Ukraine is having problems with its ultra-nationalists. Hundreds of Right Sector members protest in Kiev. AP

Ultra-nationalist Right Sector members protesting in Kiev. Yahoo/AP.

Hundreds of far-right nationalist members of the Right Sector group in Ukraine are protesting against the government in Kiev. AP. The Right Sector was part of the original revolution and have been fighting against the pro-Russian rebels in the East. But their extremist views and actions have put them at odds with the government. The latest dust up comes after two right sector men were killed in an attack on local police in the Western city of Mukacheve. The rest of the men fled into the woods where they have been in a tense standoff with police since the shooting. The group has also been accused of taking civilians prisoners and torturing them. For their part, Right Sector is demanding that Petro Poroshenko be impeached and that militia groups should have their rights carry arms formally recognized. They also demand that the government declare martial law. 

My Comment:

I'll come out and say it. Right Sector are basically Nazis. That isn't Goodwin's law, that's just what their ideology most matches up with. They are more nationalist then fascist, but it is clear that they are very far to the right, even for someone like me. Unlike most nationalist/fascist/far right groups, their targets aren't immigrants or minorities. It's Russia and Russians.  

As a matter of fact, the influence of Right Sector and other Ukrainian nationalist groups, is what set off the rebellion in the East. They went out of their way to antagonize the Russian speaking Ukrainians in the East by banning their language and denigrating their culture. Ultra-nationalist groups also prevented any kind of federal settlement between the pro-Russian rebels and the government in Kiev. 

In short these are not good people. And it is amazing to me that there could be neo-Nazis in Ukraine of all places. The Nazis did terrible things to Ukraine (and Russia for that matter). If the Nazi's had won, there wouldn't be any Ukrainians left. It just boggles my mind that there would be anyone that would follow that ideology in Ukraine. It would be like finding a neo-Nazi party in Israel! 

Still, the influence the Right Sector, and other far right groups like the Azov battalion, can't be understated. They were at the front lines throughout the war with the rebels and might be responsible for keeping the rebels from an outright victory. They also are fairly powerful militarily, and could be a large threat.

There is even the possibility that the Right Sector could start a second rebellion against the Kiev government. It's clear they aren't happy with the way the government is acting and they have the troops and weapons. I don't think they quite have the numbers to take over the country, but they could do what the rebels in the east did and carve out their own territory. I don't think they would succeed because they wouldn't have the Russians backing them up, but they could cause a lot of chaos and death before they were defeated. 

I do have to say that I respect their views on gun rights. Not for the reasons that they do mind you, but right now I hope Ukranians civilians have access weapons. After all, if a bunch of neo-Nazis popped up in America and were organizing into large paramilitary organizations and had a major influence in the government, I'd want the rest of the people to have guns to fight them with.

I've said before that I have always  been uncomfortable with the United States working with the Ukrainians because of these far right groups. The fear is that our trainers haven't had their trainees properly vetted, and we could be training neo-Nazis by mistake. I don't know if that is happening, but if it is the case, it's one of the dumber moves the American government has ever pulled. Especially since the only reason we are in Ukraine in the first place is to giver the middle finger to Vladimir Putin... 

ISIS is blamed for a suicide bombing in Turkey. New York Times.

Turkish crime scene investigators examining the scene of the bombing. New York Times/European Pressphoto Agency. 

A suicide bombing in the town of Surac, Turkey, killed at least 30 people and wounded 100 more and is being blamed on ISIS. New York Times. Turkey's Prime Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, claimed that ISIS was behind the attack. If true, it will be the first time ISIS has attacked Turkey. The bombing comes after a crackdown on Islamic groups in Turkey and may be in retaliation for a string of arrests and the censorship of Jihaidi websites. Turkey is also considering taking a more active role in the war against ISIS, which could also cause retaliation. The bombing occurred at a rally between Kurds and Turks discussing the recent events at the Syrian border town of Kobani. 

