Group items tagged

The former Republican congressman and three-time presidential candidate Ron Paul has launched a scathing attack on what he calls a US-backed coup in Ukraine, insisting the Crimean people have the right to align their territory with Moscow and characterising sanctions against Russia as “an act of war”.He also said providing economic aid to Ukraine was comparable to giving support to rebels in Syria knowing it would end up in the hands of al-Qaida.The libertarian guru’s remarks in an interview with the Guardian are almost diametrically opposed to those of his son, the Republican presidential hopeful Rand Paul, who has called for stiff penalties against Russia and declared: “If I were president, I wouldn’t let [Russian president] Vladimir Putin get away with it.”Ron Paul, who retired from his Texas congressional seat in 2012, has always adopted a sceptical view of US foreign interventions. He said that although the US had not been involved in any military overthrow of the government in Kiev, it had facilitated a coup in the sense of “agitating” elements who wanted to usurp Ukraine’s former president, Victor Yanukovych.

“That is our how our country was started,” he said. “It was the right of self-determination, and voting, and asking and even fighting for it, and seceding. Of course libertarians were delighted with the secession of the various countries and units of government away from the Soviet Union, so yes, we want the people to make the decisions.”He added: “The people of Ukraine would probably have a loose-knit association, with a rather independent east and west, and an independent Crimea. It would work quite well.”

Moscow responds to the downing of a Su-24 bomber by a Turkish F-16 by deploying S-400 Air Defense Systems to Syria. Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Russia will use every available resource to ensure the safety of flights over Syria, while Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov assures that Moscow is not planning a war with Turkey. The geopolitical context.

Putin also commented on the protection of the Hmeimim Air Base in Syria, saying: “The S-300 air defense complex will be moved to our air base in Syria. I do hope that this and other measures that we will take will be enough to make flights safe. … I would like to say that we will take the most serious attitude to what has happened and all of our means will be employed for maintaining security.” Putin learned about the downing of the Su-24 during talks with Jordanian King Abdullah II. Putin described the incident as a stab in the back from a State sponsor of terrorism. Turkey, for its part, had called on NATO members to discuss the incident. NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg noted that Turkey had the right to defend itself. The incident was, however, rather downplayed by governments of most NATO member States. Historically, the shoot-down of a military jet is rarely a precursor of a war, even though sensationalized media reports could make one believe otherwise.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on the incident, saying that Russia had no plans to wage a war against Turkey. Lavrov stressed that: “Our attitude towards Turkish people has not changed. … We have questions only to the Turkish leadership.” Deescalating tensions caused by the incident is in fact also in Moscow’s interest, considering the Russian – Turkish “Turkish Stream” pipeline project. The pipeline can compensate for the loss of stability in Ukraine and counter Washington’s and London’s ambitions to throw a spanner into Russian – Continental European commerce and relations based on, among others, converging energy-security interests. The incident is, in other words, one match in ….. ……

Russia's president has said he is hoping for a peace deal between Ukraine and pro-Russian rebels by Friday. Vladimir Putin urged both sides to stop military action in eastern Ukraine, adding that his views and those of his Ukrainian counterpart were very close. Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko said they had agreed a "ceasefire process" but PM Arseny Yatsenyuk said no plan from Mr Putin should be trusted.

Insisting that Russia is in no way a negotiating party in the Ukrainian conflict, Vladimir Putin is nevertheless certain that it is Moscow's proposals that are going to advance both sides to peace. Mr Putin's plan is short and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Take, for example, a point on moving Ukrainian troops away from positions from which towns and cities can be shelled. Taken to an extreme, this could mean rewinding the situation on the ground to a point several weeks ago before Ukrainian advances. Just two weeks ago the discussions centred around when, and not if, the rebels would have to move out of Donetsk and Luhansk. But Moscow's plan will allow them to strengthen their control over the two regional centres and other areas.

Mr Putin has often seemed unwilling to negotiate from a position of weakness and the reversals of the past few days illustrate this perfectly. Now it's Petro Poroshenko who has to choose whether to accept something which clearly protects Kiev's enemies in eastern Ukraine.

