allies

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has used his platform at the United Nations General Assembly to attack detractors and allies alike, and his presence sparked uproar in the chamber.

Speaking before the UNGA on Thursday, Netanyahu attacked New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, critics and Iran’s leadership, as well as allied countries like the United Kingdom and France.

Back home, the prime minister is locked in a tight race to stay in power ahead of an election on October 27, and analysts say his UNGA speech was aimed as much at people back home as it was at international viewers.

Dozens of envoys from around the world walked out as the speech began, some jeering and booing, while Netanyahu’s own team stood and applauded, and the speaker of the session shouted for order.

“If there are any other moral cowards who haven’t left this hall, please do so now,” Netanyahu said to those turning their backs on him.

He addressed the war that the US and Israel launched on Iran in February, saying: “Devastating Iran’s nuclear facilities was hard, was very hard to do.”

“But for me, it was one of the easiest decisions I’ve ever had to make as prime minister”, claiming that if he had not, “we’d all be dead”, he added.

In his own speech before the UNGA on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also addressed the nuclear issue and called out the “double standard”.

“The nuclear weapon is in Israel, but the inspectors are in Iran. Israel kills, but Iran is subject to sanctions,” Pezeshkian said.

Netanyahu on Thursday said that Israel was fighting a “seven-front war”, including Gaza, the occupied West Bank, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Yemen’s Houthis and militias in Iraq.

“We are going to win. We have no other choice,” Netanyahu declared, repeating the words of his older brother Yonatan Netanyahu, who was killed in 1976 during Operation Entebbe in Uganda.

Criticising allies

The United Kingdom and France, historic partners of Israel, were also in Netanyahu’s firing line. They have become increasingly outspoken in their criticism of the country’s actions and have both imposed limited sanctions on Israeli exports from the occupied West Bank.

“They accuse Israel, tiny Israel, of colonialism – some colonialism. And who’s accusing us? Among them are people in Britain and in France. For God’s sakes, they invented the term,” he said.

But Netanyahu thanked his “friend”, United States President Donald Trump.

“In this battle against the barbarians, we’ve had no greater partner than President Trump,” he said, as the US delegation joined the Israeli one in applauding Netanyahu’s remark.

“I thank him,” said Netanyahu, adding that Israel and the US had acted together as pilots from both countries “flew joint missions over the skies of Iran”.

Netanyahu said the US and Israel also “worked together to bring back our remaining hostages [from Gaza]”, as he defended Israeli actions in the enclave against charges of genocide.

“To all those spreading lies about my country, whether they sit in this hall or in the office of the anti-Semitic mayor of New York, I say this: shame on you,” Netanyahu said as he attacked Zohran Mamdani, who had previously said he would push for the arrest of the Israeli prime minister during his visit to the city.

“Mr Mamdani, you tried to stop me from coming here. You tried to silence me. Well, you can’t silence me,” Netanyahu said as he denied that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza.

Reacting to Netanyahu’s comments, Mamdani called the accusations against him “baseless lies” meant to “sanitise his genocide of Palestinians”.

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has faced repeated accusations of genocide in Gaza, as well as systematic war crimes in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

The Hague-based International Criminal Court (ICC) said in 2024 it had reasonable grounds to believe Netanyahu was responsible for war crimes in Gaza, where over 73,000 Palestinians have been killed. Netanyahu denies the ICC charges.

Netanyahu attended the UNGA meeting despite an ICC warrant calling for his arrest. While he was welcomed, the Trump administration denied a visa for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who addressed the UNGA through a prerecorded video statement from Ramallah earlier in the day.

‘War criminal’

As Netanyahu spoke, activists from US-based organisation Jewish Voice for Peace protested outside, accusing the United Nations of “playing host to a war criminal”.

“All across New York, Jews, Palestinians and people of conscience are rising up to demand an end to US support for the livestreamed horrors, rigged ceasefires and forever wars,” Sonya Meyerson-Knox, the group’s communications director, told Al Jazeera.

Meyerson-Knox said that “solidarity with Palestinian freedom has never been greater, and here in the US we are demanding with one voice to stop arming Israel”.

