Group items tagged

Businesses in Kyrgyzstan are now compelled to comply with the common quality requirements, but for the main export product of Kyrgyzstan – migrant workers – the “golden age” has officially begun. Migrants will now be freed from passing examinations and acquiring labor patents in Russia, it will no longer be necessary for them to register locally within a month after crossing the border with Russia. Kyrgyz citizens can go to work to Russia while having only the internal Kyrgyz passport and the only demand they have to fulfill it to sign an employment contract, as do citizens of other EAEC members states – Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia. Their family members will be eligible to apply for social security in Russia, enjoying the benefits of free medicine and education.

Recently Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan have opened the customs border which marked Kyrgyzstan’s acquiring of the status of a full member of the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC). Since out of all the countries of the Community Kyrgyzstan has a common border only with Kazakhstan, customs posts were dismantled at eight checkpoints of the Kyrgyz-Kazakh border, while all the external border posts of Kyrgyzstan were modernized on the funds allocated by Russia and Kazakhstan (300 million dollars) . Now the Kyrgyz Republic is using the common customs tariffs and product requirements established by the technical regulations of the Community.

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU or EEU)[note 1] is an economic union of states located primarily in northern Eurasia. A treaty aiming for the establishment of the EEU was signed on 29 May 2014 by the leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia, and came into force on 1 January 2015.[7] Treaties aiming for Armenia's and Kyrgyzstan's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union were signed on 9 October 2014 and 23 December, respectively. Armenia's accession treaty came into force on 2 January 2015.[8] Kyrgyzstan's accession treaty came into effect on 6 August 2015.[9][10] It participated in the EEU from the day of its establishment as an acceding state.[11][12] In 1994, the President of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, first suggested the idea of creating a "Eurasian Union"[13][14] during a speech at Moscow State University. Numerous treaties were subsequently signed to establish the trading bloc gradually. Many politicians, philosophers and political scientists have since called for further integration towards a political, military and cultural union.[15][16] However modern-day Kazakhstan has insisted the union stay purely economic as it seeks to keep its independence and sovereignty intact.[17][18][19] In spite of that, two EAEU member states—Belarus and Russia—form a political union: the Union State; and all EAEU member states participate in the Collective Security Treaty Organization, an intergovernmental mutual defense alliance.

The Eurasian Economic Union has an integrated single market of 183 million people and a gross domestic product of over 4 trillion U.S. dollars (PPP).[20] The EEU introduces the free movement of goods, capital, services and people and provides for common transport, agriculture and energy policies, with provisions for a single currency and greater integration in the future.[21][22][23] The union operates through supranational and intergovernmental institutions. The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council is the "Supreme Body" of the Union, consisting of the Heads of the Member States. The other supranational institutions are the Eurasian Commission (the executive body), the Eurasian Intergovernmental Council (consisting of the Prime Ministers of member states) and the Court of the EEU (the judicial body).

Russian Air Force jets have flown over 60 sorties since the onset of the Russian campaign against ISIL in Syria on Wednesday. The campaign has dislodged ISIL and al-Qaeda associated terrorist brigades. Kyrgyz President Almazbek Atambayev expressed his support for Russia. French President Francois Hollande accused Russia of having become a conflicting party due to its support of Syrian President Al-Assad. The Russian initiative is consistent with countering long-term NATO plans aimed at destabilizing the Russian Federation’s underbelly. 

