Putin Meets Egyptian Leader As Russia Seeks Greater Role In Middle East Thursday August 27th, 2015 at 1:50 PM
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi has met with Russian President Vladimir Putin during his second visit to Moscow in three months.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s name won’t appear on any of the ballot papers Turks will be presented with on November 1.
An official has admitted Iranian aviation companies’ interest in Russia’s Superjet passenger planes amid Tehran’s quest for new aircraft to build up the country’s aging fleet, the Fars news agency says. Vice President for science and technology Sorena Sattari also…
In line with the Pentagon's so-called Pacific pivot, the US Army wants to buy a new fleet of boats to replace its Vietnam-era "Mike Boat," the service's first major watercraft procurement in 15 years.
The struggle to clear Pakistani soil of terrorists could continue for some time.
Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense has managed to recruit only about half of the 25,000 conscripts it was hoping for,
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 2
CNNMoney |
China contagion: How it ripples across the world
CNNMoney What's worrisome is the breadth of countries, companies and people that are affected by a Chinaslowdown. Economic growth is drying up in Latin America. European companies are bracing for a sales dive. Smaller Asian economies are watching their ... and more » |
Why China Is Rattling the World
New York Times China's economy, long a reliable source of growth, is faltering, prompting concerns that are now shaking global stock markets. Companies and countries that depend heavily on trade with Chinaare reassessing their strategies in the face of uncertainty. |
CNN International |
Opinion: US and China 'poison' debate on cybersecurity
CNN International Second, both China and the U.S. seem to agree that cyber means of intelligence-gathering are a way of life, as governments do spy on each other with or without cyber instruments. The U.S. side purports to say that China does more: It unfairly ... In ... and more » |
August 27, 2015, 7:10 AM (IDT)
A group of 40 ex-police commissioners and former senior officers met in Tel Aviv Wednesday night to protest the Public Security minister’s choice of former IDF division commander Brig. Gen. (res.) Gal Hirsch as the incoming police commissioner. They decided to demand a hearing before the Turkel Committee, which approves high civil service appointments, and the prime minister to present their case that the army general has no knowledge of police work and is therefore not qualified for the job.
August 27, 2015, 7:56 AM (IDT)
Egypt is in advanced negotiations with France for two highly advanced French Mistral class assault-cum-helicopter carrier ships originally destined for the Russian Navy. debkafile reports that this deal, if it goes through, will substantially beef up the regional lineup of the Saudi, Egyptian and Israeli navies. The new vessels would enable it to contest Iranian naval challenges in the Mediterranean, the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, and alter the balance of strength between the opposing sides. Saudis and the UAE are covering the bill.
August 27, 2015, 7:55 PM (IDT)
Tehran is fighting on two Iraqi fronts: It has imported the powerful Zelzal missile to beef up a fresh offensive to recover Ramadi and Faluja from ISIS and contending with strong anti-Iran opposition lead by the venerated Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani from Najef.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 3
CIA Plans Huge Release of Top Secret Reports From the 1960s
Newsweek The reports, customarily provided personally to the president each morning by a senior CIAofficer, if not the director himself, will almost certainly show much of what the spy agency was telling Kennedy and Johnson about Vietnam, Cuba, the Soviet ... and more » |
CIA Plans Huge Release of Presidential Briefings From the 1960s
Newsweek The reports, customarily provided personally to the president each morning by a senior CIAofficer, if not the director himself, will almost certainly show much of what the spy agency was telling Kennedy and Johnson about Vietnam, Cuba, the Soviet ... and more » |
 Arutz Sheva |
Former CIA Chief: Give Israel Bunker-Buster Bombs
Arutz Sheva Dennis Ross, a former Middle East envoy, and David Petraeus, who directed the CIA after commanding US. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, wrote that the bunker-busters would be an effective “firewall” against Iranian nuclear development, especially in 15 ... and more » |
 Washington Business Journal |
8 things: More on Amazon's 'purposeful Darwinism,' and brilliant social media ...