Adding to tensions, dozens of protesters, some brandishing “stop the genocide” banners, gathered near the UN. Several demonstrators were detained, including prominent actor Susan Sarandon.

Inside the UN, but addressing divisions back home in Israel, Netanyahu said: “Throughout this long war, our goal never wavers – to win with unwavering resolve … What unites us is so much stronger: our history, our values, our courage.”

Ariel Cohen, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Eurasia Center, said the Israeli prime minister delivered a “good speech” at the UNGA but that he did so in the “wrong forum”.

“That speech should be given at an election rally in Israel; this is who he’s communicating to,” Cohen told Al Jazeera. “He is making points that should be made to the Israeli audience for his political survival.”

Netanyahu is only making a whirlwind stop in New York before rushing back to Israel, where the election campaign is in full swing. He is not scheduled to meet any top US leaders.

WASHINGTON — The governor of a Japanese territory where the Pentagon is thinking about basing missiles capable of threatening China has a message for the United States: Not on my island.

“I firmly oppose the idea,” said Gov. Denny Tamaki, the governor of Okinawa, in an email to The Times.

Officials in other Asian countries are also signaling they don’t want them.

But Pentagon planners aren’t backing down after the Trump administration withdrew last year from a 33-year-old arms control treaty that barred U.S. land-based intermediate-range missiles in Asia.

Senior officials now say that putting hundreds of American missiles with nonnuclear warheads in Asia would quickly and cheaply shift the balance of power in the western Pacific back in the United States’ favor amid growing Pentagon concern that China’s expanding arsenal of missiles and other military capabilities threaten U.S. bases in the region and have emboldened Beijing to menace U.S. allies in Asia.

The missile plan is the centerpiece of a planned buildup of U.S. military power in Asia projected to consume tens of billions of dollars in the defense budget over the next decade, a major shift in Pentagon spending priorities away from the Middle East.

But it also highlights the complex relationship between the U.S and its Asian allies, many of whom feel increasingly threatened by China but are reluctant to back new U.S. military measures that might provoke Beijing, which has built the biggest navy in the world in the last decade.

Australia and the Philippines publicly ruled out hosting American missiles when the Trump administration first floated the idea last year. South Korea is also considered an unlikely location, current and former officials say.

In Japan, the decision on whether to allow U.S. missiles on its territory will be made by the central government in Tokyo. Gov. Tamaki said officials at the Pentagon and in Tokyo have told him there are no definite plans to put missiles on Okinawa. But Tamaki isn’t reassured.

With a Japanese mother and an American father who served with the Marines on Okinawa before abandoning the family, Tamaki personifies the complex relationship between the U.S. and its allies in Asia. He was elected two years ago after pledging to oppose expansion of the already-substantial U.S. military presence on the island.

More than half of the 50,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Japan are in Okinawa, most concentrated at a Marine base surrounded by residential areas in the largest city. Opposition to the 70-year-old U.S. military presence has sparked local protests for years, which would probably intensify if there were a move to base missiles there.

“If there is such a plan, I can easily imagine fierce opposition from Okinawa residents,” Tamaki said.

For the last year, the Pentagon has been testing several new types of short- and intermediate-range missiles — those with ranges up to 3,400 miles — including a ballistic missile that could be placed in Guam, a U.S. territory, and mobile missiles carried on trucks.

The first of the new weapons could be in operation within two years, though no decision has been announced about where they will be based. Similar missiles are now carried on U.S. warships and planes based in Asia, but there are no land-based systems.

U.S. officials say that many allies are privately supportive of the missile plan and may come around to permitting them on their territory but don’t want to provoke opposition from Beijing and their own public before decisions are on the table.

The U.S. has a defense treaty with Japan, as it does with South Korea, the Philippines and Australia. Taiwan is not a formal ally but has close, unofficial defense ties with Washington.

“We are very attentive to our allies’ concerns, and we recognized their political challenges,” said a senior defense official, who agreed to discuss Pentagon planning if he was not identified. “Everything that’s said in the media is not necessarily what’s said behind closed doors.”

To lessen the political opposition, the U.S. could rotate missile batteries in and out of locations around the region or place them in strategic locations without publicly disclosing it.