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015, Russia began launching air strikes against ISIL targets in Syria. As of Saturday, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that there had been flown over 60 sorties, bombing 50 facilities of the Islamic State. Col Gen Andrey Kartapolov of the General Staff told reporters on Saturday that: “The aircraft have been taking off from the Hmeimim air base, targeting the whole Syria. … In the past three days we have managed to disrupt the terrorists’ infrastructure and to substantially degrade their combat capabilities. … Intelligence reports say that militants are leaving the areas under their control. … There is panic and desertion among their ranks. … Nearly 600 mercenaries have abandoned their positions and are making attempts to get out to Europe.” The President of fellow CSTO member Kyrgyzstan, Almazbek Atambayev, told the press on Sunday, that members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) should primarily think about protecting their own borders. President Almazbek Atambayev did, however, express his support for Moscow’s air strikes, stressing that the so-called Islamic State, a.k.a. ISIL, ISIS or Daesh had declared its ambition to control large territories. He added that:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, for his part, would note that when someone behaves, moves and acts like a terrorist it is probably a terrorist. A diplomatic way of telling the press that Moscow does not see a great difference between ISIL and e.g. the Al-Qaeda associated Jabhat Al-Nusrah. Iraq, Iran, Syria and Russia have established a joint intelligence center in the Iraqi capital Baghdad. Moscow has previously hinted that Russia was prepared to look positively at a request for help from the Iraqi government. Alexander Mezyaev is the Head of the Chair of the Academy on International Law and Governance in Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia explained the Russian and international legal background for Russia’s military operations in an article entitled “Russian Operation in Syria: International Law”.

The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council convenes in the Russian capital Moscow on Tuesday, December 23. The summit will be the final meeting before the formal establishment of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) on January 1, 2015 and the expected accession of Armenia and Kyrgyzstan on respectively January 2, and May 15, 2015.  The Council convenes in Moscow to add the finishing touches before the formal establishment of the EEU, which constitutes a customs, trade and consumer potential of more than 170 million people. The EEU is the largest economic union in the post-Soviet era, reports the Russian news agency Tass.

The news agency quoted the spokesman of Russian President Vladimir Putin, Yury Ushakov, as saying that the EEU is guided by the principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and that it will afford the free movement of goods, services, capital as well as labor force within the Union. The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council is, thus far, constituted by the heads of State of  Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. It is expected that the three heads of State also will make announcements pertaining the finalization of the procedures for the membership of Armenia as constituent of the EEU. Armenia is expected to join the EEU on January 2, 2015. Moreover, Kyrgyzstan is expected to join the Union on May 15, 2015 after the ratification of additional protocols.

A decision on the presidency over the EEU is also expected to be announced after the Council’s meeting on Tuesday. The presidency over the EEU will circulate in alphabetical order, said Ushakov. Another item on the agenda of the Council will be discussions on issues pertaining the cooperation between the EEU, its constituents, and foreign partners. In particular, are mentioned Egypt, India, Israel and Vietnam. Ushakov added that there also exist plans for the signing of cooperation memorandums with the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) as well as with the Latin American MERCOSUR.

Russia's External Intelligence Service (SVR) warned Kremlin that the US is using the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorist group to create a new front against Russia in the Central Asia. "The SVR has warned Kremlin in a report that the US is seeking to lead the ISIL forces in the Caucasus and the Central Asia to create a new front against Russia in the Central Asia in future to implement their plots and policies in the Middle-East," an informed source, who is close to Kremlin officials and asked to remain unnamed due to the sensitivity of his information, told FNA on Tuesday. "Using Saudi Arabia's facilities, which has shown its capability in transferring terrorists to Syria and Iraq, for recruiting forces in the Central Asia, the US has coaxed the Wahhabi clerics affiliated to Riyadh into attracting fighters from different Central Asian states, including Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, to prepare them mentally for being sent to Syria and Iraq. Then, they are trained in Kyrgyzstan and transferred to Istanbul and then to Syria and Iraq," the source said.

The report warns Russia of the danger of a US-led front run by the ISIL fighters in the Central Asia, stressing that the threat will sooner or later jeopardize the country's security, he concluded. Analysts believe that given the situation in the Middle-East if the ISIL creates a radical Islamic state in the region, then that would become a catalyst for what can become a much more widespread war and chaos involving not only the regional powers but given the interests of other international powers in the region, including Russia, China, the United States, some pretty serious conflicts among these great powers. They say that any success of the ISIL cult would have “a very important indirect effect” on the US and on the rest of the countries in the Eurasian region.