Published here on February 22 2014: Ukraine: "From the spirits that I called - Sir, deliver me!" The opposition in the Ukraine and its paymasters in the U.S. and EU called up the spirits of the right, the fascist, to wage a coup against the elected president and to push their selfish objectives onto the Ukrainian public. Now those spirits won't go away ... Parts of the Ukraine will soon show signs of anarchy with those that protested and rioted without having any real aim moving towards criminal activities. The opposition, which is now empowered and will have to deliver results, will soon squabble and will again fall apart. The fascist forces, euphemistically called "nationalists" in "western" media, will win more power.

Those predictions have turned into reality and even those who arranged the coup against the legal government of Ukraine can no longer deny the dangers. On Tuesday a member of the imperialists Atlantic Council wrote in the Washington Post about a "new threat" to Ukraine which is not Russia but are "independently operating warlords and armed groups" [N]ow several of these units, especially those linked to oligarchs or the far right, are revealing a dark side. In recent months, they have threatened and kidnapped government officials, boasted that they will take power if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko fails to defeat Russia, and they served as armed muscle in illegal attempts to take over businesses or seize local governments. Yesterday thousand of fascists marched with torches (vid) in Kiev and other Ukrainian cities to remember the birth of the fascist mass murderer of Poles and Jews and Nazi collaborator Stephan Bandera. Those forces will not go away and they will drag Ukraine further to the right and further apart.

This spring and summer the fighting in east Ukraine will again flare up in earnest. The coup government in Kiev will likely falter and Ukrainian state will be declared bankrupt. The Washington Post OpEd is the first glimpse of realization of these dangers. More will follow. It will be a rude awakening and after much gnashing of teeth the apprentices will call for help

The United Socialist Party of Venezuela won at least 17 of the 23 governorships, also garnering 54 percent of the vote. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, cast doubt on the results of Venezuela's Regional Elections where candidates from the governing Socialist Party won a vast majority of seats, claiming the vote was not "free and fair." 

The United Socialist Party of Venezuela, or PSUV won at least 17 of the 23 governorships, also garnering 54 percent of the vote. The PSUV candidate for Bolivar state, where no official results have been declared yet, also claimed victory. Turnout was 61.14 percent in Sunday's polls, with ballots cast at 13,559 polling stations nationwide. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said it was the highest turnout in 15 years - more than 10 million people voted.

Prior to the vote, the U.S. State Department issued a statement questioning the "fairness of the electoral process" in Venezuela, and expressing "great concern that the regime will not permit the presence of independent international electoral observers." Over 1,300 national and international observers, including opposition appointed auditors, were on hand for the Oct. 15 vote. An audit of the vote will also be held, election officials confirmed Monday. The U.S.-backed opposition meanwhile, has stated they would not recognize the results that have been reported by the head of the National Electoral Council (CNE), Tibisay Lucena. "We do not recognize the results offered by Tibisay Lucena," said opposition coalition MUD campaign chief Gerardo Blyde. Blyde said the results are not reflective of those being tracked by his party. He also accused the electorate of misrepresenting the location of the polling stations in a bid to confuse voters.

Barack Obama’s decision to send a US guided missile destroyer into disputed waters off the Spratly islands in the South China Sea on Tuesday has provoked predictable outpourings of rage and veiled threats from Beijing – but nothing, yet, in the way of a military response. The worry now is that the confrontation will catch fire, escalate and spread. Both China, which claims the Spratlys as its own, and the US, which does not recognise Beijing’s sovereignty, have boxed themselves into a rhetorical and tactical corner. With the Pentagon insisting it will repeat and extend such naval patrols at will, and with the People’s Liberation Army Navy determined to stop them, it is feared a head-on collision cannot be far away. China’s heated response to Tuesday’s manoeuvre by the USS Lassen off the Spratlys’ Mischief and Subi reefs, where Beijing is controversially building military airstrips and lighthouses on reclaimed land, left it little wiggle room. The American warship had been tracked and warned off, officials said, adding that what it termed an illegal incursion was a “threat to national sovereignty” and a deliberate provocation that could backfire.