My Comment:

I've checked a bit more into this and it sounds like the victims of the attack were far leftist socialists who were going to Kobani to help fix the city. And it also sounds like the suicide bomber was a woman or a man dressed as a woman. ISIS has also taken credit for the attack, so it seems like they are the ones that were responsible. 

This is a major escalation in the war against ISIS. Until now Turkey has been largely unharmed by the war in Syria. They had a major influx of refugees, of course, but until now almost all the killing has been across the border. 

I'm not sure this was a very good idea for ISIS. Whatever gains they get from killing the people that were trying to help Kobani, will be offset by the Turkish response to this. There is a real chance that Turkey could join U.S. airstrikes. If this attack is followed up by more attacks, they could even send in ground troops. There is also a very good chance the pipeline of recruits and supplies, that ISIS depends on, could be cut off. 

Until now Turkey has been a lukewarm partner in the war against ISIS. They have largely ignored the conflict against ISIS and have spent much more time supporting the rebels fighting against the Assad government of Turkey. When ISIS laid siege to Kobani, it took a very long time for Turkey to allow Iraqi Kurds to fight in the city. Turkey has always been more worried about the Kurds trying to gain independence then it has been for ISIS.

It also seems like ISIS is greatly expanding their ability to strike in other countries. ISIS has also struck in other countries where they had a small or non-existent presence in recently, such as in Kuwait and Afghanistan. It now seems that they are expanding throughout the middle east.  I am guessing that ISIS has a few cells operating in Turkey. They would have to, just for the logistical reasons. After all, ISIS recruits and supplies often cross into Syria via the Turkish border. But now it seems like they are going to have active terrorist operations. Given how close ISIS's base of operations is to Turkey it is surprising that it took this long for them to set something up.  

The question now is if this was just a one-off attack or the start of a new campaign in Turkey for ISIS militants. I'm guessing that this is just the beginning. Turkey is going to be brought into the Syrian civil war because of this. Perhaps now they will focus more on ISIS and less on the Assad regime. 

My thoughts on Donald Trump's presidential run...

Donald Trump at an event in Iowa. ABC News/AP.

As much as I hate to talk about the candidacy of Donald Trump, he is currently leading in the polls. In a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, Trump has 24% of the vote among registered Republicans and right leaning independents. His closest competitors, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush, have 13% and 12% with all other candidates in the single digits. 

So what on earth does this mean? I don't consider Trump to be a serious candidate, so I am very hesitant to talk about him. But it seems like he may very well make a decent run on the presidency. He's polling very well in such a crowded race and he is completely dominating the media coverage. 

What do I think of him? Well, I'll go into some pros and cons for supporting Trump. These are written based on my position as a libertarian leaning Republican. 

PROS:

-He isn't politically correct. He says whatever he wants and never apologizes if he offends someone. In spite of myself I have to say that is incredibly refreshing. Unlike Martin O'Malley, he would never apologize for saying something as innocuous as "all lives matter". I hate political correctness, so if there is anything positive about Trumps campaign it is this. I just wish everyone else would follow his lead and stop letting the authoritarian left get away with the hecklers veto. 

-He is talking about issues that nobody else is willing to talk about. Would immigration even be an issue if he hadn't brought it up? Neither party wants to talk about immigration. Both Democrats and Republicans want Latino votes and they also both have business owners who want more immigrants in the country. That guarantees that nothing will ever be done about the issue. At least with Trump there is a conversation, however low quality it may be. 

-He is very wealthy which should make him less dependent on fundraising from special interest groups. Trump should also be very hard to bribe. 

-Trump seems to be halfway decent at pissing off Democrats. He isn't the best "troll" candidate, that would still be Scott Walker, but he does seem to rub the powers that be the wrong way. Admittedly this isn't a positive thing for everyone that is reading this but I do like a good troll candidate. Half the fun of voting for Scott Walker when he was running for governor was knowing that I was making people mad by doing so. 

CONS:

-He has no foreign policy experience whatsoever. He doesn't have much in the way of political experience either, but given how crazy the world is right now, it probably isn't a good idea to vote for someone who has no idea how warfare works. 