The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) is considering the launch of a currency union within the 170 million inner market that was launched in January 2015. The Presidents of the EEU member States agreed to continue their work at coordinating the Union’s monetary policy.  After meetings with the Presidents of Belarus and Kazakhstan in Astana, Russian President Vladimir Putin told the press that the EEU member States are discussing the establishment of a currency union and continue coordinating monetary policy, reports the Belarus news agency BelTa. The news agency quotes Putin as saying:

“We think that the time has come to talk forming a currency union in the future. … It is easier to protect the common financial market when working shoulder by shoulder”.

Putin described talks with Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko and Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev in Astana on March 20 as “very intensive and informative”. President Nursultan Nazarbayev is widely regarded as the intellectual mastermind of a post-Soviet Union political and economic integration. The three heads of State reportedly discussed a wide range of issues about Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia. The aggregate GDP of the troika amounts, according to BelTa, to 85% of the GDP of the CIS with Russia ranking first, followed by Belarus and Kazakhstan on a shared second place. The establishment of the EEU in January and discussions about the establishment of a currency union come against the backdrop of a series of US, UK, EU, G7 sanctions against Russia over the situation in Ukraine, with Germany, France, Czech Republic, Slovakia and some other European nations being reluctant about obstructing European – Russian relations. Especially strong French and German lobbies would rather see a closer cooperation between the EU and the EEU than a predominantly US/UK dominated policy of tensions that aims at maintaining an US/UK hegemony in Europe and a global dollar-dominated economy.

During a recent Round Table in Ankara, Admiral James Winnfeld, Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced that Washington would reveal its intentions toward Syria once the 6 November presidential elections were over. He made it plainly understood to his Turkish counterparts that a peace plan had already been negotiated with Moscow, that Bashar al-Assad would remain in power and that the Security Council would not authorize the creation of buffer zones. For his part, Herve Ladsous, the U.N. Assistant Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations, announced that he was studying the possible deployment of peacekeepers ("blue helmets") in Syria. All regional actors are preparing for the cease-fire which will be overseen by a U.N. force composed principally by troops of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikstan). These events signify that the United States is effectively continuing a process, begun in Iraq, of retreat from the region and has accepted to share its influence with Russian.

At the same time, the New York Times revealed that direct negotiations between Washington and Iran are slated to restart even as the United States continues its attack on Iranian monetary values. It is becoming clear that, after 33 years of containment, Washington is acknowledging that Teheran is an established regional power, all the while continuing to sabotage its economy. This new situation comes at the expense of Saudi Arabia, France, Israel, Qatar and Turkey all of whom had placed their bets on regime change in Damascus. This diverse coalition is now suffering divisions between those demanding a consolation prize and those trying to sabotage outright the process underway.

Only Israel and France remain in the opposition camp. The new scheme would offer a guarantee of protection to the state of Israel but it would also alter its special status on the international scene and end its expansionist dreams. Tel-Aviv would be relegated to being a secondary power. France, also, would lose influence in the region, particularly in Lebanon. Accordingly, the intelligence services of both states have concocted an operation to collapse the U.S.-Russia-Iran agreement which, even if it fails, would allow them to erase the traces of their involvement in the Syrian crisis.

China said on Monday it was willing to consider any application from NATO-member Turkey to join a Russian and Chinese-led security bloc, after Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said his country could join.China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) in 2001 to fight threats posed by radical Islam and drug trafficking from neighbouring Afghanistan.Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said Turkey was already a "dialogue partner" of the regional bloc and had for a long time closely cooperated with it.China attached great importance to Turkey's wish to strengthen that cooperation, he told a news briefing.

