China. Image credit: Zhang Yuan.

Stone forests are pointed rock formations resembling trees that populate regions of China, Madagascar, and many other locations worldwide.

They are as majestic as they are mysterious, created by uncertain forces that give them their shape.

“Our work reveals a mechanism that explains how these sharply pointed rock spires, a source of wonder for centuries, come to be,” said senior author Dr. Leif Ristroph, a researcher in the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at New York University.

“Through a series of simulations and experiments, we show how flowing water carves ultra-sharp spikes in landforms.”

The study also illuminates a mechanism that explains the prevalence of sharply pointed rock spires in karst, a topography formed by the dissolution of rocks, such as limestone.

The authors simulated the formation of these pinnacles over time through a mathematical model and computer simulations that took into account how dissolving produces flows and how these flows also affect dissolving and thus reshaping of a formation.




Natural pinnacles and stone forests: (A-C) photographs showing limestone structures of different scales in the Tsingy de Bemaraha National Park in Madagascar; (D) similar limestone formations in the Gunung Mulu National Park in Malaysia. Image credit: Stephen Alvarez / Grant Dixon.

To confirm the validity of their simulations, they conducted a series of experiments in the lab.

They replicated the formation of these natural structures by creating sugar-based pinnacles, mimicking soluble rocks that compose karst and similar topographies, and submerging them in tanks of water.

Interestingly, no flows had to be imposed, since the dissolving process itself created the flow patterns needed to carve spikes.

The experimental results reflected those of the simulations, thereby supporting the accuracy of the team’s model.

“These same events happen — albeit far more slowly — when minerals are submerged under water, which later recedes to reveal stone pinnacles and stone forests,” the scientists said.

_____

Jinzi Mac Huang et al. Ultra-sharp pinnacles sculpted by natural convective dissolution. PNAS, published online September 8, 2020; doi: 10.1073/pnas.2001524117

S&P to eject Adani Ports from index for Myanmar military ties

Rights groups say Adani pays Myanmar military-linked firm millions in rent for land leased for port development.

The US and UK governments have sanctioned two Myanmar military-controlled businesses in the days since the coup [File: Stringer/Reuters]

13 Apr 2021

S&P Dow Jones Indices says it is removing India’s Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Ltd from its sustainability index due to the firm’s business ties with Myanmar’s military, which is accused of human rights abuses after a coup this year.

The company, which is building a $290m port in Yangon on land leased from the military-backed Myanmar Economic Corporation (MEC), did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment by the Reuters news agency.

Adani Group, the ports-to-power plants conglomerate controlled by Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, said late last month it would consult with authorities and stakeholders about the project after human rights groups reported that its ports unit had an agreement to pay millions of dollars in rent to MEC.

The military coup on February 1 and the ensuing crackdown on protests have seen an estimated 700 people killed, drawing international condemnation, including sanctions last month from the United States and United Kingdom against MEC and another military-controlled conglomerate, Myanmar Economic Holdings Public Company Ltd (MEHL).

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the sanctions were imposed to promote “accountability for the coup and the abhorrent violence and other abuses”.

Adani Ports will be removed from the index prior to the open this Thursday, S&P Dow Jones Indices said in a statement.

The decision was hailed by activists.

An estimated 700 people have been killed in the military crackdown after the coup [File: Issei Kato/Reuters]“This shows that there are commercial consequences for Adani Ports and other businesses that continue to disregard their human rights responsibilities by financing the Myanmar military,” said Yadanar Maung, a representative for activist group Justice For Myanmar

Shares in Adani Ports were down 1 percent in early Tuesday trade. Its shares have in general been little affected by the Myanmar issue, having climbed some 40 percent since February 1.
Bid won

Adani Ports and SEZ Ltd in 2020 won a bid to build and operate Yangon International Terminal, which it said is an independent project fully owned and developed by the company.

The Australian Centre for International Justice and Justice for Myanmar last month released a report citing documents purporting to show that an Adani unit will pay up to $30m in land lease fees for the project to the MEC, one of two military-controlled conglomerates sanctioned by the US last month.


Adani did not comment on the lease payments detailed in the report, but said the land acquisition for its project was facilitated by the Myanmar Investment Commission under the now-overthrown civilian government.


“Much like our global peers, we are watching the situation in Myanmar carefully and will engage with the relevant authorities and stakeholders to seek their advice on the way forward,” an Adani spokesman said in a statement at the time.

The spokesman said the company condemned violations of human rights and was working with independent think tanks to mitigate any human rights risks.

Some international firms have moved to sever or review ties with Myanmar firms linked to the military.

Japanese drinks giant Kirin Holdings in February scrapped its beer alliance with MEHL while sources have said South Korean steelmaker POSCO has begun weighing how it can exit a joint venture with MEHL.