“It wouldn’t make much sense to announce plans now, which would stoke Chinese anger and possibly play into the domestic politics,” said Randy Schriver, who was a senior Pentagon official responsible for Asia until his resignation last year.

A decision to go ahead in Asia would intensify an arms race between the region’s two biggest powers whose relations — already tense over President Trump’s confrontational trade agenda and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s hawkish policies — have nosedived since the coronavirus outbreak.

“It’s naïve and dangerous,” said Alexandra Bell, a former Obama administration arms control official and a critic of deploying U.S. missiles. “Instead of looking at how we can prevent a full-out arms race, that’s our opening salvo?” added Bell, a senior policy director at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation in Washington.

Putting land-based missiles in Asia capable of attacking China is not a new strategy.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the U.S. kept them at bases across the region, including in Okinawa, where hundreds of nuclear-armed warheads were stored secretly for decades even though Japan’s constitution prohibited the presence of nuclear weapons on its territory.

The missiles were gradually taken out of service in the 1960s and 1970s, because of budget cuts and a shift in U.S. strategy away from defense of the region focused on nuclear weapons. In 1987, the Reagan administration signed an arms control treaty that prohibited the U.S. and the Soviet Union (and later Russia) from deploying any land-based intermediate range missiles, including in Asia.

China was not a signatory, leaving it free to build up its missile arsenal.

The Trump administration withdrew from the treaty last year after accusing Russia of developing new land-based missiles that violated its terms. The exit opened the way for the Pentagon to consider reintroducing ground-launched missiles in Asia.

With mobile missiles around the region, the U.S. could pose an even bigger challenge for China, forcing it to hunt for hundreds of launchers capable of targeting its planes, ships and bases, strategists say.

“Ground-based missiles aren’t some kind silver bullet,” said Eric Sayers, a former consultant to U.S. commanders in the Pacific and a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank. “But they are a way in the near term … to create dilemmas for the [People’s Liberation Army] planners.”

Although the risk of large-scale conflict with China seems low, tensions have continued to ratchet up over Beijing’s crackdown in Hong Kong, its military maneuvers near Taiwan, its border dispute with India and its offshore maritime claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea.

Nearly a quarter of world trade travels through the South China Sea, making the contest between Beijing and Washington over control of its maritime lanes and rich resources especially tense and certain to continue, no matter who wins the U.S. presidential election in November.

The U.S. Navy for decades dominated the “first island chain,” as strategists call the area of the western Pacific stretching from Japan to Taiwan to the Philippines that fell within America’s defense umbrella after World War II.

But American reliance on bases, warships and airfields in the region has become increasingly risky, officials and analysts say.

China has developed its own missiles, sophisticated radars and anti-satellite weapons as well as a growing fleet of warships and submarines in recent decades that could threaten American bases and other targets early in a conflict, said Collin Koh, a research fellow in Asian maritime security at the S. Rajatnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

China’s People’s Liberation Army can project significant firepower on U.S. and allied military installations in the western Pacific and “threaten to overwhelm” American forces “in times of armed conflict,” Koh said.

The Chinese weapons in many cases have ranges that exceed those on U.S. warships, though the U.S. retains a significant advantage in attack submarines and in advanced fighters and bombers armed with cruise missiles that can be fired from long distances.

“Their capability and their reach have created vulnerabilities for our legacy basing structure,” said the defense official, who agreed to discuss U.S. planning on condition that he not be identified.

Lisbon, Portugal, September 17, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Continental Resources, a firm owned by billionaire and Trump donor Harold Hamm, struck a deal on Wednesday to exploit one of Venezuela’s largest oilfields.

Under the agreement with Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA, Continental will receive a long-term concession with “100 percent working interest” for the 500 square-kilometer Ayacucho 2 block in Venezuela’s Orinoco Oil Belt. The block contains an estimated 30 billion barrels of extra-heavy crude.

“Continental was built to recognize great resource opportunities and have the conviction to pursue them,” Hamm told Fox News, vowing that the deal would take his company to an “entirely new level.”

For her part, Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez claimed that the agreement would “strengthen [Venezuelan] oil production” and “create opportunities for economic growth.”