Erdogan was quoted on Sunday as saying that Turkey did not need to join the European Union "at all costs" and could instead become part of the SCO. Turkish government spokesman Numan Kurtulmus said on Monday that closer ties with the SCO would not mean Turkey turning its back on other allies."Turkey, with its history, culture, geopolitics and potential, is one of the few countries in the world that can cooperate with every corner of the world simultaneously," he told a news conference in the capital Ankara."A step taken (with the SCO) does not mean it will end Turkey’s relations with another country." Turkish membership of the bloc would nonetheless be likely to alarm Western allies and fellow NATO members.Having long been critical of Turkey's record on democratic freedoms, European leaders have been alarmed by Erdogan's crackdown on opponents since a failed coup attempt in July, and Turkey's prospects of joining the EU look more remote than ever after 11 years of negotiations.

The risk that President Obama may be forced to pull all American troops out of Afghanistan by the end of the year has set off concerns inside the American intelligence agencies that they could lose their air bases used for drone strikes against Al Qaeda in Pakistan and for responding to a nuclear crisis in the region. Until now, the debate here and in Kabul about the size and duration of an American-led allied force in Afghanistan after 2014 had focused on that country’s long-term security. But these new concerns also reflect how troop levels in Afghanistan directly affect long-term American security interests in neighboring Pakistan, according to administration, military and intelligence officials.

The concern has become serious enough that the Obama administration has organized a team of intelligence, military and policy specialists to devise alternatives to mitigate the damage if a final security deal cannot be struck with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, who has declined to enact an agreement that American officials thought was completed last year. If Mr. Obama ultimately withdrew all American troops from Afghanistan, the C.I.A.’s drone bases in the country would have to be closed, according to administration officials, because it could no longer be protected. Their concern is that the nearest alternative bases are too far away for drones to reach the mountainous territory in Pakistan where the remnants of Al Qaeda’s central command are hiding. Those bases would also be too distant to monitor and respond as quickly as American forces can today if there were a crisis in the region, such as missing nuclear material or weapons in Pakistan and India.

Their base inside Pakistan was closed after a shooting involving a C.I.A. security contractor, Raymond Davis, and the raid into Pakistani territory that killed Osama bin Laden, both in 2011. Crucial to the surveillance of Bin Laden’s house in Abbottabad was the use of an RQ-170 drone. Pakistani officials talked openly in the weeks after that raid about their fear that the unmanned aircraft was also being used to monitor their nuclear arsenal, now believed to be the fastest growing in the world. The raid, and those drones, came out of American facilities just over the Afghan border.

Since the end of the Cold War the United States has been surrounding Russia, building one base after another, ceaselessly looking for new ones, including in Ukraine; one missile site after another, with Moscow in range; NATO has grabbed one former Soviet Republic after another. The White House, and the unquestioning American mainstream media, have assured us that such operations have nothing to do with Russia. And Russia has been told the same, much to Moscow’s continuous skepticism. “Look,” said Russian president Vladimir Putin about NATO some years ago, “is this is a military organization? Yes, it’s military. … Is it moving towards our border? It’s moving towards our border. Why?” The Holy Triumvirate would love to rip Ukraine from the Moscow bosom, evict the Russian Black Sea Fleet, and establish a US military and/or NATO presence on Russia’s border. (In case you were wondering what prompted the Russian military action.) Kiev’s membership in the EU would then not be far off; after which the country could embrace the joys of neo-conservatism, receiving the benefits of the standard privatization-deregulation-austerity package and join Portugal, Ireland, Greece, and Spain as an impoverished orphan of the family; but no price is too great to pay to for being part of glorious Europe and the West!