Washington Business Journal Is it dystopian, a place even the boss wouldn't want to work at? Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos himself said as much in a defense of his company and its practices (though not necessarily a denial of what The Times uncovered). Or is it much ado about nothing, ... and more » |
CIA Must Cough Up Info on Death Squad
Courthouse News Service WASHINGTON (CN) - A federal judge ordered the CIA to release more records on its involvement in the killing of Pablo Escobar, and a Colombian death squad. U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the CIA to prepare a Vaughn Index, identifying each ... |
 International Business Times, India Edition |
Isis Hacker and No 3 on CIA 'Kill List', Junaid Hussain Neutralised in US ...
International Business Times, India Edition The 21-year-old Isis cyber cell chief was on the "kill list" of the US forces and his movements inside Raqqa were being monitored. He was said to be the second most valued target after Jihadi John and was number 3 on the CIA "kill list". A US official ... and more » |
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 4
First, the disastrous failures of US policy in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to an unprecedented programme of declassification of documents (some with significant redactions) as part of the cathartic process of trying to understand how so many mistakes were made before and after 9/11.
Second, the cache of cables dumped by WikiLeaks, coupled with further revelations from material leaked by Edward Snowden, has provided an exceptional level of insight into the workings of the intelligence agencies over the past three decades, together with priceless new information about the decision-making processes and about operational activities.
And third, there has been a cache of materials found locally following the military interventions of the past 12 years – such as audio tapes recovered from the presidential palace in Baghdad in 2003 that recorded thousands of hours of meetings, discussions and even phone calls made by Saddam Hussein and his inner circle, or boxes of cassettes that belonged to Osama bin Laden that were retrieved from a compound in Kandahar two year earlier.
This treasure trove allows us to understand the failures, incompetence and poor planning that accompanied the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq in astonishing detail, but also to frame these within the context of a wider region – and a wider period. These two countries form part of a belt that stretches from the Mediterranean to the Himalayas, linking East and West, and that for millennia has served as the world’s central nervous system. Trade, commodities, people, even disease, spread through the webs of networks that connect these locations to each other and ultimately connect the Atlantic coasts of Europe and North Africa to the Pacific coast of China and South-east Asia.
The Snowden leaks have provided an exceptional level of insight (AFP) Dislocation in one part of these networks causes problems in others; equilibrium is easy to disturb, but not easy to restore. What the cache of documents relating to the past decade and a half shows is that the mistakes made were predictable and obvious. They show that the West has never fully understood the Silk Roads.
It is still voguish to argue that George W Bush took on Saddam Hussein as a means to avenge his father, President George HW Bush, who was deemed not to have finished what he started with the first Gulf War in 1990-91. The fact that the younger Bush asked Colin Powell, the new Secretary of State, for clarification about US “regime-change policy in Iraq” within 72 hours of taking office in 2001 certainly suggests that the Bush family had kept a close eye on the situation in Baghdad over the previous decade. But then so too had the Clinton administration during the intervening years.
The US championed the imposition of sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s, strictly enforcing UN Security Council Resolution 687, which forbade “the sale or supply… of commodities or products other than medicine and health supplies” – including “foodstuffs”. These measures were intended to force disarmament, including the termination of biological and chemical weapons programmes, and to force agreement on recognition of the sovereignty of Kuwait.
The impact of the blanket restrictions on Iraqi exports and financial transactions was devastating – especially on the poor. Initial estimates in The Lancet in 1995 suggested 500,000 children alone died from malnutrition and disease as a direct result of the sanctions over the course of five years. When Madeleine Albright, the Secretary of State, was interviewed on the television programme 60 Minutes and asked about the fact that more children had died in Iraq as a result of sanctions than in Hiroshima in 1945, she replied nervelessly: “I think it is a very hard choice.” Nevertheless, she went on, “We think the price is worth it.”
The Iraq War: A timeline
1 of 17
US insistence to reshape Iraq was made law in 1998, when President Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act, making it the formal “policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime”. Clinton also announced that millions of dollars were being made available for “the Iraqi democratic opposition”, with the express aim of enabling the dissonant voices opposed to Saddam to “unify [and to] work together more effectively”. So when George W Bush asked for clarification about Iraq when he became President, he was assessing the long-standing commitment of the US to intervene in the internal affairs of another sovereign state – whose leader was not as co-operative or as malleable as Washington would have liked.