Anticipating the US move earlier this month, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said: “China will never allow any country to violate China’s territorial waters and airspace in the South China Sea.” If ever a government has publicly laid down a red line, this is it. And Obama just crossed it. Having personally failed to find a compromise in White House talks with Xi Jinping, China’s president, last month, Obama has upped the ante. As is also the case with Xi, it is now all but impossible to envisage an American climbdown without enormous loss of face and prestige. By deploying a powerful warship, by declining to inform China in advance, and by insisting the US is upholding the universal principle of free navigation in international waters and will do so again whenever and wherever it wishes, Obama has deliberately challenged Beijing to do its worst.

China is in dispute over other South China Sea islands and reefs with several countries that are all more or less at one with the US on the issue, including the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia. Renewed trouble could flare up in any of these places. One possibility is the Scarborough Shoal, claimed by Manila, where clashes have continued on and off since 2012. Another obvious pressure point is the Senkaku islands (Diaoyu in Chinese) in the East China Sea, claimed by both Japan and China. In 2013 Beijing upped the ante, unilaterally declaring an air exclusion, or identification, zone in the area, which the US promptly breached with B52 bombers. This dispute forms part of the background to the military buildup ordered by Japan’s hawkish prime minister, Shinzo Abe, who set a record £27bn defence budget this year. (China’s military budget is roughly £90bn; that of the US is about £378bn).

The ship Marianne of Gothenburg set sail Monday night on its journey to break the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip. It's journey will mark five years since the Israeli navy forcibly boarded the first Freedom Flotilla's ship Mavi Marmara, killing nine Turkish activists. Israel has announced it will not permit unauthorised ships to enter its territorial waters. Marianne will join additional ships to form the Freedom Flotilla III to perform a peaceful, nonviolent action to break the illegal and inhumane blockade of the Gaza Strip. In passing, Marianne will call at European ports for demonstrations and actions against Israel's blockade of Gaza. The ship is bringing a limited cargo of solar panels and medical equipment for the people of Gaza. The group Ship to Gaza stated that “In the blockaded Gaza Strip, where the infrastructure has been demolished, solar cells will thus provide an opportunity to independent local production of clean energy. The sun can not be blockaded.”

In addition to a crew of five people, Marianne will have up to eight delegates as passengers in each section of the route. The Freedom Flotilla’s first attempt to break the blockade ended in the deaths of nine Turkish activists after Israeli Navy commandos on May 31, 2010 boarded the Mavi Marmara. The United Nations declared that Israel used excessive force in stopping the ship, and a diplomatic crisis opened between Turkey and Israel which has yet to fully subside. A second attempt was turned back in October 2012. Without relating specifically to the Marianne of Gothenburg, Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nachshon told the Jerusalem Post that “if the so-called helpful Gaza flotillas were really interested in the welfare of the population in Gaza, they would send their aid via Israel. The fact that they insist on a flotilla demonstrates this is an unnecessary provocation.” Israel is clearly concerned about the possible ramifications of Freedom Flotilla III, however; the Foreign Ministry has appointed a point-person to coordinate policy on the matter between the foreign ministry, the prime minister’s office, and the defense ministry.

An article in yesterday's New York Times titled "US Pins Hope on Syrian Rebels with Loyalties All Over the Map" highlights the fact that President Obama's recently declared strategy against the Islamic State depends on empowering Syrian rebels to take control once the Islamic State is driven out. This plan leaves the US "dependent on a diverse group riven by infighting, with no shared leadership and with hard-line Islamists as its most effective fighters," the article observes, and proceeds to elaborate on the difficulties of working with the various groups and even knowing what their allegiances are.