SOURCE: REUTERS

KEEP READING

Myanmar death toll edges up to 550 as online crackdown tightens

Myanmar military may extend emergency rule by up to two years

Myanmar UN envoy urges no-fly zone as over 80 killed

Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi slapped with new criminal charge

Myanmar frees thousands of prisoners but many dissidents excluded

More than 23,000 prisoners from jails across the country to be released, but most of them were jailed before the February 1 coup.

Most of the detainees released on Saturday were jailed before the February 1 coup [Stringer/Reuters]

17 Apr 2021

The military rulers of Myanmar have ordered the release of 23,184 prisoners from jails across the country under a New Year amnesty, a Prisons Department spokesman said, though few, if any, democracy activists arrested since a February 1 coup are expected to be among them.

Saturday is the first day of the traditional New Year in Myanmar and the last day of a five-day holiday that is usually celebrated with visits to Buddhist temples and rowdy water throwing and partying in the streets.

KEEP READINGOpponents of Myanmar coup announce unity government

Casualties reported as Myanmar forces fire at Mandalay protesters

‘Bloody paint strike’ in Myanmar as doctors charged over protests

Pro-democracy activists called for the cancellation of the festivities this year and instead for people to focus on a campaign to restore democracy after the military’s overthrow of the elected government of Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi.

On Saturday, thousands of anti-military protesters took to the streets of Mandalay, the country’s largest city, demanding the restoration of democracy, according to images and reports posted on social media.

Despite a downpour, thousands of people also marched in Shan State to denounce the military.

While the military was freeing thousands of prisoners, it was also seeking 832 people on warrants in connection with the protests.

Aung San Suu Kyi is among 3,141 people arrested in connection with the coup, according to a tally by the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) activist group.

“These detainees are mostly from before February 1 but there are also some who were imprisoned after,” Prisons Department spokesman Kyaw Tun Oo told Reuters news agency by telephone.

Asked if any of those being freed might have been detained in connection with the protests against military rule, he said he did not have details of the amnesties.
More warrants issued

Among the people the military is seeking to arrest are several internet celebrities, actors and singers who have spoken out against the coup, wanted on the charge of encouraging dissent in the armed forces.

Two of them, the married couple of film director Christina Kyi and actor Zenn Kyi, were detained at the airport in the main city of Yangon on Saturday as they were trying to leave the country, several media outlets reported.


A spokesman for the military government did not answer calls seeking comment.

Myanmar has been in crisis since the coup, which the military defended with accusations of fraud in a November election won by Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, though the election commission dismissed the objections.

The now-dismissed government had held power for the first five years of civilian rule since nearly half a century of army rule ended.

People infuriated by the return of military rule have taken to the streets day after day to demand the restoration of democracy, defying crackdowns by the security forces in which 728 people have been killed, according to the AAPP’s latest figures.

Political leaders, including removed members of parliament, announced the formation of a National Unity Government (NUG) on Friday including Aung San Suu Kyi and leaders of the anti-coup protests and ethnic minorities.

Protesters march during a demonstration against the military coup in Mandalay on Saturday [Handout photo/Facebook via AFP]The NUG says it is the legitimate political authority and has called for international recognition.


The military government has yet to comment on the unity government but has said it will hold a new election within two years and hand power to the winner.

The hugely popular Aung San Suu Kyi faces various charges, including the violation of the Official Secrets Act that could see her jailed for 14 years. Her lawyers dismiss the charges.

Her supporters suspect the military will use the charges to exclude the country’s leader and perhaps her political party from any future election.
SOURCE: AL JAZEERA, REUTERS

COLD WAR 2.0 BRRRRRRR

How Russia, China, and climate change are shaking up the Arctic

New Atlanticist by Larry Luxner

TUE, MAR 23, 2021

U.S. marines of Fox Company, 2nd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, part of Marine Rotational Force - Europe take part in "Reindeer 2", a Norwegian-U.S. military drill, in Setermoen, Norway, October 29, 2019. REUTERS/Stoyan Nenov

The Kremlin’s increasing military activities in the Arctic are worrying Norway—the only NATO member country that borders Russia north of the Arctic Circle.

Frank Bakke-Jensen, Norway’s minister of defense, outlined his concerns during a March 19 conference “Looking North: Conference on Security in the Arctic,” hosted by the Transatlantic Security Initiative in the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security.

“Russian armed forces have significantly modernized during the last ten to twelve years. Its capabilities are increasingly integrated, giving Russia more flexibility,” he said. “The Russians have modernized their underwater capabilities. They’ve improved their ability to deploy troops rapidly over great distances. Russia is now also more capable in terms of conventional long-range precision weapons. Together, this reduces the warning time for NATO countries to hours and days.”

Also concerning are stepped-up Russian maritime activities just off Norway’s coast, he said. Russia recently started using its new airbase on Franz Josef Land, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean. From this location, “Russia is now able to conduct air operations over vast areas in the Arctic,” Bakke-Jensen warned. “This Russian ability to reduce NATO’s freedom of movement is particularly worrying for transatlantic security.”

