A very enlightening interview, as always. I have significant problems with the planned meeting, however, mostly because it is on American soil. I would vastly have preferred it held in a neutral country under joint security.
So, as an American, WHY would I want this meeting elsewhere. In a word, security. The US has two oceans on its borders. There is little fear of invasion - or attack - from these two directions. Any attack would be seen coming from a long ways away. But not so in Alaska. The threats to the mainland US would most likely be from air, missile, or ship, all of which are quite easily tracked by sophisticated radar. Alaska is not in that same situation.
The entire eastern side of Alaska is bordered by basically Canadian wilderness. To the west, across the straits, is Russia itself, as is the same at the end of the Aleutian chain. North of Alaska is the Arctic, international waters, and south of the Aleutians is international fishing grounds. No problem, right? Not really, not anymore.
The US has long been insulated from most methods of attack by its geography, thus, again, the previously mentioned methods of attack are what the US security has prepared for. But attacks with large plastic drones, capable of very long range flights, would be virtually invisible on the radar systems designed for the expected methods of attack. Thus the US locations in Alaska are NOT secure enough in my mind, and I doubt that the US will allow Putin to bring a Pantsir division with him for protection against drone attacks.
There are a number of "actors" that wouldn't mind seeing this summit end in a double assassination. Drones could be launched from the decks of fishing boats in international waters with adequate range to reach virtually any place likely to house the summit. Or they could be released from the deck of a cargo ship moving the region - a top mounted container with a remote control top could work just as well as the drone attacks against the Russian bomber fleet. Or they could be launched from vehicles inside the Canadian wilderness, just across the border.
You can start with Ukraine and Israel, and add the UK and the EU, along with others, that would not mind at all if both Putin and Trump no longer occupied the international stage. Will it happen? To me the chances are more than 1% thus they are already too great. I will not truly rest easily until Putin and Trump return to their own capitals. And I live too close to a likely target if they don't.
A very enlightening interview, as always. I have significant problems with the planned meeting, however, mostly because it is on American soil. I would vastly have preferred it held in a neutral country under joint security.
So, as an American, WHY would I want this meeting elsewhere. In a word, security. The US has two oceans on its borders. There is little fear of invasion - or attack - from these two directions. Any attack would be seen coming from a long ways away. But not so in Alaska. The threats to the mainland US would most likely be from air, missile, or ship, all of which are quite easily tracked by sophisticated radar. Alaska is not in that same situation.
The entire eastern side of Alaska is bordered by basically Canadian wilderness. To the west, across the straits, is Russia itself, as is the same at the end of the Aleutian chain. North of Alaska is the Arctic, international waters, and south of the Aleutians is international fishing grounds. No problem, right? Not really, not anymore.
The US has long been insulated from most methods of attack by its geography, thus, again, the previously mentioned methods of attack are what the US security has prepared for. But attacks with large plastic drones, capable of very long range flights, would be virtually invisible on the radar systems designed for the expected methods of attack. Thus the US locations in Alaska are NOT secure enough in my mind, and I doubt that the US will allow Putin to bring a Pantsir division with him for protection against drone attacks.
There are a number of "actors" that wouldn't mind seeing this summit end in a double assassination. Drones could be launched from the decks of fishing boats in international waters with adequate range to reach virtually any place likely to house the summit. Or they could be released from the deck of a cargo ship moving the region - a top mounted container with a remote control top could work just as well as the drone attacks against the Russian bomber fleet. Or they could be launched from vehicles inside the Canadian wilderness, just across the border.
You can start with Ukraine and Israel, and add the UK and the EU, along with others, that would not mind at all if both Putin and Trump no longer occupied the international stage. Will it happen? To me the chances are more than 1% thus they are already too great. I will not truly rest easily until Putin and Trump return to their own capitals. And I live too close to a likely target if they don't.