The Ukrainian insurgents and their Western-power supporters didn’t care who their Ukrainian allies were in carrying out their coup against President Viktor Yanukovych last month … thugs who set policemen on fire head to toe … all manner of extreme right-wingers, including Chechnyan Islamic militants … a deputy of the ultra-right Svoboda Party, part of the new government, who threatens to rebuild Ukraine’s nukes in three to six months. … the snipers firing on the protestors who apparently were not what they appeared to be – A bugged phone conversation between Urmas Paet, the Estonian foreign minister, and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, reveals Paet saying: “There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.” … neo-Nazi protestors in Kiev who have openly denounced Jews, hoisting a banner honoring Stepan Bandera, the infamous Ukrainian nationalist who collaborated with the German Nazis during World War II and whose militias participated in atrocities against Jews and Poles. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on February 24 that Ukrainian Rabbi Moshe Reuven Azman advised “Kiev’s Jews to leave the city and even the country.” Edward Dolinsky, head of an umbrella organization of Ukrainian Jews, described the situation for Ukrainian Jews as “dire” and requested Israel’s help. All in all a questionable gang of allies for a dubious cause; reminiscent of the Kosovo Liberation Army thugs Washington put into power for an earlier regime change, and has kept in power since 1999.

The now-famous recorded phone conversation between top US State Department official Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador to the Ukraine, wherein they discuss which Ukrainians would be to Washington’s liking in a new government, and which not, is an example of this regime-change mentality. Nuland’s choice, Arseniy Yatseniuk, emerged as interim prime minister. The National Endowment for Democracy, an agency created by the Reagan administration in 1983 to promote political action and psychological warfare against states not in love with US foreign policy, is Washington’s foremost non-military tool for effecting regime change. The NED website lists 65 projects that it has supported financially in recent years in Ukraine. The descriptions NED gives to the projects don’t reveal the fact that generally their programs impart the basic philosophy that working people and other citizens are best served under a system of free enterprise, class cooperation, collective bargaining, minimal government intervention in the economy, and opposition to socialism in any shape or form. A free-market economy is equated with democracy, reform, and growth; and the merits of foreign investment in their economy are emphasized. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities. Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, declared in 1991: “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

It was 12 years ago today. Historians will register that, according to the official narrative, 19 Arabs armed with box cutters and minimal flying skills pledged to a transnational Terror Inc turned jets into missiles to attack the US homeland, fooling the most elaborate defense system on Earth.  Fast forward to 2013. Here's a 15-second version of the President of the United States (POTUS) address on Syria, one day before the 12th anniversary of 9/11: "Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake. The United States is 'the anchor of global security.' Although the United States military 'doesn't do pin pricks,' we still carry the burden to punish regimes that would flout long-held conventions banning the use of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons.  "That's why I have decided to pursue an unlimited, targeted military strike against Washington DC." For countless global citizens, this alternative version predictably sounds as far-fetched as the official version of what happened 12 years ago. The fog of war obscures in mysterious ways. But the fact remains that the current, "reluctant" (farcical) Emperor continues to stake his -- and his nation's -- "credibility" on a "limited," "kinetic" operation to reinforce his self-defined red line against chemical weapons. 

In theory, the Russian plan of having Damascus surrender its chemical weapons arsenal works because of its inbuilt Chinese wisdom; nobody loses face -- from Obama and the US Congress to the European Union, the UN and the even more farcical "Arab" League, which is essentially a Saudi Arabian colony.  Although Obama is on a media blitzkrieg stealing the credit for it, Asia Times Online has confirmed that the plan was elaborated by Damascus, Tehran and Moscow last week -- after a visit to Damascus by the head of the national security committee of the Iranian Majlis (parliament), Alaeddin Boroujerdi. US Secretary of State John Kerry's now famous "slip" provided the opening.  So, essentially, it's this "axis" -- Damascus, Tehran and Moscow -- that is helping Obama to crawl out of his self-inflicted abyss. Needless to say, that is absolutely unbearable for the plutocrats in charge of unleashing the new Syria (lethal) production. A brand new propaganda/manufactured hysteria campaign must be unfurled to justify war. And that's exactly what the Anglo-French-American axis is working on.  No wonder the French proposal for a new UN Security Council resolution falls under the UN's Chapter 7 -- which would explicitly allow the use of force against Damascus in case of non-compliance. As it is, this resolution will inevitably be vetoed by Russia and China. And that will be the new pretext for war. The (farcical) emperor may easily invoke plausible deniability, stress he made "every effort" to avoid a military conflict, and then convince skeptics in the US Congress this is the only way to go. 