At the same time, he added, “China’s interest in the Arctic is increasing. China has defined itself as a near-Arctic state, and we expect it to be more active there in the future. China is also strengthening its icebreaking capacity, and its space-related activities also involve the Arctic.”

Bakke-Jensen said Norway welcomes the September 2020 establishment of NATO Joint Force Command Norfolk, co-located with the US Navy’s Second Fleet, to protect sea lanes between Europe and North America, including those in the Arctic.

“The Arctic is a very important area for cooperation between the United States and Norway. As we speak, the US Air Force is conducting operations with four of its B-1 bombers from Ørland [Main Air Station] in central Norway,” he said. “Allied activity in the region shows Allied cohesion, as well as our shared interest in maintaining the Euro-Atlantic space as a region characterized by freedom, peace, and stability. At the same time, the scope of allied activities must be measured to avoid unnecessary escalation and misunderstandings.”

Since 2013, said Bakke-Jensen, Norway has boosted its defense budget by 30 percent in real terms. And it already spends 2 percent of its GDP on defense. Specifically, it has invested in F-35 fighter jets, P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, and submarines.

“For Norway, it’s important to maintain the balance between deterrence and reassurance vis-à-vis Russia. NATO must also preserve that balance,” he said. “We want to be transparent and predictable, and we expect the same from Russia. Dialogue and communications about our intentions [are] important confidence- and security-building [measures]. Our neighbor has, over the past few years, become more expansive and less predictable, making Russia a strategic challenge and a demanding neighbor.”
Watch the full event

The view from abroad: UK, Canadian, Danish, Norwegian, and US officials weigh in on Arctic issues

Following Bakke-Jensen’s remarks, military representatives from the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the United States offered their perspectives in a panel discussion moderated by Anna Wieslander, the Atlantic Council’s director for northern Europe.

From the Canadian point of view, the Arctic “is a fundamental part of our heritage and identity and part of our future,” said Peter Hammerschmidt, assistant deputy minister for policy at the Canadian Department of National Defense.

It also presents “tremendous opportunities” as temperatures rise due to climate change, he said. “As we look out fifty years from now, we see ourselves as likely to be in a bit of a climate sweet spot for human activity: more arable lands, more accessible natural resources, [and] more open Arctic transportation routes,” he said. “It’s really a very attractive place to be on the planet, from the point of view of resources, climate, and migration. So we stand to gain. But from my perspective, to be able to take advantage of all the opportunities, we’re going to need to protect our north.”

Canada is starting from a strong foundation, Hammerschmidt said. It already has a permanent military presence through the Canadian Armed Forces’ Joint Task Force North, which leads operations in the country’s northern territories. In late February, US President Joe Biden and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also agreed to modernize the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which the two sides described as an expanded Arctic dialogue encompassing issues related to continental security, economic and social development, and Arctic governance.

Lone Dencker Wisborg, the Danish ambassador to the United States, said that while the challenges shouldn’t be exaggerated, NATO must remain “clear-eyed” about Russia’s military intentions in the Arctic.

“Even though the focus is mainly defensive, some elements might be used for more offensive purposes, and we have also seen China’s increased ambitions and interests in the Arctic relating to their desire for access to natural resources and sea routes,” she said.
il

Wisborg said Denmark recently approved a $245 million spending bill to boost Danish military surveillance, communications, and command-and-control operations in the Arctic, with Danish lawmakers agreeing to spend half of the money on drones to improve surveillance in Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of the Kingdom of Denmark.

“This is for us a testament to the importance we attach to this region,” she said. “Our military purpose is not to increase tensions, obviously, but to monitor and safeguard our national territory.”

Henning Vaglum, director-general of security policy at the Norwegian Ministry of Defense, noted that Norway faces a large concentration of Russian military power across its border—namely Russia’s Northern Fleet—and that Russia’s nuclear and conventional capabilities are on the rise.

This, he said, is “enabling Russia to project power in a new way, particularly through the development of new underwater systems and long-range precision strike capabilities. We are seeing at least the capability of holding Europe and others at risk in a different way. This capability development in itself is of strategic importance.”

The goal, said Vaglum, is “to manage our posture in the north so as to maximize the intentional deterrence effect, but also to minimize the potential of unintended escalation.” He added: “The Arctic should remain an area of stability and low tension. That requires deterrence but also requires us to avoid provoking unnecessarily. We believe it’s very possible to find that balance.”

Angus Lapsley, director-general, strategy and international at the British Ministry of Defense, said that as a non-Arctic nation, the United Kingdom tends to view the region “through a broader lens”—especially in terms of the Arctic’s importance to climate science and international trade.

“If the Northern Passage begins to open up, then over time that could start to impact global trade patterns,” he said. “For most Europeans, it will become the shortest route to Northeast Asia and the Pacific.”

Yet from a defense perspective, Lapsley said, the United Kingdom sees Russia “as the most acute security threat to the UK, and an awful lot of Russian capability is based in the High North. Therefore, we think about how that threat could play into our own security.” There is also “the realization that China is a systemic challenger to the global order,” and it is “quite obvious that China is interested in the Arctic.”