-Trump seems to be telling people what they want to hear, and not want he can actually deliver on. His position on illegal immigration is wildly popular and not held by any other mainstream candidate. It's pure populism, and populism always makes me nervous. It's the same thing with Bernie Sanders, but instead of free college and other socialist programs, it's kicking out all the immigrants. Regardless what you think of those things as goals, how on earth is Trump (and Sanders for that matter) going to accomplish his goals with both parties in congress fighting him all the way? It's wishful thinking at best and a cynical attempt at appealing to nativism at worst. 

-I don't trust his Republican credentials. At the very least he is not a fan of gun rights and has supported gun control in the past. He stated back in 2000 in his book that he supported the "assault weapon" ban and wanted longer waiting periods for guns. That doesn't sound like someone who supports gun rights to me. 

-If he fails to get the nomination he may rip the party apart. I have heard rumors that he is considering running as an independent, and if that happens he will give the presidency to Hillary Clinton, unless the unthinkable happens and Bernie Sanders runs as an independent as well, splitting the Democratic vote. Even if that doesn't happen though, he is drawing attention away from candidates that stand a better chance at beating Clinton in the actual election. 

-There is a real chance of him turning the presidency into a reality show if he gets elected. He's a showman, not a politician. If he gets elected I suspect he would spend more time playing to the cameras then actually doing anything presidential.

-He was utterly wrong about John McCain not being a hero. As much as I disagree with McCain on political issues, he wartime service was exemplary. I really can't understand how anyone could say he wasn't a hero, unless they either were people completely opposed to the military or follow the old Japanese bushido code of never surrendering even if you are completely incapable of fighting. I mean what did Trump expect McCain to do after he crashed his plane and was drowning in a lake? Pull out a pistol and shoot himself in the head? McCain did the best he could to under the circumstances and if I had been in his position I would be proud of myself if I had conducted myself half as well as McCain did. 

UNKNOWNS:

-I, personally, have very little idea where Trump stands on the issues. For example, I am very concerned about the NSA surveillance scandal. I have a decent idea of where the candidates stand on the issue, but I have no idea where Trump stands. There are a few people in that post that I wasn't able to find anything on, but I at least had an idea of where they were likely to fall on. I have no such clues for Trump. He could go either way, and my guess is that he would go wherever the winds were blowing. And that's true for pretty much any issue as well. I have no idea if he identifies with the libertarian wing of the Republican party or the social conservatives or if he is even a neo-conservative. He's flip flopped on abortion, gun control, gay marriage, and tax rates for the wealthy.I think he just says what he thinks people want to hear. That's not just a problem with Trump, it's true for every candidate to some degree, but it seems especially bad from him. 

-I'm half convinced that there is some kind of conspiracy going on. It's no secret that Trump is friends with Bill and Hilary Clinton and he has given money to their foundation in the past. Though it is unlikely, it is possible that his entire candidacy is just a stupid plot to get Hilary Clinton elected. Admittedly, this is tinfoil hat territory here, but it almost seems like it is possible right? 

So to summarize, I kind of understand why Trump is popular. He is telling people what they want to hear and doing it in a way that says he won't kowtow to anyone. There's an obvious appeal there. But other then that I don't see much in the way of substance. And I don't think he is anywhere near popular enough to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. 

In my own personal rankings he is about as low as he can get. The only guy I like less in the Republican field is Chris Christie. Against the Democrats, I don't really see him being all that better then Clinton or O'Malley, but I do think Bernie Sanders is slightly ahead of him for me. I'm no fan of Sanders, but at least I can tell he has convictions and relatively consistent beliefs. I don't see myself voting for Trump unless it comes down to just him and Chris Christie. 

And, as always, it pays to analyze the populist candidate. So many times have the incompetent or the corrupt ridden a wave popular support, just by promising people what they wanted to hear. Our current president, a huge failure in my book, did the exact same thing back in 2008. We paid the price for that and we could again. Trump could very well be Obama 2.0 and I would really rather avoid that...

EDIT: I just had to photoshop the picture of Trump...

ISIS takes next step in developing effective chemical weapons. New York Times.