This pattern had its parallels elsewhere across the Middle East in the decades after the Second World War, where those who were thought to be unsupportive of US national interests were removed (such as Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, or King Farouk of Egypt, who was the target of “Project Fat F*****” and removed four years earlier). Conversely, those who led regimes in countries such as Iran and Pakistan that were flawed, corrupt and incompetent were lavished with money, support and arms – and, in the case of the former, advanced nuclear technologies, supplied by Washington.
Control of the region lying between East and West was seen in the later 20th century through the prism of the Cold War and of competition with the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the mineral wealth of the heart of Asia, particularly its oil and gas but also its pipeline infrastructure, made the belt commercially important as well as strategically vital.
Read more: Chilcot report farce deepens
Chilcot refuses to set date for end of inquiry
Chilcot: Report has taken longer than expected
So perhaps it was not surprising that two days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks took place, an action plan was issued that set out the importance of engaging Iran and of contacting the authorities in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and China – Afghanistan’s neighbours and near-neighbours. A plan was set out to “[re-]energise” them urgently, with a view to preparing them for forthcoming military action against the Taliban. The first step of the response to 9/11 was to line up the countries of the Silk Roads.
In fact, ambitions were soon going well beyond ensuring their co-operation. By 30 September 2001, the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, was offering President Bush his “strategic thoughts” about what the US could and should seek to achieve as part of its imminent “war aim”. “Some air strikes against al-Qaeda and Taliban targets are planned to begin soon,” he noted, marking the start of military action. It was important, he wrote, to “persuade or compel states to stop supporting terrorism”.
What he proposed next, however, was dramatic and astonishingly ambitious. “If the war does not significantly change the world’s political map, the US will not achieve its aim.” What this meant was then spelt out clearly. “The [United States government] should envision a goal along these lines: new regimes in Afghanistan and another key state (or two).” He did not need to specify which states he was talking about: Iran and Iraq.
Many mistakes were made before and after 9/11 (AP) While Iraq had long been an American bugbear, the case of Iran was more complicated. The revolution of 1979 had produced a spectacular failure in relations between the two countries; but by the mid-1980s, there were attempts to rebuild ties – partly because of mutual interests in opposing the Soviets in Afghanistan, but also because the US concluded that keeping the Iran-Iraq war going was in their interests. The result was the shipping of armaments to the Khomeini regime, in collaboration with Israel, who saw Saddam Hussein as a direct and serious threat: ties with Tehran became so close between the two that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was able to declare: “Israel is Iran’s best friend, and we do not intend to change our position.”
There were signs of another thaw in relations with Iran after the terrorist attack on the Dhahran air base in Saudi Arabia in 1996 that killed 19 servicemen. An angry rebuttal was issued to President Clinton’s missive that Tehran was complicit in the bombing; but it was followed by a clear opening. The President should rest assured, the reply stated, that Iran had “no hostile intentions towards Americans”. On the contrary, the “Iranian people not only harbour no enmity but [also] have respect for the great American people”. Including Iran within an “axis of evil” a few years later, amid signs of an improving relationship, was opening a dangerous can of worms.
Then again, opening cans of worms seemed not to worry many of those taking decisions in the weeks and months after 9/11. Despite there being no evidence to link the hijackers to Iraq, attention was focused on a major invasion and on regime change. The question was simple, as planning notes for a meeting between Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks, the chief of Central Command, make clear: “How [to] start?”
A report noted that only Blair could be relied upon to support war (AFP) Three possible triggers were envisaged – all of which could justify military action. Perhaps Saddam “moves against the Kurds in [the] north?” wondered Rumsfeld in November 2001; maybe a “connection to Sept 11 attack or to anthrax attacks” (following mailings to several media outlets and to two US senators in September 2001); or what if there were a “dispute over WMD inspections?” This seemed a promising line – as revealed by the comment that follows: “Start now thinking about inspection demands.”