“The Greenland-Iceland-UK gap is as important—and also sea control of the North Atlantic—as it has been ever since the Cold War, and before that,” he said. “We continue to invest in being able to operate our submarines underneath the ice.”

In addition, the United Kingdom is building a new generation of frigates in cooperation with Canada, buying new P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, and deploying small low-orbit satellites for better Arctic surveillance. It is also investing in the Joint Expeditionary Force—a United Kingdom-led task group launched during NATO’s 2014 Wales Summit and consisting of UK armed forces and forces from eight partner countries: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.

Jennifer Walsh, US deputy under secretary of defense for policy, said Washington’s main priority in the region is to keep the Arctic secure and stable.

“For the United States, it’s also about looking at this region through the lens of defending our homeland. Cooperation with allies and partners is more important than ever, and I see this being particularly valued in the Arctic region,” she said, noting that the Pentagon has concerns about Russia and China.

“We are not looking to invite or provoke any type of conflict or escalatory actions, militarily or otherwise, in the Arctic. But we have been watching Russia’s behavior around the world,” Walsh explained. “And as it continues to develop its presence and its capabilities in the Arctic, we have to be able to connect some dots and think forward about what should we be anticipating from Russia in this region—even if its interests right now are focused on territorial defense. How far will it go to increase its oversight or control of northern sea routes?”

In much the same way, the Pentagon is keeping a close eye on Chinese activities in the Arctic.

“We know China is seeking a larger role in shaping governance and security issues to advance its Arctic ambitions,” Walsh said. “China’s behavior in other parts of the world should be considered in the context of ‘Will it follow suit in the Arctic region as well?’ We’re watching those, but no crisis right now—and our objective, as is everyone’s, is to prevent a crisis.”

Larry Luxner is a Tel Aviv-based freelance journalist and photographer who covers the Middle East, Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. Follow him on Twitter @LLuxner.

Norwegian Officials: Russian Arctic Expansion Making Security Landscape ‘Difficult’

By: John Grady

March 22, 2021


Marines with Marine Rotational Force Europe 21.1 (MRF-E), Marine Forces Europe and Africa, conduct a live-fire range using Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAV) in Blatindan, Norway, March 16, 2021. US Marine Corps Photo

Russia’s heavy investment in new ballistic missile submarines and long-range precision strike weaponry signal the Kremlin’s will to challenge NATO’s ability to reinforce the High North in a crisis, Norway’s top diplomat said Friday.

“The security landscape is getting more difficult,” Ine Ericksen Soreide said at The Atlantic Council on Friday.

Russia has built up a military presence in the Arctic over the last 10 years and deployed advanced strategic weapons, including submarines and missiles. The Kremlin also has built new air bases, giving its air force a longer reach into the Atlantic.

Norway “is the only NATO member bordering Russia,” so it is monitoring the military build-up and increased civilian economic development on the other side of the border closely, according to Frank Bakke-Jensen, Norway’s minister of defense. Adding another dimension to military changes in the Arctic, he identified the Barents Sea as “optimal to test new weapons systems” for Russia’s armed forces.

Norway is “NATO’s eyes and ears to the North,” Soreide, who previously served as defense minister, added. She also noted that Norway is different from other Arctic nations with its ice-free waters, caused by the flow of the Gulf Stream from North America across the Atlantic, making it strategically important geographically.

Russia shares both land and water borders with Norway. Historically, “we meet Russia with firmness and predictability,” Soreide said. But ever since 2014, when Moscow seized the Crimea region from Ukraine, Oslo has been more wary of the Kremlin’s intentions across Europe. It also cut off direct exchanges between the two militaries at the time.

“If we don’t stand up to that [overt aggression as in Crimea and eastern Ukraine], who will?” she questioned, referring both to economic sanctions levied on Russian businesses and individuals and a renewed commitment to security spending in the alliance.

Bakke-Jensen, who has been defense minister for three years, said Norway is meeting the 2 percent of gross domestic product spending target that NATO set in response to the Crimean seizure. He pointed to more recent buys of F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters and P-8A Poseidons patrol aircraft and new submarines as examples of where Oslo is putting its defense dollars. He added that Norway also upped its research and development security spending by 30 percent in recent years and said the investment can help with intelligence operations. In 2019, the reported Norwegian defense budget was about $7.2 billion.

USS Gridley (DDG-101) is moored pierside in Tromso, Norway, during a brief stop for fuel on Nov. 23, 2019. US Navy Photo

While Norway continues to cooperate closely with Russia on nuclear safety issues, fisheries and search and rescue in the Arctic, Soreide said that transparency hasn’t translated into Moscow’s sharing information with Oslo on military exercises that it’s holding near their shared border and waters.

Soreide termed Russia’s attitude now as “much more assertive.”