The article concludes with a brief focus on one likely prospect: Some rebels appear ready to join the fight against ISIS [Islamic State]. A video posted online this week showed Jamal Maarouf, a rebel commander in northern Syria, addressing a gathering of hundreds of fighters. "God willing, we will fight two states: the state of Bashar al-Assad, the unjust tyrant, and the state of Baghdadi, the aggressor tyrant," he said, referring to the head of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. The only problem with this example of a possible US ally in the fight in Syria is that Maarouf has already stated that he has no problem with al Qaeda's Syrian branch, the Al Nusrah Front, and has admitted to sharing weapons with it. And this example of cooperation between "moderate" and radical Islamist groups is not an isolated one; see Threat Matrix report, Desperately seeking moderate Syrian rebels.

As we pointed out here at Threat Matrix back in April, Maarouf told an interviewer from The Independent: "It's clear that I'm not fighting against al-Qa'ida. This is a problem outside of Syria's border, so it's not our problem. I don't have a problem with anyone who fights against the regime inside Syria." Maarouf admits to fighting alongside Jabhat al-Nusra - one example being the offensive against Isis, whose brutal tactics were deemed too violent even for al-Qa'ida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. While Maarouf maintains that their military supplies are too few to share, he cites the battle of Yabroud, against the regime, as an example of how his group shared weapons with Jabhat al-Nusra. "If the people who support us tell us to send weapons to another group, we send them. They asked us a month ago to send weapons to Yabroud so we sent a lot of weapons there. When they asked us to do this, we do it."

Amid growing speculation about a Trump administration’s intentions regarding the Iran nuclear deal, a new poll has found that nearly two-thirds of the U.S. public opposes withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated 18 months ago between Iran and the P5+1. The poll, part of a much larger survey by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation (PPC) about public attitudes about the U.S. role in world affairs, was released Thursday to foster better informed debate about the issue in advance of Trump’s inauguration. It included 2,980 respondents and was conducted December 22-28.

Reaction split along predictably partisan lines. Nearly nine out of ten Democrats (86%) favored continuing the deal so long as Iran complies with it, while 40% of Republicans agreed with that position. Among self-described independents, 58% said the U.S. should stick with the deal. The poll was released just a day after 37 leading U.S. scientists—including Nobel laureates, nuclear experts, and former White House science advisers—sent an open letter to Trump in support of the deal. The deal provided a “strong bulwark against an Iranian nuclear-weapons program” and a “critical U.S. strategic asset,” the scientists wrote. It remains very unclear what Trump will do. He has often referred to the JCPOA as “disastrous.” Last March, he told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that his “number one priority is to dismantle [it].” In the same speech, however, he declared that, as president, he will ensure that the deal is “enforce[d] like you’ve never seen a contract enforced before…” At still other times, he has said the agreement should be renegotiated.

Chocolate baron Petro Poroshenko has claimed victory in Ukraine's presidential election, vowing to bring peace after months of turmoil and a pro-Russian insurgency that thwarted voting across much of the separatist east. The 48-year-old self-made billionaire, who exit polls said on Sunday had won almost 56 per cent of the vote, swiftly declared he would work to bring peace to Ukraine. "My first decisive step will be aimed at ending the war, ending chaos, and bringing peace to a united and free Ukraine," he said at a press conference in Kiev. "I am certain that our decisive actions will bring fairly quick results," he added. "The presidential election showed that Ukrainians have chosen the path of European integration," Poroshenko said.

The results put him far ahead of his nearest rival Yulia Tymoshenko, the former prime minister who spearheaded the 2004 pro-democracy Orange Revolution but then became embroiled in corruption scandals that saw her put behind bars by the old pro-Russian regime. If confirmed by election officials, the results will avoid the need for a June 15 runoff that would have extended political uncertainty at the most painful moment in Ukraine's 23-year-old post-Soviet history. Poroshenko vowed to pay his first trip outside the capital to the eastern industrial rust belt where pro-Moscow insurgents have proclaimed the creation of their own independent republic. Ukrainians had voted en masse in the capital Kiev and the west of the country but the insurgency thwarted voting across most of the separatist east.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, facing the threat of more US and EU sanctions, appeared to make a major concession on Friday by saying he was ready to work with the new Kiev team. "We understand that the people of Ukraine want their country to emerge from this crisis. We will treat their choice with respect," he said.