Hamm and PDVSA Vice President Jovanny Martinez signed the contract in Houston on the sidelines of the G20 energy summit. Martínez and Oil Minister Paula Henao attended the conference to pitch investment opportunities in Venezuela’s oil and gas sector.

PDVSA had previously assigned the Ayacucho 2 block to Chinese private firm Anhui Guangda in 2025. However, no information on investments or output were publicly disclosed, while Venezuelan authorities have not justified rescinding the contract with Anhui.

US government-controlled corporation NABEP, which recently received long-term concessions to 17 major Venezuelan oilfields containing 65 billion barrels in reserves, will also take over projects formerly run by Chinese enterprises, including state-owned CNPC. Beijing has called for its investments and interests in Venezuela to be respected.

Hamm was one of the corporate executives present at the White House on January 9, when Trump announced that Washington would control Venezuela’s oil industry and called on Western majors to invest. Since the January 3 US attacks and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, the White House has managed the South American country’s crude export revenues.

The White House has also backed Venezuelan authorities’ pro-business overhaul of the energy sector while issuing sanctions exemptions to select US-aligned corporations. Chevron, Shell, and Eni are among the companies that have signed new contracts or renegotiated existing ones in recent months.

According to Bloomberg, ExxonMobil is in advanced talks to return to the Caribbean country after a litigious past. The energy giant is negotiating rights to four major oilfields in the Orinoco Oil Belt, two of which it previously owned before they were nationalized by former President Hugo Chávez.

In the 2000s, the Texas-based corporation refused to comply with reforms implemented to assert state sovereignty over the oil industry. ExxonMobil refused compensation offers and pursued international arbitration after its assets were nationalized. The company received an arbitration award significantly below its demands. 

ExxonMobil was additionally denounced repeatedly by Caracas after it spearheaded offshore drilling projects in the territorial waters of the disputed Essequibo Strip.

On Wednesday, Venezuelan authorities likewise inked a 20-year agreement with Florida-based Denarius Holding Group, controlled by Turkish energy group Çan2 Termik. Denarius is taking over the Petrokariña project in Anzoátegui state, which contains 10 oilfields producing a variety of crude types.

Heeney Capital receives gold mine concession

In parallel to its oil opening, Venezuelan authorities have also fast-tracked reforms opening the country’s mining sector to multinational corporations.

On Wednesday, New York-based Heeney Capital and commodities trader Mercuria Energy received a 30-year concession to operate the Chocó 10 mine in Bolívar State. The project holds considerable gold deposits and was run by Rusoro Mining in the 2000s before being nationalized by the Chávez government.

Heeney and Mercuria pledged US $1 billion in initial investment in the Chocó project. The two firms had struck a previous agreement with Caracas to purchase and trade Venezuelan minerals and other commodities.

One of Heeney’s co-founders, Sean Pi, signed the deal at the presidential palace in May and praised Trump’s “leadership” in defending US access to mining resources abroad. Pi has endorsed legislative initiatives deregulating and streamlining mining projects to bolster the US supply of critical minerals.

Under the trading agreement, Heeney and Mercuria are reportedly preparing to ship 15,000 metric tons of Venezuelan aluminum to the US. The corporate partners are likewise seeking to take over VENALUM, Venezuela’s biggest aluminum smelter. Glencore, an Anglo-Swiss mining and trading multinational, is also interested in VENALUM, according to reports.

Venezuelan authorities have not commented on the negotiations for the aluminum smelter. In April, Rodríguez appointed a commission to evaluate privatization of “non-strategic” state assets.

The Trump administration has identified securing access to Venezuelan mineral riches as a key national interest and is reportedly preparing an executive order to boost US corporate participation in Venezuelan mining projects.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

Warsaw also says it has scrambled military planes in response to a Russian attack in western Ukraine, close to its border.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk says that intelligence information suggests Russia plans to launch drone and missile attacks against countries supporting Ukraine.

Warsaw’s leader outlined the assessment during an address to parliament on Thursday, saying that the attacks will be meant to weaken NATO’s ability to act collectively in response.