An 120mm mortar shell modified to carry chlorine. New York Times/Conflict Armament Research/Sahan Research.

ISIS has stepped up their efforts to develop chemical weapons and have deployed mortar rounds modified to carry chlorine. New York Times. In the past few weeks there have been three reports of chemical attacks by ISIS on Kurds in Iraq and Syria. ISIS has dabbled in chlorine attacks for quite sometime, but in the past they used suicide bombings and IED's. The ability to fire mortars is a large step up in their abilities. Near Mosul, ISIS launched one of their home made shells at Kurdish positions. The shell failed to explode allowing it to be recovered relatively intact, but it still sickened several Kurdish fighters. Amazingly, the shell failed to explode because someone forgot to put a fuse into it. In Syria, near Hasakah and Tel Brak, ISIS launched several mortar shells or small rockets filled with a re-purposed agricultural chemical phosphine. 

My Comment:

I've talked about how ISIS was using chemical weapons before. Back then, ISIS used a car bomb and loaded it up with chlorine gas. That attack wasn't all that effective but it did demonstrate that ISIS was trying to learn how to use chemical weapons. It was a disturbing development back then, but these new reports are even more worrying. They seem to have refined their techniques and tactics. 

This is a major step up in the capabilities of ISIS. Using mortar rounds like this greatly increases the danger to their enemies, especially since almost nobody in the Middle East has gas masks handy. The ability to hit their enemies from a distance without having to waste a suicide bomber is quite an advantage. And other then the Syrian government, nobody else in the region has much recent experience with chemical weapons. Iraq, of course, had large stockpiles of chemical weapons at one point, but most of their knowledge in how to combat them has been lost over time. 

ISIS will be able to use these chemical weapons as a way to effectively harass their enemies. And if the reports of ISIS having gas masks is true, they could even use these chemical weapons as another way, along with massive car bombings, to weaken defenses before an attack. In both cases, chemical weapons will have a larger psychological effect then explosives alone. Chemical weapons are terrifying, especially when you don't have any way to protect yourself against them. They can also be used as an area denial tactic because many of these chemicals linger for quite some time. 

It seems like ISIS is still trying to figure out how to make these weapons work properly though. In the Iraq attack, they didn't even remember to put a fuse into their shell, which is kind of a huge mistake. That alone shows me that they are learning through trial and error. In the Syria attacks, it seemed like their shells were too thick to be an effective chemical weapon. Of course, even a poorly designed chemical warhead is a major threat. Even though the warhead in Iraq didn't explode it still managed to sicken several people. It goes to show though, how dangerous these weapons could be once ISIS gets them to work properly. 

As time goes by, ISIS may very well refine their techniques. Once they do so, chemical weapons, even crude ones, will greatly change the way the war against ISIS will be fought. At the very least, people will have to start wearing gas masks. There will also be the temptation for other groups to use the same kinds of weapons against ISIS, leading to a lower tech arms race. No good can come from that.

Right now, the priority for the United States air campaign should be to find out who is making these shells and destroying them and any factory involved in making them. Right now, ISIS probably does not have all that many people that know how to manufacture these weapons. If they live they will train others and they will export that knowledge to other battlefields. It is even a possibility that they could use the techniques they are learning in terrorist attacks on western targets. If the U.S. were to kill these people, not only will they disrupt the chemical attacks, it is possible that ISIS will no longer have anyone left with the knowledge to make the things. If we wait too long though, the results could be devastating... 

Saudi Arabia breaks up major ISIS terror cell and arrests 400 people. AFP

The aftermath of a suicide bombing in Saudi Arabia committed by ISIS. Yahoo/AFP.

Saudi Arabia has broken up an ISIS terrorism ring and arrested at least 400 people. AFP. The Saudis claim the ISIS cells were planning new attacks on Shiite Muslim mosques as well as an attack on a diplomatic mission. The raids resulted in several deaths, including 37 security forces and civilians as well as 6 accused ISIS militants. 120 people were wounded in the operation as well. Of the 431 arrests, 97 were linked to an attack on a Mosque last December that killed 7 people. 190 more were involved in multiple attacks on Shiite Mosques and security forces. Despite the scale of the raids and the number of attacks carried out and foiled, the Interior Minster, Prince Mohammad Bin Nayef says the security situation in Saudi Arabia is under control. Saudi Arabia is deeply involved in the fight against ISIS in Syria.