By contrast, she said NATO and Norway itself during the 2018 Trident Juncture exercise regularly informed Russia’s Northern Fleet about what was transpiring to avoid any miscalculation. “We’re extremely open with our exercises,” including regularly schedules ones with American Marines, but “we don’t see the same thing from Russia.”

During the conference, four American Air Force B-1 bombers were training with Norwegian air forces.

Terming Russia “a demanding neighbor,” Bakke-Jensen said security cooperation has grown to include Nordic countries like Sweden and Finland and Baltic NATO members in regional training exercises.

In the panel discussion following Bakke-Jensen’s remarks, Henning Vagium, director-general for security policy in Norway’s defense ministry, said that for all Nordic countries there has been renewed emphasis on defense and deterrence since 2004. He called Sweden’s and Finland’s militaries “highly capable” and said they are working effectively with NATO forces in the Arctic and Baltic. The two nations also add their expertise in confronting Russia’s “gray zone” challenges and disinformation ploys to defense and deterrence, Vagium added.

Bakke-Jensen welcomed the establishment of Joint Command Force-Norfolk and 2nd Fleet, operational since 2019, as important steps for the alliance and the United States in keeping the transatlantic sea lanes of communications open in a crisis.

Closer to home, Bakke-Jensen said that while talks with his Kremlin counterparts continue, the two nations have not been able to establish a hotline between Norway’s military and the Russian Northern Fleet. He kept open the possibility of working with Moscow to “what we’ve been successful with,” such as Coast Guard operations and search and rescue protocols as a means to reduce tensions in other areas.

K-560 Severodvinsk in 2018. Russian MoD Photo

Unlike other Arctic nations, 9 percent of Norway’s population lives above the Arctic Circle, where it has cities, industry, technology hubs and universities. The Gulf Stream “changes the calculus for us.” Soreide stressed the importance Norway put on the United States rejoining the Paris Agreement on climate. “Climate change happens twice as fast in the Arctic” than in other places. This has major implications for Oslo militarily, economically and environmentally.

Soreide said climate change in the warming Arctic was attributable to the “rise of global emissions,” rather than increased human activity in the north. One of the goals of the 2016 Paris agreement is to reduce global warming by 2-degrees Celsius by cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

As for China’s increased interest in the Arctic, she said as an observer to the Arctic Council Beijing has “been helpful so far.” Its interests have been “relatively limited [to] research and climate,” but that does not mean Beijing’s ambitions will not grow over time.

The badge of Standing NATO Maritime Group One (SNMG1) is seen on a staff member’s uniform as Royal Norwegian navy Commodore Yngve Skoglund assumes command of SNMG1 from U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Edward Cashman during a change of command ceremony in Bergen, Norway on late 2019. NATO Photo

“We see the cooperation with Russia on energy and gas,” Bakke-Jensen said, but “I don’t think Russia is too keen on giving China” too big a role in the region. “They are dancing a difficult tango.” With the Northern Sea Route opening up for longer periods of time to shipping and Beijing’s building of heavy icebreakers, “we expect them to be more active.”

In the years ahead, NATO needs to recognize that in the Arctic “the threats [not only militarily] are coming at us [from] 360” degrees, Angus Lapsley, director general of strategy in the United Kingdom’s ministry of defense, said in the panel discussion.

Bakke-Jensen cited China’s investment in mining in Greenland and interest in building airports on the island. Beijing also has actively explored possibilities in Canada’s Northwest Territories and infrastructure projects in Iceland.

Soreide wanted to keep the Arctic Council’s focus on non-security matters – like fisheries, communications, scientific research, et al. The region “does not need new governance structures,” but must “uphold the ones we have,” like the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, she said.




About John Grady

John Grady, a former managing editor of Navy Times, retired as director of communications for the Association of the United States Army. His reporting on national defense and national security has appeared on Breaking Defense, GovExec.com, NextGov.com, DefenseOne.com, Government Executive and USNI News.

Alexei Navalny’s Movement Reflects the Weakness of Russian Democracy
BYOLEG ZHURAVLEV KIRILL MEDVEDEV  
03.07.2021

Faced with protests for opposition leader Alexei Navalny’s release, the Russian left is torn over whether to join a movement which raises no general social demands. Navalny’s personalized clash with Putin highlights the present hollowness of Russian democracy.

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny in 2020. (Wikimedia Commons)

February 14 again saw large-scale protests sweep across Russia, after previous such demonstrations on January 23 and 31. The rallies were prompted by the arrest of poisoned dissident Alexei Navalny; he had been jailed upon returning to Russia, though his team was nonetheless able to release his exposé into Vladimir Putin’s palace on the southern coast. Neither the COVID-19 pandemic, nor the fact that the rallies were unauthorized, was able to prevent tens of thousands of people from taking to the streets to protest against Putin’s dictatorial regime.