“According to intelligence assessments, Russia’s plan … includes hybrid drone and missile strikes against countries supporting Ukraine, including Poland,” Tusk said.

European countries suspect Moscow of being behind a series of acts of sabotage in recent months to put pressure on the allies, especially Germany, helping Kyiv in its bid to resist Russia’s full-scale invasion – something the Kremlin has vigorously denied.

“These potential strikes would be quote-unquote ‘accidental’ in nature, intended to paralyse or at least weaken the resolve of NATO states to invoke the relevant NATO provisions in the event of aggression against a member country,” Tusk added.

He did not elaborate on which intelligence agencies had provided the warning.

He also said such attacks by Russia could coincide with “political changes in certain European countries granting power – or at least a powerful voice – to those who, increasingly invoking noble slogans of peace, pacifism and needless casualties, will call for peace – or rather, the total capitulation of Ukraine”.

Tusk appeared to be referring to the advance of more Russia-friendly parties such as Alternative for Germany (AfD) and National Rally in France.

Air raid near border with Poland

Earlier on Thursday, Poland said it had scrambled military planes in response to a Russian attack in western Ukraine, close to the Polish border.

Airports in Rzeszow and Lublin were temporarily closed, and residents of two eastern regions of Poland received air raid warnings. Local media reported that sirens had sounded and that pupils in some schools had sought shelter.

“Very close to the Polish border, not far from Dorohusk, a petrol station was most likely attacked again,” Tusk said.

On Sunday, a Russian drone hit a passenger train in Ukraine, just two kilometres (1.6 miles) from the Polish border.

Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said Poland was strengthening airspace protection.

“We have increased F-16 and helicopter activity, and are reinforcing our air defence and rapid response systems,” he wrote on X.

Tusk said he would visit Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Friday to discuss cooperation within the Integrated Anti-Ballistic Missile Coalition, a group of European countries developing an air defence system with Ukraine as a cheaper alternative to the US-built Patriot.

Senior U.S. Air Force leaders in Europe say NATO allies are increasingly looking to participate in the development and employment of collaborative combat aircraft (CCAs), even as several of those same countries pursue their own indigenous fighter and drone programs. American commanders say they are looking forward to CCAs expanding the alliance’s overall capacity, and are already pushing for such systems to work together from the outset.

Speaking yesterday at the Air & Space Forces Air, Space and Cyber Symposium that TWZ is attending, Lt. Gen. Jason T. Hinds, commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe, U.S. Air Forces Africa, and NATO’s Allied Air Command, and Chief Master Sgt. Joshua J. Wiener, USAFE-AFAFRICA’s command chief, discussed how the command is preparing for an eventual European role in the U.S. Air Force’s planned fleet of hundreds of CCAs.

The issue is particularly significant for USAFE, which operates a fraction of the fighter force it maintained in Europe during the Cold War, even as many of its NATO allies contend with shrinking fleets of crewed combat aircraft. This comes against a backdrop of deepening tensions with Russia and the emergence of new kinds of threats. Autonomous aircraft that can augment crewed fighters could provide the alliance with additional combat mass without requiring a corresponding increase in the number of crewed aircraft and personnel permanently based in Europe.

“I’m excited about what CCAs have in store for the Air Force,” Hinds said, pointing to recent comments from the Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink, including the aim of having at least 500 CCAs in service by 2032.

He added that European interest in these kinds of platforms is already growing.

“I think you’re going to see a lot more interest from other nations inside Europe about what is America doing with CCAs and how they can join this party, if you will,” Hinds said.

Germany is “heavily involved,” he said, while Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands are also showing interest.

In the case of Germany, we have previously explored how that country is looking to procure CCAs by 2029. Sweden, too, recently unveiled a concept for a high-end, stealthy CCA-type drone, while the Dutch are looking to become more closely alligned with U.S. Air Force CCA efforts.

USAFE is currently using two broad operational scenarios to explain to allies how CCAs could fit into NATO’s force structure.

The first is defensive. A CCA could operate as part of an integrated air and missile defense network, potentially engaging one-way attack drones or cruise missiles without the need for expensive crewed fighters.