In the National Intelligence Estimate, Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities, produced in November 2007, the 16 US intelligence services expressed the consensus view that Iran hadn’t got an active nuclear weapons programme at that time.  That is still their view today.   As he revealed in his memoir Decision Points, instead of being pleased that Iran was almost certainly not developing nuclear weapons, President Bush was “angry” that his intelligence services had expressed this view.  He was “angry” because it cut the ground from under his efforts to gain international support for what he termed “dealing with Iran”, which clearly went beyond ensuring that it did not possess nuclear weapons.  The NIE had a big impact, he concluded – and not a good one.   His full comments on the NIE in Decision Points are as follows:

In November 2007, the intelligence community produced a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program. It confirmed that, as we suspected, Iran had operated a secret nuclear weapons program in defiance of its treaty obligations. It also reported that, in 2003, Iran had suspended its covert effort to design a warhead – considered by some to be the least challenging part of building a weapon.  Despite the fact that Iran was testing missiles that could be used as a delivery system and had announced its resumption of uranium enrichment, the NIE opened with an eye-popping declaration: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.”   The NIE’s conclusion was so stunning that I felt certain it would immediately leak to the press. As much as I disliked the idea, I decided to declassify the key findings so that we could shape the news stories with the facts. The backlash was immediate. Ahmadinejad hailed the NIE as “a great victory.”  Momentum for new sanctions faded among the Europeans, Russians, and Chinese. As New York Times journalist David Sanger rightly put it, “The new intelligence estimate relieved the international pressure on Iran – the same pressure that the document itself claimed had successfully forced the country to suspend its weapons ambitions.”   In January 2008, I took a trip to the Middle East, where I tried to reassure leaders that we remained committed to dealing with Iran. Israel and our Arab allies found themselves in a rare moment of unity. Both were deeply concerned about Iran and furious with the United States about the NIE. In Saudi Arabia, I met with King Abdullah and members of the Sudairi Seven, the influential full brothers of the late King Fahd.   “Your Majesty, may I begin the meeting?” I said. “I’m confident that every one of you believes that I wrote the NIE as a way of avoiding taking action against Iran.”

No one said a word. The Saudis were too polite to confirm their suspicion aloud.   “You have to understand our system,” I said. “The NIE was produced independently by our intelligence community. I am as angry about it as you are.”   The NIE didn’t just undermine diplomacy.  It also tied my hands on the military side. There were many reasons I was concerned about undertaking a military strike on Iran, including its uncertain effectiveness and the serious problems it would create for Iraq’s fragile young democracy. But after the NIE, how could I possibly explain using the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no active nuclear weapons program?   I don’t know why the NIE was written the way it was. I wondered if the intelligence community was trying so hard to avoid repeating its mistake on Iraq, that it had underestimated the threat from Iran.  I certainly hoped that intelligence analysts weren’t trying to influence policy. Whatever the explanation, the NIE had a big impact – and not a good one.

Senator Bernie Sanders announced legislation Wednesday that would break up the country’s largest financial institutions. It’s the third time he’s introduced such a measure, but this time around he wields the large microphone of a presidential candidate. The bill, titled the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act,” will also be introduced in the House by Representatives Brad Sherman and Alan Grayson. If passed, it would require regulators at the Financial Stability Oversight Council to come up with a list of too-big-to-fail institutions whose failure would threaten the economy. One year later, those banks would be broken up by the secretary of the Treasury. Sure to be included on that list, based on the standards outlined in the legislation, would be JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley.

It also unavoidably poses a test for Hillary Clinton, the other declared Democratic candidate. Much of the Draft Warren movement launched by progressive activists focused on the Massachusetts senator’s advocacy for combating the financial sector’s power generally, and breaking up the big banks in particular—and Clinton’s perceived weakness on that front.