At least there is a counter-power. Asia Times Online has confirmed that an outstanding meeting will take place later this week in Kyrgyzstan, during the annual summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Picture Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin and new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani together, in the same room, discussing their common position on Syria. Iran is an SCO observer -- and may soon be admitted as a full member. This is what the Anglo-French-American axis is up against.  And that brings us back to 12 years ago -- and the myth that aluminum jets are able to penetrate the thick steel perimeters of the Twin Towers and kerosene is capable of instantaneously melting steel perimeters and steel cores into fluffy steel dust. Check this out and draw the necessary conclusions.  As for that "evil," transnational Terror Inc, it didn't even have a name when Jihad International hopefuls were being recruited in the early 1980s by assorted Islamic charities, and then trained and funded by the CIA and Saudi Arabia. One day the database was finally named -- by the US -- as "al-Qaeda." Or, more appropriately, "al-CIAeda." They were elevated to Ultimate Evil status. They did 9/11. They reproduced like rabbits from Mali to Indonesia. Now the CIA works side-by-side with them -- as it did in Libya. And eagerly they await the US Air Force to clear their road to Damascus. Hey, it's just (war) business. Allahu Akbar. 

In February, 1990, US Secretary of State James Baker (1989-1992), representing President George HW Bush, traveled to Moscow to meet with Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev regarding the possible reunification of Germany and the removal of 300,000 Soviet troops. There is little serious dispute that as the Berlin Wall teetered, Baker promised Gorbachev “there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Gorbachev is reported to have taken the US at its word and responded “any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.” “I agree,” replied Baker.” Unfortunately, Gorbachev never got it in writing and most historians, at the time, agreed that NATO expansion was “ill conceived, ill-timed, and above all ill-suited to the realities of the post-Cold War world.”

President Bush’s National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft and Bill Clinton’s Defense Secretary were also in agreement. But by 1994, that verbal contract had not deterred the concerted efforts of a handful of State Department policy professionals to subdue the overwhelming bureaucratic opposition according to James Goldgeier in his classic “Not Whether but When: The US Decision to Enlarge NATO.” By 1997, the Gorbachev-Baker-Bush agreement was a forgotten policy trinket as Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic were accepted into NATO. In 2004, former Soviet satellite countries Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were admitted and in 2009, Croatia and Albania joined NATO. Currently, the former Soviet republics of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Azerbaijan are pending membership and all five former Soviet republics in Central Asia (Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan) provide NATO with logistical support for the US war in Afghanistan. As the US-led NATO alliance tightens its grip on the Caucasus countries, the American public has not been informed about the Ukrainian Parliament’s approval for a series of NATO military exercises that would put US troops on Russia’s border, even though the Ukraine is not yet a member of NATO. Rapid Trident is a 12-nation military ‘interoperability’ exercise led by the US who will commit the majority of participating troops and Sea Breeze is a naval exercise that will take place on the Black Sea adjacent to Russian ports. The NATO buildup includes joint ground operations with Moldova and Romania.

Most recently, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that the military alliance has cut Russia off from civilian and military cooperation and that there would be the deployment and reinforcement of military assets including increased air patrols over the Baltic Sea and AWACS surveillance flights over Poland and Romania. It goes without saying that the NATO build up is in addition to the deployment of US troops and F-16 warplanes to Poland, F-15C warplanes to Lithuania and aircraft carriers to the Black and Mediterranean Seas. All this raises the question about whether a promise and handshake in the world of international diplomacy is a real commitment and what is a 1991 international promise made by a Republican Administration worth in 1994 to a Democratic Administration? Apparently zilch.