The second is offensive. In that scenario, autonomous aircraft could help suppress or destroy integrated air defense systems and potentially attack fielded forces during an effort to repel a hostile incursion into NATO territory.

Allies are interested in both missions, Hinds said, and want the ability to incorporate CCAs into their own force designs. Interestingly, only yesterday, Anduril shared photos of its YFQ-44A Fury configured with air-to-ground weapons, underscoring the fact that the CCA could take on an air-to-ground role in the future in addition to its current air-to-air focus.

That kind of interest has already prompted work at the NATO level. Hinds pointed to a study by the Joint Air Power Competence Center, the alliance’s airpower think tank based in Kalkar, Germany, examining how NATO members could employ CCAs in a modular fashion, including issues such as sustainment, training, and exercises.

“It was a pretty long paper, but the nations wanted it,” Hinds said.

Initial experimentation is expected to take place in the United States, but European experimentation could follow, including by Sweden and potentially other NATO members.

At the same time, European countries are not simply waiting for an American CCA to arrive.

The United Kingdom has launched its own Storm Fighter CCA program. Germany is pursuing a separate loyal-wingman effort, while the United Kingdom, Italy, and Japan are meanwhile jointly embarked on the Global Combat Air Program, or GCAP, which is intended to produce the Tempest next-generation crewed fighter and associated uncrewed systems.

The proliferation of national programs raises an obvious question: How does NATO prevent a growing fleet of autonomous aircraft from becoming a collection of incompatible national systems?

Hinds said the answer starts with commonality.

“The first and foremost thing is we want to strive for commonality,” he said. “Commonality means we don’t even have to worry about interoperability.”

Where common equipment is not possible, however, USAFE wants interoperability built into national systems from the beginning.

“Interoperability by design” is the preferred approach, Hinds said, with NATO data standards and other requirements incorporated before a system enters service rather than retrofitted later.

The good news for USAFE is that NATO already has extensive experience establishing common standards for interoperability, covering everything from tactics and procedures to communications, datalinks, weapons employment, and other technologies. That existing framework gives the alliance a foundation for integrating increasingly diverse national systems without requiring every member to field identical equipment.

Hinds did warn that some countries have previously acquired equipment that was not compatible with NATO systems, leaving them with the choice of paying to modify their own equipment or forcing the alliance to adapt its systems around it.

That problem becomes particularly important as autonomous aircraft are connected to increasingly complex sensor and weapons networks. Even more important is the requirement for a baseline command-and-control network for CCAs themselves, allowing different platforms to manage them seamlessly.

The ability to share and control CCAs across a complex battlespace is already emerging as both a major opportunity and a significant integration challenge. The U.S. Air Force and Navy, for example, have made clear that their respective CCAs are being developed with the ability to be controlled seamlessly across services, pointing toward a future in which autonomous aircraft need not remain tied to the service or platform that launched them.

Hinds described a potential kill chain in which an F-35 detects a target, passes the information to another node in the network, and a ground-based system operated by another NATO country ultimately launches the weapon.

In such an architecture, the aircraft, sensor, command-and-control network, and weapon do not necessarily have to belong to the same country.

As an example, Dutch F-35s, operating in Europe, have used a data-exchange system to transmit targeting coordinates to Israeli-made PULS (Precise and Universal Launch System) rocket artillery. The system, developed by Lockheed Martin is known as Keystone, and you can read more about it here.

USAFE is making “significant advances” in areas including cross-servicing, cross-loading, and cross-flying allied aircraft, Hinds said, all of which are intended to make multinational operations more seamless.

The same philosophy applies to weapons.

“We want to have all the fires, right? Whether it’s U.S. built or built inside European nations,” Hinds said.

That could prove increasingly important as European countries expand domestic production of missiles, drones, and other weapons alongside their aircraft programs.

The growth of GCAP and other European defense programs comes amid broader debate over how much Europe should depend on U.S. military equipment.

But Hinds rejected the idea that allies developing indigenous aircraft and autonomous systems necessarily signals a move away from American equipment.

“No, I don’t,” he said when asked whether allies were moving away from U.S. systems.

Instead, Hinds characterized the trend as an expansion of the transatlantic defense-industrial base.