Another likely Democratic candidate, former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, wrote an op-ed in The Des Moines Register in March that also called for the biggest financial institutions to be broken up. Elsewhere, Senators Sherrod Brown and David Vitter have introduced similar legislation in the past, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s Tom Hoenig also favors break-ups. Sanders and Sherman cited the danger posed to the economy by big banks, many of which are dramatically larger than they were before the 2008 financial crisis. JPMorgan Chase, for example, has increased its assets by $1.1 trillion since 2007. “In 2008 we learned that if Wall Street calls and says ‘bail us out or we’re going to take the economy down with us,’ that even if there is no statutory provision for bailouts, which there really isn’t today, Congress will pass as we did in 2008 a bill mandating the bailout,” said Sherman. “So ‘too big to fail’ means you will be bailed. That isn’t capitalism. That is socialism for the wealthy.”

VIENNA — In a move that could turn into the next blow to the EU after Britain’s exit vote, Austria’s highest court on Friday ordered a rerun of the country’s presidential election. The landmark decision gives a right-wing candidate the chance to turn his narrow defeat into victory. Unprecedented in Austria’s post-war history, the court ruling also appeared to be unique within the European Union and is looming large in the wake of Britain’s vote to leave the 28-nation bloc. The decision, announced by Constitutional Court chief judge Gerhart Holzinger, represents a victory for the right-wing Freedom Party, which had challenged the May 22 runoff on claims of widespread irregularities. It comes just a week before independent politician Alexander Van der Bellen was to be sworn in as president and 40 days after he was declared the winner of the vote.

But it also has wider implications. With Britain’s impending departure from the EU, a chance by Freedom Party candidate Norbert Hofer to turn his loss into a win would boost not only his party but also far-right and nationalist movements elsewhere in Europe who are all lobbying for a weaker EU or an outright exit from the bloc. Those parties had hailed Hofer’s strong showing in May as proof of a surge in anti-EU sentiment. Several wasted no time in responding to Friday’s court decision.

The U.N. Security Council (UNSC) will hold an emergency meeting on the Israeli plans to construct new settlements in East Jerusalem  on Wednesday. The meeting is in response to a request made by Jordan to Argentina's U.N. Ambassador Maria Cristina Perceval, who holds the UNSC's presidency this month. Jordan, the sole Arab nation on the council, cited Palestinian complaints about "the dangerously escalating tensions in Occupied East Jerusalem". Palestinians have protested against the plan of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to build some 1,000 new settlement homes for Israelis in East Jerusalem. The region is mostly populated by Arabs, and Palestinians seek to make it the capital of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Last week, U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-moon said that the settlement activity was illegal. “It runs totally counter to the pursuit of a two-state solution," said Ban according to the AFP news agency. The international community has also rejected Netanyahu's plans. Earlier in October, the European Union said that the settlements plan "represents a further highly detrimental step that undermines prospects for a two-state solution." Even the U.S., a strong ally of Israel, has said that the settlements damages Israel’s relations with its Arab allies. However, Netanyahu has rejected the critics and has confirmed that he will expedite the plans to build the settlements. "We will continue to build in Jerusalem, our eternal capital," he said on Tuesday. The Security Council is rarely able to reach any agreement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the U.S. is a permanent veto-wielding member and usually prevents any measures critical of Israel. Even with the recent tensions between Netanyahu and the White House, a joint declaration from the council is not expected.

Many US analysts still worry about Ankara not getting on board with Obama on fighting ISIS–as if relations are newly strained. The fact is, Ankara declared its foreign policy independence from the US a decade ago, in multiple areas. Turkey will never again play the role of “loyal US ally.” It has its own regional and global interests and will pursue them; Washington’s preferences will play only a modest role among the many factors influencing Turkish decision-making. Obama may help/persuade Erdoğan to back off from his reckless willingness to tolerate even the ISIS card to bring down Assad. But Erdoğan may well remain intractable on the Assad issue. That policy, among other things, has served to seriously damage Ankara’s relations with Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon. So we should not look forward to much cordial cooperation between Ankara and Washington except to the extent that Washington changes its policies on Palestine, Israel, Iran, and overall military intervention in the region. The two countries essentially do not share a common regional strategic outlook.