These actions, in which disgust at the Putin elite’s usurpation of the country’s power and wealth mixed with anger at state violence, marked a new stage in protest mobilization in Russia. However, after numerous arrests of protesters, the organizers of the actions — the leaders of the Navalny movement — called for the suspension of demonstrations, insisting that we must “keep our powder dry,” ahead of September’s parliamentary elections.

The action on February 14 thus seems to have been the last, for now, with no further mass mobilizations in the immediate future. But with the politicization of Russian society intensifying, the Left has to provide a response of its own.
Leadership Vacuum?

The Russian Left has no shared strategy regarding the current protests, with the main divisions revolving around Navalny’s role in the movement. Some leftists believe that he is only a symbol of opposition, and thus participation in actions does not amount to backing Navalny as a politician. Various leftist organizations and figures, including the Russian Socialist Movement and Boris Kagarlitsky, call for participation in the mobilization in support of general democratic demands, while simultaneously agitating for their own agenda and seeking to make it hegemonic within an expanding and escalating movement.

Others argue that the Left should not participate in any way in protests that are supposedly completely controlled by Navalny; from this perspective, their involvement would turn the Left into mere extras as a right-wing leader stages his bid for power. The alternative is either to sit at home waiting for a new, more leftist protest or, as the leaders of the Left Front suggest, try to create a “third force” in the here and now in the form of a “left-patriotic platform,” as Sergei Udaltsov has suggested. All of these positions have both obvious and hidden flaws.Experience in other post-Soviet countries shows that democratic uprisings can themselves bring to power undemocratic regimes or ones that reproduce the very social and economic order the protesters opposed.

Whether we like it or not, Navalny is undoubtedly the leader of the protest. First, he is the main organizer of the rallies and the most famous opposition figure — the number one political prisoner in Russia, if not in the world. Second, he is obsessed with the president’s office — and doesn’t hide it. Navalny’s goal is not just to achieve the release of political prisoners and make the transition to a parliamentary republic, but to become president of Russia. Third, and most importantly, his symbolic, not programmatic role in the protest is paradoxically key to his success in asserting a — likely authoritarian — political leadership.

Some argue that those who protest are not interested in Navalny per se, but freedom and justice, and thus we should support Navalny in the common struggle for the democratic change we all need, whether right or left. But the opposite is true: precisely because the protest is not programmatically defined and remains ideologically vague, it can easily be appropriated by an authoritarian leader. Protest with a specific — even if it is transitional — program and collective leadership is much less easy prey for those who seek to capture the leading role than a shapeless movement that stands against authoritarianism in general.


Many leftists today warn against comparing the Russian situation with the Ukrainian Euromaidan movement — indeed, this experience is also a bogeyman the Kremlin likes to use in order to scare off potential protesters. They say ethnic nationalism is not popular in today’s Russia, there is no Ukrainian-style regional polarization, and the state is not so weak in Ukraine. In this line of argument, it would be mistaken to obsessively fear the fascistization of civil society, international neoliberal bondage, civil war, and authoritarianism. Those who make this case are right in many ways.

However, the Ukrainian experience does not only tell us about the grim results that a revolution like its own 2014 experience would produce. Rather, it should prompt us to consider why the oligarchic circles so easily “captured” the anti-oligarchic revolution. There is something sinister about the fact that in the wake of protests against the ex-president Viktor Yanukovych and his party, one of the founders of this very party, the oligarch Petro Poroshenko, came to power. This happened precisely because the protesters refused political self-determination in favor of maintaining the moral unity of the Maidan, because they did not notice the “big” politics and even their own “official” opposition leaders, preferring to focus on what was going on in the streets.

Experience in other post-Soviet countries, such as Kyrgyzstan and Armenia, as well as Middle Eastern countries, like Egypt, shows that democratic uprisings can themselves bring to power undemocratic regimes or ones that reproduce the very social and economic order the protesters opposed. The same can be expected in Russia.
Populism to Polarization

Such an experience of “stolen revolutions” makes our post-Soviet countries fit in line with the main global trends in protest. Post-Soviet protests have three things in common with their counterparts around the world: populism, the fight against the dictator, and unintended consequences of polarization. Many revolts in recent years, from Occupy Wall Street to the Russian “movement for fair elections,” on which basis Navalny built his rise, were populist, with political conflict looking like a confrontation between the “people” and the “authorities,” with each side being imputed class and ideological coordinates. The main target of populist protest becomes the removal of a dictator, for example, Putin, Lukashenko or Mubarak. At the same time, polarization is growing within society, in which a conflict over values comes to the fore and displaces the articulation of class interests.

In the post-Soviet context, these three factors are present in an exaggerated form. If in Western countries, theorists and practitioners of populism, especially on the Left, emphasize the creative process that combines various groups and formulates general demands, in Russia, populism does not follow this process, but instead precedes it. Post-Soviet Russia is a country characterized by the declassing of social groups, the atrophying of class consciousness, the vilification of everything “Soviet” and “ideologies” in general, the undermining of parliament, and the degradation of the party system. In this context, the conflict between the “people” and the “authorities” provides an easily accessible, elementary language of protest politics.The results are inevitable: the protest will be captured by elites, whose class and ideological interests, which have long remained in the shadows, will finally be revealed in the new political order.