Over the course of 2002 and at the start of 2003, pressure was ramped up on Iraq, with the issue of chemical and biological weapons and that of weapons of mass destruction taking centre stage. The US pursued this with an almost evangelical zeal. In the absence of “incontrovertible evidence” of a link between 9/11 and Baghdad, one report noted, only Tony Blair could be relied on to support war, while another underlined the fact that “many, if not most, countries allied with or friendly towards the United States – especially in Europe – harbour grave doubts about… an all-out attack on Iraq”. Work therefore went into establishing a legal framework for full-scale war in anticipation of the likelihood that the United Nations would not give a clear mandate for action.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Jose Bustani, was ousted in a special closed session, pushed out for being uncooperative and unhelpful. Statements issued by weapons inspectors, meanwhile, were ignored. In January 2003, it was declared that “we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the 1990s” – which chimed with an update the same day by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission that although inspectors occasionally faced incidents of harassment, “Iraq has on the whole co-operated rather well so far” with the demands of inspectors.
The execution of the Iraq invasion was heavily flawed (Getty) This was rubbished by Colin Powell when he addressed the UN on 5 February 2003, and claimed that “every statement I make today… is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” They were nothing of the sort: trailers that were described as mobile biological weapons facilities “hidden in large groves of palm trees and… moved every one to four weeks to avoid detection” turned out to be weather balloons – just as the Iraqis had said they were. There was no nuclear weapons programme, just as the Iraqis had said. No support had been given to al-Qaeda or terrorists, either – as documents and audio tapes from Baghdad reveal: in fact, Saddam Hussein had reined in all those suspected or implicated in terrorism, in order to avoid punitive action.
It was not just the decision to invade Iraq that was spectacular for its idiocy; so too was the execution of the invasion plan. It was naively assumed that removing Saddam would turn Iraq into a land of milk and honey. There was no need to worry, insisted Paul Wolfowitz, the former president of the World Bank, who was then serving as Deputy Secretary of Defence, eight days after the invasion began in 2003. “We’re dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon.” Oil revenues, he breezily predicted, would bring in $50bn to $100bn over the next “two or three years”.
Expectations for the involvement in Iraq were as foolish as they had been in Afghanistan, where it was assumed there would be “no military involvement after the Taliban were defeated”. In Iraq, 270,000 troops would be needed to start with, according to plans drawn up by US Central Command; but three and a half years later, there would be no need for more than 5,000 ground troops. This all looked plausible when presented on PowerPoint slides to those who saw what they wanted to see. These were to be light wars, quick strikes that would enable a new balance to be established across a pivotal region of Asia – all to the advantage of the West.
Over the course of 2002 pressure was ramped up on Iraq (Getty) Few today believe we did the right thing in supporting the attack on Iraq. Even Jeb Bush recently declared that he would not have supported it had he known then what he knows now. The cost and consequences of the military intervention have been catastrophic. The disruption in the Middle East has caused a fracture of Iraq and the rise of Isis if not in its place (yet), then as a new power to be reckoned with; the Taliban has regrouped and eats into the weak structures left behind by coalition forces on a daily basis; reputational damage to the West in the eyes not only of the Arabic-speaking world but beyond has been substantial too; then there is the credibility of the intelligence agencies who allowed reports to be “sexed up” by political masters to suit their own ends.
And there is the cost: not only the lives lost by servicemen, the value of which cannot even be estimated, not the tens of billions spent on the war. The biggest cost of the war, as new research from Harvard suggests, is the cost of looking after the 170,000 veterans who are 70 per cent or more disabled as a result of their injuries. The long-term cost to the US economy is estimated to be $6 trillion (£3.9trn) – or $75,000 for every single household in the United States.
If there is a silver lining, it is – perhaps – the shuffling of decks that brings Iran back to the table as a mainstream player within the region. The West finds itself short of friends in a region it has interfered in for too long with disastrous effects. The same mistakes have been made in the same region for too long.
Peter Frankopan is a senior research fellow at Worcester College, Oxford. His book ‘The Silk Roads: A New History of the World’ (£30, Bloomsbury) is out now
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
 The Independent |
Declassified CIA documents reveal how disastrous America's post-9/11 plans ...
The Independent Scholars working on the contemporary Middle East are living through something of a golden age where evidence is uniquely plentiful for three reasons. First, the disastrous failures of US policy in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to an unprecedented ... and more » |
German spy charged with treason for passing secrets to CIA and ... by Associated Press in Berlin
German spy charged with treason for passing secrets to CIA and Russia. 32-year-old, identified as Markus R, accused of offering his services to US and Russian intelligence while working for Germany's foreign intelligence ...