A Chinese agreement to finance a high-speed railway from Belgrade to Bucharest was one of around $10bn worth of investments, mainly in the energy and infrastructure sectors, signed during a China-Central and Eastern Europe summit this week. By funding the railway, Beijing hopes to establish a rapid connection from Greece’s Pireaus Port through the Balkans to the EU member states of Central Europe. Several agreements on the €1.5bn railway, which will be financed by soft loans from state-owned China Exim Bank, were signed between China, Hungary and Serbia on December 17. When the line is operational, the travel time between Belgrade and Budapest will be slashed from the current eight hours to just 2.4 hours. Macedonian counterpart Nikola Gruevski was also in attendance as there are plans to extend the line south to Macedonia and Greece in future. Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang, who headed a 200-strong delegation to Belgrade, said he expected the line would benefit both China and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the EU, according to a Serbian government statement.

Chinese shipping giant Cosco Pacific took over the management rights to half of Piraeus port and is now expanding two container terminals under a 35-year concession agreement, with the aim of turning the Greek port into one of Europe’s top five container ports. However, to take full advantage of Cosco’s investment in Piraeus and its potential to become a gateway to the CEE region, investments into transport links across the Balkans are needed. "We will propose construction of a rapid land and maritime route based on the Budapest-Belgrade railroad and the Greek port of Piraeus to improve regional connectivity," Li told journalists in advance of the summit, South China Morning Post reported. Investments into infrastructure to transport raw materials into China and Chinese manufactured goods to foreign markets is nothing new. Closer to home, Beijing is looking to fund a railway across Central Asia to create a direct rail link between its factories and the massive wholesale bazaars of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. Further afield, in May 2014, China signed an agreement in Kenya to build a new line from Mombasa to Nairobi that will extend to four other East African states in future.

While land rail routes across Eurasia to Europe are also being developed, sea shipping remains the cheapest route from the Far East to Europe, and Piraeus is a convenient entry point to the continent. While growth in the region has been patchy since the recent global economic crisis, in the longer-term the EU member states of Central and Eastern Europe and future entrants from the Balkans are expected to converge with longer-established EU members from Western Europe in terms of spending power. Since 2012, when the first China-CEE summit was held in Warsaw, Chinese attention on the region has steadily increased, with a focus on energy and infrastructure. Aside from the access to new markets, there are further commercial benefits for China, as Chinese companies are selected for lucrative construction contracts on projects funded by Chinese state-owned banks. On December 16, the opening day of the summit, Li told the 16 regional leaders to attend that China would launch a $3bn investment fund for the region.

The Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia, reluctantly supported by the Europeans, bite more deeply every day. But it is also clearer with each daily news report that Russians are not going to suffer alone.

The Obama administration’s sanctions against Russia, reluctantly supported by the Europeans, bite more deeply every day. But it is also clearer with each daily news report that Russians are not going to suffer alone.

Russia’s immediate neighbors and the Europeans will, too. And—not to be missed—so will the trans-Atlantic alliance that has served as the backbone of Western policy since the postwar order was established 70 years ago next spring.This president is intent on making history. But does he distinguish between good history and the other kind?

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has hailed the economic and security relationship between Egypt and Russia, and announced the establishment of a “free trade zone” between Egypt and the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).

Sisi also announced a strengthening of trade relations between the two countries, culminating in a preliminary agreement to create a Russian industrial zone in Egypt, near the Suez Canal. The pair also said that they would set up a nuclear power plant designed to “help Egypt reach its energy needs”. Egypt had taken steps in the early 1980s to launch a nuclear plant to produce electricity in Dabaa but it was shut down after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. The EEU currently consists of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan and has generally been seen as an attempt by Russia to provide a counterweight to the European Union (EU).

The decision by Egypt to increase its bilateral trade with Russia is likely to further increase tensions with the EU and the US, who have placed sanctions on Russia over its alleged interference in the Ukraine conflict. It is possible the meet might also upset wealthy Gulf donors who have clashed with Moscow over its support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.