Sweden was one example he cited. The country, which recently joined NATO, continues to produce new military equipment, including Gripen fighters, while those aircraft are already being operated by NATO members.

Swedish Gripens are currently leased to Hungary, and other countries are considering the aircraft, Hinds said.

The broader trend toward co-manufacturing and co-production is also something he welcomed.

“I’m seeing a lot of discussions about co-manufacturing and co-production, and I welcome those discussions as well,” Hinds said.

That approach could become increasingly important as NATO tries to expand its available combat power without relying exclusively on additional U.S.-built platforms.

For USAFE, the objective is to ensure that whatever aircraft NATO countries develop or purchase can plug into a common architecture, sharing data, receiving targeting information, drawing on common logistics networks, and contributing weapons effects across national boundaries.

For a U.S. Air Force command that has spent decades trying to cover Europe with far fewer fighters than it once had, hundreds of autonomous wingmen, whether American-built or allied, could provide a significant way to generate additional combat mass.

Senior U.S. Air Force officials are now working to ensure that the networking, weapons integration, logistics, and command-and-control architecture will be in place once those aircraft start to come online.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

MOSCOW: Russia said on Friday it would aim its nuclear warheads at Lithuania if the Baltic state hosted any weapons from the nuclear arsenals of its NATO allies on its territory.

Lithuania is moving to lift a constitutional ban on having nuclear weapons stored in the country, part of an effort to boost its security posture amid Russia’s offensive on Ukraine.

The decision is currently working its way through parliament — where it needs a two-thirds majority to pass and has the support of the president and major parties — and could come into force this winter.

It would be “a very serious turn in terms of escalating tensions”, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told state TV when asked about the plan.

“If there are nuclear weapons on the territory that are aimed at us, accordingly, the territory of that country will fall into the crosshairs of our own nuclear weapons,” he said.

Lithuania’s President Gitanas Nauseda had announced the plans in July, saying his country wanted to be an “integral part of this nuclear deterrence”.

SACRAMENTO — Assembly Speaker Herb J. Wesson Jr. has awarded nearly $350,000 in consulting contracts to half a dozen political allies, including Los Angeles City Council candidate Martin Ludlow and Councilman-elect Tony Cardenas.

The contracts, several of them for more than $8,000 a month, call for contractors to give Wesson advice on such issues as education, the state budget, the agricultural industry and outreach to local elected officials in Southern California.

Wesson issued the contracts unilaterally, without legislative review, and is the only overseer of their performance. The money comes from the Assembly’s overall $114-million budget.

Other contractors include Pasadena City Councilman Chris Holden and former Assemblyman Mike Briggs, a Republican from Fresno who broke with his party to cast a critical vote on the budget last year.

Wesson (D-Culver City) defended the contracts. They were obtained through a public records request.

“The speaker is empowered to bring people on to do the things he thinks need to be done,” Wesson said. “I’m big on people that can help me connect with other people.”

All told, Wesson extended several contracts begun by his predecessor, entered into at least two very small contracts and made six new consulting deals of more than $2,300 each.

In addition to Ludlow, Cardenas, Holden and Briggs, Alice Huffman, a former lobbyist for the California Teachers Assn., and Virginia Strom-Martin, a former assemblywoman, made agreements with Wesson to perform consulting work for him and the Assembly. Each of their deals is different, of varying lengths and amounts, ranging from $5,000 a month for Holden and Huffman to $8,470 a month for Ludlow.

‘Budget Dust’

The contracts were issued as the state wrestles to bring its multibillion-dollar budget shortfall under control.

Tim Hodson, executive director of the Center for California Studies at Cal State Sacramento, called the money involved in Wesson’s contracts “budget dust” compared to the state’s overall shortfall, which has been estimated at $35 billion between now and June 30, 2004. Still, Hodson said the contracts would fuel public skepticism about government leaders and decisions.

“People look at it as a symbol and say, ‘That’s why we don’t like government, that’s why we’re not sure there’s a budget deficit, that’s why the Republicans are right and you shouldn’t raise taxes because the money all goes to people like Mike Briggs,’ ” he said.