The 32-year-old former Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) worker is accused of treason, infringing official secrets and corruption after passing secrets to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in exchange for cash. Prosecutors ...
Obama and Saudi King Salman to talk about Iran, conflicts in Yemen, Syria
Junaid Hussain, ISIS Recruiter, Reported Killed in Airstrikeby KIMIKO DE FREYTAS-TAMURA
Mr. Hussain, a 21-year-old Briton, hacked into American military networks and was a central figure in the Islamic State’s online recruitment campaign.
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 5
Man who flew gyrocopter on to lawn of US Capitol has raised about $10,000 to help with case
4 upstate New York men killed when car plunges down embankment, hits house; driver survives
TRIPOLI (Reuters) - A boat packed with migrants sank off the Libyan coastal city of Zuwara on Thursday and officials said hundreds might have died.
 Fox News |
Poll gives Biden edge over Clinton against GOP candidates; VP meets with Trumka
Fox News WASHINGTON – A new national poll shows Vice President Biden faring better than Hillary Clinton in match-ups against top Republican presidential candidates, as the VP weighs jumping into the race -- and meets Thursday with a top labor leader. Fox News ... Clinton: Republicans are like 'terrorist groups' on women's issuesWashington Post Hillary Clinton's Handling of Email Issue Frustrates Democratic LeadersNew York Times Clinton Compares GOP Views on Women to 'Terrorist Groups' NBCNews.com CNN International-Wall Street Journal (blog)-Fortune all 556 news articles » |
The most expensive movie ever made in Iran, which depicts the Prophet Muhammad’s childhood, opened nationwide on August 27.
- Russia and NATO told 'agree to rules on military exercises to avoid war'
- There's been 66 'close military encounters' since Ukraine crisis last year
- Large-scale exercises show both sides 'most likely had war plans in mind'
Published: 14:06 EST, 26 August 2015 | Updated: 01:21 EST, 27 August 2015
Russia and NATO have been told they must agree to new rules on their military exercises to avoid triggering a war after 66 recorded 'close encounters' since March last year.
Relations between Russia and the West relations have been in the deep freeze after the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine in March last year.
Since then, both sides have been intensifying their large-scale military exercises 'most likely with war plans in mind', according to recent research.
Scroll down for videos
Copy link to paste in your message
Escalating tensions between the West and Russia has sparked fears after there were 66 'close military encounters' between the sides (pictured is an RAF Typhoon from Number XI Squadron as it shadows a Russian Bear-H aircraft over the North Atlantic Ocean)
Copy link to paste in your message
Russia and Nato have been told they must agree to new rules on their military exercises to cut the risk of war after 66 recorded 'close encounters' since March last year (pictured is a show of strength by Vladimir Putin during Russia’s VE Day celebrations - the biggest Red Square military parade since the collapse of communism)
Now NATO and Russia have been told they must agree to a set of common rules on unexpected military encounters to cut the risk of war between Moscow and the West.
The warning comes after a group of former defence and foreign ministers revealed that 'close military encounters' between the two sides, such as mid-air face-offs between rival military jets, have soared - with 66 recorded since the Ukraine crisis.
'The situation is ripe with potential for either dangerous miscalculation or an accident that could trigger a worsening of the crisis or even a direct military confrontation,' they said in a report published by the European Leadership Network (ELN).
An ELN study said NATO was planning approximately 270 exercises this year, while Russia has announced 4,000 drills at all levels.
Just last month, Moscow warned the US-led Rapid Trident military exercises in western Ukraine may have 'explosive consequences' and threaten to derail the peace process in the separatist east.
Ukrainian and U.S. troops had launched drills involving 1,800 soldiers from 18 countries in July, aimed at bolstering the morale of the armed forces involved in the ongoing 15-month conflict with pro-Russian separatists.
But Russia's foreign ministry condemned the war games just hours after the exercises started near Ukraine's border with Poland.