When the struggle between different social groups’ interests is represented at the level of political parties and social movements and surrounded with discussions about what changes are needed, populism becomes a way to intensify this struggle by uniting different unprivileged groups into the “people” and combining different demands into a single agenda. But if social conflict in society is suppressed and not represented in politics, if there is no tradition of sharp political discussion on the future of the country and specific reforms, then what instead happens is that the authorities and the opposition fight for the right to speak on behalf of the “people” — without having to propose any project for the future. This battle of attrition can last a long time, but if it does not lead to a clear understanding of what exactly it is in fact being fought over — for what program and for what future — it may end up just replacing some people in high office with others, while leaving the situation in the economy, culture, politics as the same as before.

In the post-Soviet context, populist conflict and the fight against the dictator have a pronounced personalized character. Recently we saw an example of how even in the context of the oligarchization of party systems, democratic leaders can embody political parties and ideas. Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn each returned democratic-socialist politics to the public sphere in the United States and Britain, respectively.

Yet, in the Russian case, Navalny does not offer a coherent political program, simultaneously combining opposite rhetoric from the left-populist to the neoliberal. Like Putin, he offers himself, not an idea or program. Navalny’s strategy is to force Putin to recognize him as an equal adversary and drag him into a strategic game where their respective moves and countermoves will look like a struggle between political giants. Political ideas are, in all this, used as mere decoration adorns the stage on which the battle of good and evil, embodied in specific charismatic heroes, unfolds.


Devoid of program, class, and ideological content, the populist conflict can nonetheless lead to social polarization, following the same rules: with an emphasis on the conflict between abstract moral values ​​and leaders, not social interests. But the results are inevitable: the protest will be captured by elites, whose class and ideological interests, which have long remained in the shadows, will finally be revealed in the new political order.

Thus, the problem with Navalny is not only a matter of whether he really is a proponent of right-wing or neoliberal ideology. The problem is that the class and ideological “neutrality” of modern protests, paradoxically, it itself becomes part of their ideological appropriation and — more precisely — part of the mechanism by which these “neutral” uprisings are captured by far from neutral leaders and elites.
So, Should We Participate?

Thus, the position of unconditional support for the protests led by Alexei Navalny, as a supposedly general democratic protest, certainly has its weak sides. Yet even more problematic is the position that calls for nonparticipation, taking the same distance from the “regime” and “liberal protests.” Its arguments draw heavily on the traumatic experience of revolutions and coups over the last thirty years, ending with a neoliberal offensive and territorial disintegration — as in Russia in the early 1990s, as in the case of Maidan, or in various countries in the Middle East.

Alexei Navalny at a march in Moscow in October 2013. (Vladimir Varfolomeev / Flickr)

But we shouldn’t forget that the very real problems in post-Maidan Ukraine, which so worry Russians, are presented by the official Russian media in a hyperbolic and distorted form. All these factors have ultimately pushed a huge part of the pro-Soviet or simply conservative audience into outright political paralysis.

Meanwhile, the active part of society is immersed in the reality of arrests and repression, including many against people who think rather like we do on the Left. Those who take to the streets today (not all of whom consider themselves to be supporters of Navalny) do so under the threat of detention, imprisonment, fines, expulsion from institutions, and dismissal from work.

As a result, these people find themselves not only victims of the regime, but also the hostages of various media strategies. Navalny’s headquarters constantly work to personalize the protest, using his name for fear of losing symbolic control over it. Pro-government media do the same, in order to separate the “Navalnists” from the rest of the dissatisfied. This is also the effect of that part of the Left which insists that whatever the differences among protestors, they are all under the media (and seemingly political) control of Navalny’s team. On the one hand, this rhetoric fits perfectly the above-described consciousness, depoliticized by so many unsuccessful revolutions. Yet it also denies protesters’ subjectivity — a dubious position for socialists and communists to take.

How Should We Participate?

Cautioning against participation in the protest movement, many on the Left say: Navalny’s left-populist rhetoric conceals a neoliberal program, so why should we want to bring its implementation closer — and anyway, what we can put up against a leader with such resources? Indeed, in addition to his nationalist past and populist strategy, Navalny has a neoliberal agenda, which not so many people know about. Yes, the resources of the Russian left are now incomparable with Nalvany’s. However, in our opinion, by participating in the protest movement, the Left can become stronger — and partly thanks to the reality of Navalny’s neoliberal program.

Despite the personalist and populist nature of the current struggle between power and opposition, one of the latest trends in Russian protest politics is public attention to political programs that no one would have read or discussed ten years ago. After the publication of Navalny’s program, new “opposition” parties and candidates, including Kremlin spoilers Ksenia Sobchak and Zakhar Prilepin, began to acquire their own programs and even debate each other over programmatic differences. However, Navalny’s program is contradictory and not worked out, and, most importantly, it is made invisible by his other public activities: his exposure of corruption, journalistic investigations, and “Smart Voting.”