My Comment:

It sounds like ISIS has a larger foothold in Saudi Arabia then I thought. Of course I knew that they had a presence there, but if these numbers are accurate, then they had several major cells active in the country. They obviously weren't to the point where they could take and hold territory, but the are able to commit some pretty horrific terror attacks.  

I supposes I should quickly mention that the Saudi justice system is pretty much a joke. They execute people for pretty much anything there and I don't know if I trust them to actually arrest people that are guilty of crimes. It is very possible that some innocent people got pulled into these arrests and it sounds like at the very least quite a few civilians were hurt or killed in this operation. I'm hoping that there aren't too many innocents caught in this dragnet but the Saudi justice system, such as it is, doesn't leave me with much confidence.

That being said, this is a major blow for ISIS in Saudi Arabia. The question now is if it is a deathblow. Losing about 400 people and having several major cells disrupted is a major setback, but it is possible for them to recover. For one thing, there may be other undiscovered cells operating in Saudi Arabia. Just because they disrupted a few of them doesn't mean that there aren't any more out there. And if recent history has taught us nothing, lone wolf style terror attacks can be pulled off by ISIS inspired terrorists with little or no help from the organization. 

There is also the fact that ISIS fighters can infiltrate into the country. ISIS has largely been pushed back from the Saudi border in Iraq, but they can still get fighters into the area. ISIS has been very successful with raids, with the recent attack on Kobani being a prime example. Still, their line of control is quite a ways away from the Saudi border, so perhaps the situation isn't quite comparable. That is assuming nothing changes though, Iraq's security forces have a recent history of collapsing at the worst times.

If Saudi Arabia did break up the main ISIS force in the country that should be a huge relief for them. After all they are fighting a bitter proxy war with Iran in Yemen. And there is always a chance, especially after the new deal with Iran, that the cold war with Iran could heat up into a very hot one. Should that happen, Saudi Arabia will be happy to know that their home front is secure. 

As for ISIS, I have to say I am impressed by their strategy here, even though it seems like it just completely fell apart. They know that Saudi Arabia is far too strong to take on militarily, even if they are distracted in Yemen. Their ground forces are strong and they have a huge air force with tons of deadly weapons at their disposal. Any major attack into Saudi territory with their more conventional forces would fail and fail quickly.

Clearly a frontal attack would not work. Instead ISIS went for a more insidious route. Though ISIS hardly needs an excuse to attack Shiite Muslims, doing so in Saudi Arabia has some pretty obvious advantages. The country has a large Shiite minority who don't always get along with the Saudi Kingdom. By attacking the Shiites, ISIS is showing them that the government can't always protect them. They are inciting prejudice as well, because very few people out there are willing to make the distinction between Sunni Muslims who hate you and want to kill you and the Sunni Muslims that barely tolerate you and rule over you with an iron fist. 

The idea is that sooner or later the Shia Muslims in Saudi Arabia will get fed up with being bombing targets and will revolt against the Kingdom. Then ISIS can sweep in in the chaos of yet another civil war and get a toehold in the country. Perhaps they could even threaten Mecca itself. 

Notably, this is the same goal that Iran has in Saudi Arabia as well. Their support of the Houthi rebels in Yemen has very little to do with Yemen itself, but it has a hell of a lot to do with inspiring Shiite Muslims in Saudi Arabia to revolt. One wonders who would benefit from an unstable Saudi Arabia more, Iran or ISIS?

Of course, if the terror cells have been broken up, the whole distinction is academic. Even if the plan would work, and there is no guarantee that it would, it can't happen if your whole organization is in prison awaiting decapitation. ISIS may rebuild to retry again, or activate other cells, but for now it seems the threat of a Shia revolt due to these terror attacks are slim to none.