Assemblyman Tony Strickland (R-Moorpark) said giving out the contracts was within Wesson’s prerogative as speaker. But Strickland added: “It’s not the Legislature’s money. It’s the people’s money.”

The speaker described several of the contractors as friends. Most of them are Democrats and all but two have held political office. Many also stand to help him after his Assembly career ends due to term limits next year. Associates of Wesson have said he has expressed interest in replacing Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, his former boss, on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in the event that Burke does not seek reelection.

Wesson refused to describe the work contractors have done for him in great detail, saying: “A lot of what I get from them I would not and should not share.”

But generally, Wesson said, the contractors have arranged symposiums, appeared at functions for him and offered advice.

Chris Holden, for instance, organized a budget briefing with city managers and is arranging a round table on affordable housing and a symposium on youth activism, Wesson said. Holden is the son of Los Angeles Councilman Nate Holden, for whom Wesson once worked as chief deputy. Wesson hired Chris Holden in March 2002, shortly after he became speaker of the 80-member Assembly, for a contract that is to expire at the end of June and not exceed $77,500. The pay is $5,000 per month.

Wesson said he and Chris Holden are “very close because of the relationship I have with his father.”

“I wanted to take advantage of Chris’ relationships with cities throughout the state and in some respects throughout the nation,” Wesson added.

Holden could not be reached for comment.

Ludlow, who was on contract until early March, said he was consulting for the speaker’s Los Angeles office, performing many of the same functions he did as Wesson’s deputy chief of staff. He left that post in August.

“I spent numerous hours working on briefings, working with the district director and legislative people,” said Ludlow, who is running for the 10th Council District seat. “Whether it’s day or night, his staff engaged with me on a daily basis.”

Wesson added: “You couldn’t find a better, more energetic person than Martin. He’s one of the best organizers in the state.”

Former Legislators

Wesson hired three ex-lawmakers as consultants, including Briggs, who cast a key vote on last year’s budget.

Wesson employed Briggs as a consultant on agricultural and horse racing issues at $8,250 a month. Briggs’ contract expired April 1 but will be extended indefinitely, said Wesson spokeswoman Patricia Soto. Briggs was not available for comment

When he represented Fresno in the Assembly, Briggs was one of four Republicans to join Democrats in voting for a budget in 2001 and 2002. He left the Assembly to run for Congress but lost in the March 2002 primary.

Wesson said Briggs’ contract has no connection to his budget votes. He called Briggs a friend with useful contacts in the farm and racing industries.

“And he has four children,” Wesson said. Asked what that has to do with Briggs’ consulting work, Wesson said, “I do the best I can to be fair and help people.”

In December, Wesson also hired Cardenas, a former San Fernando Valley Democratic assemblyman, as a consultant at $7,850 a month. Wesson said Cardenas, a former budget committee head, has been advising him on budget and Los Angeles issues. Cardenas was recently elected to the Los Angeles City Council.

Asked what he does to earn the consulting fees, Cardenas said, “I’ve spoken to [Wesson], I’ve spoken to his staff, I’ve met with people in the building…. I’ve been available to him morning, noon and night.

“I don’t necessarily keep track of hours,” Cardenas said. On Tuesday, Wesson extended his contract for another month. Cardenas takes his council seat July 1.

In December, Wesson also hired Strom-Martin, a Democrat who termed out of her North Coast Assembly district last year, for $8,250 a month. Soto said she advised on “matters of education and fisheries.”

Strom-Martin’s contract ended Feb. 5 when Wesson promoted her to a $114,000-a-year job on the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

Huffman, president of the California National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, runs her own public relations firm and has received $5,000 a month from her Assembly contract since March 2002. She “would be a coup on anybody’s … staff,” Wesson said. Her contract is due to expire in June.

In addition to those people who now work as contractors, Wesson put another former legislator on the Assembly’s permanent, regular payroll. Sally Havice, a Cerritos Democrat ousted from the Assembly by term limits last year, now earns $99,000 a year as a permanent consultant to the Education Committee. Havice’s vote in favor of a bill to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases was key to its passage last year.

*

Times staff writers Peter Y. Hong and Jeffrey L. Rabin contributed to this report.