A rally in support of Alexei Navalny in Moscow, Russia, in 2017. (Vladimir Varfolomeev / Flickr)

Smart Voting recently demonstrated the success of Navalny’s populist strategy, but also exposed its limits. More people, getting involved in politics, followed Navalny’s call to vote in a way that hurt the ruling party. And this succeeded — the ruling party was losing votes. But at the same time, an increasingly politicized society was posed with a question: Why is the most important thing in life to stand against United Russia and Putin? If in my area a candidate from the ruling party did something good, and his opponents do not represent my interests, my worldview, my lifestyle, should I vote for them just because I prefer opposition to authority? It is obvious that the “fight against corruption” — the main point in Navalny’s program — will not solve all of Russia’s problems, from overcoming the economic crisis to building a real democracy.


While supporting the campaign for Navalny’s release and an investigation into his poisoning, the Left must argue with Navalny supporters, including ones abroad, about his program and articulate in these disputes his own program. This is an opportunity to mobilize those who have appeared on the public stage in recent years: leftist political scientists, sociologists, and economists of the new generation. This will make it possible to compensate for the temporary weakness of the Left in street mobilization, through competent analysis of the economy and society and the programmatic defense of the economic interests of the majority.

Thus, in debating Navalny’s program with him, exposing the ways it contradicts his rhetoric, and proposing its own steps to reform the economy and politics, the Left can become stronger. By participating in Navalny’s movement, we must light the fuse on the time bomb placed under him by his economic advisers. Navalny must be one of the opposition leaders, specializing in the fight against corruption, and not the Protest Leader of All the Russias. This strategy will not only allow the Left to become stronger. Our goal is not only to outplay Navalny, but also make politics a space for discussion about social interests, political programs, and the future of the country.

Then, “populism by default,” over-fixation on the removal of the dictator, and artificial social polarization will cease to determine the political struggle in our country. For we need to be doing what

Amnesty revokes Alexei Navalny’s ‘prisoner of conscience’ status

Rights group says Kremlin critic’s past comments qualify as ‘advocacy of hatred’

Wed, Feb 24, 2021

Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny in the Babuskinsky district court in Moscow on February 20th. Photoraph: Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP


Amnesty International no longer considers jailed Kremlin critic Alexei Navalny a “prisoner of conscience” due to past comments he made that qualify as advocacy of hatred, the group said.

Amnesty, however, still believes that Mr Navalny should be freed from jail, that he has committed no crime and that he is being persecuted for his campaigning and outspoken criticism of President Vladimir Putin and his government, it said.

The 44-year-old Russian opposition politician was flown to Germany last August to recover from a near-fatal poisoning in Siberia with what many western nations said was a nerve agent.

He was arrested on his return to Russia last month and sentenced to jail for parole violations he called trumped up. He is set to spend just over 2½ years behind bars. The West has demanded his release; Russia says that is meddling.

“Amnesty International took an internal decision to stop referring to . . . Navalny as a prisoner of conscience in relation to comments he made in the past,” the group said in a statement sent to Reuters on Wednesday.

Kremlin critic Navalny complains of sleep deprivation ‘torture’ in Russian jail

‘Everyone is watched’: Alexei Navalny shares news from prison

Bill Shipsey: Amnesty has not lost its way

“Some of these comments, which Navalny has not publicly denounced, reach the threshold of advocacy of hatred, and this is at odds with Amnesty’s definition of a prisoner of conscience,” it added.

Amnesty, which had named Mr Navalny a “prisoner of conscience” on January 17th after his arrest, did not specify which comments it was referring to and said it was not aware of similar pronouncements made by him in recent years.

In a later statement, Amnesty’s international acting secretary general Julie Verhaar, said: “The term ‘prisoner of conscience’ is a specific description based on a range of internal criteria established by Amnesty. There should be no confusion: nothing Navalny has said in the past justifies his current detention, which is purely politically motivated. Navalny has been arbitrarily detained for exercising his right to freedom of expression, and for this reason we continue to campaign for his immediate release.”

Criticisms

Mr Navalny, who has carved out a following campaigning against official corruption, has been criticised for past nationalist statements against illegal immigration and for attending an annual nationalist march several years ago.

In a 2007 video, he called for the deportation of migrants to prevent the rise of far-right violence. “We have a right to be [ethnic] Russians in Russia. And we’ll defend that right,” he said in the video.

Mr Navalny could not be reached for comment as he was in jail. His allies protested against the move by Amnesty on Twitter.

Alexander Golovach, a lawyer for Mr Navalny’s FBK anti-corruption group, said he was renouncing an earlier “prisoner of conscience” status that Amnesty gave him in 2018 to protest.

Ivan Zhdanov, a Navalny ally, said: “the procedure for assigning and revoking Amnesty International status has proven extremely shameful”. – Reuters