Copy link to paste in your message
Since the Ukraine crisis, both sides have been intensifying their large-scale military exercises (such as this US-led exercise in Bulgaria)
Copy link to paste in your message
NATO paratroopers land after jumping off US military airplanes during an US Army-led airborne assault exercise in Romania, on Wednesday as part of the largest Allied airborne training event on the continent since the Cold War as a group of former defence and foreign ministers warn rules are need on military exercises
Copy link to paste in your message
Copy link to paste in your message
The European Leadership Network warned Nato and Russia must agree to new rules on exercises, such as Swift Response 15 (pictured) - designed to demonstrate the NATO's capacity to deploy and operate - after 66 recorded 'close encounters' since March last year
'The military drills involving NATO members and Ukraine's army that started in Lviv region under U.S. command are a clear demonstration of NATO's provocative policy to unequivocally support the policies of current Kiev authorities in eastern Ukraine,' the foreign ministry said in a statement.
'Not only is NATO not ready to recognize the wrongness and possible explosive consequences of holding such drills but it is considerably increasing their scope.
'These actions... may threaten to disrupt the visible progress in the peace process concerning the deep internal crisis in Ukraine.'
Russia had also warned the exercises were a threat to an already shaky five-month truce agreement that aims to resolve one of Europe's bloodiest conflicts in decades by the end of the year.
The launch of Rapid Trident was quickly followed by the Russian navy's announcement that one of its warships stationed off Ukraine's Kremlin-annexed Crimean peninsula would conduct live rocket fire drills Sunday.
Kiev has been locked in a conflict since April 2014 with pro-Moscow rebels in parts of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. It accuses Russia of funneling in troops and resources to sustain the insurgency - charges Moscow denies.
A peace accord was struck in the Belarussian capital Minsk in February, but deadly clashes continue in spite of it.
Copy link to paste in your message
Sabre-rattling: RAF Typhoons last month intercepted 10 Russian aircraft during a single mission. Pictured is the moment one of the Typhoons (foreground, left) intercepted the planes
Russian military fighter jets prepare for drills
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
00:00
LIVE
MinimizeExpandClose
Copy link to paste in your message
The Russian military (red) is slightly smaller the United States (blue) but still dwarfs that of the UK (green)
Russia's own exercises in March, which involved 80,000 personnel, were one of the Kremlin's biggest shows of force since the start of the Ukraine crisis. It put the navy's Northern Fleet on full combat readiness in Russia's Arctic North, close to Norway, a NATO member.
Russia also set nerves jangling across Europe by sending its fighter jets screaming toward the skies of Baltic and Nordic nations with increasing regularity in recent months.
Washington and NATO have denounced such steps as both hostile and dangerous to civilian aircraft.
The Kremlin counters that it is only doing what the United States has been for decades - flexing its military muscle in far-off countries to build a 'unipolar world'.
Ian Kearns, director of the London-based Network, said the war games 'are contributing to a climate of mistrust' that have 'on occasion become the focal point for some quite close encounters between the Nato and Russian militaries.'
The report added that an 'action-reaction cycle' was now under way between Nato and Russia that could be hard to stop.
'History is littered with examples of international crises and tensions that developed a momentum of their own and resulted in conflict even when no one side intended it,' it said.
Research also found signs that 'Russia is preparing for a conflict with Nato and Nato is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia.'
Military drills with US and NATO forces start in Ukraine
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
00:00
LIVE
MinimizeExpandClose
Copy link to paste in your message
Moscow has warned that the U.S.-led military drills (pictured is a Ukrainian folk dancer performing for Ukrainian and US servicemen during joint-drill exercises between the two countries in Yavoriv polygon, Lviv district, western Ukraine) may have 'explosive consequences'
The group of 14 former ministers, who are calling for a high-level Nato-Russia meeting, said rules for communication at sea and in the air were 'paramount'.
They suggest a similar pact as to that between the United States and China which lays out which actions to avoid - such as attack simulations near the other side's military vessels and aircraft.
If these type of military exercises or live weapons-firing must take place, there should be timely warnings and agreed radio frequencies and signals vocabulary.
But neither Russia nor Nato have accepted any suggestion that their military exercises make war more likely.
Nato's chief spokesman Oana Lungescu has instead called on Russia to take steps to ease the tensions.
'Russia has many tools already available to avoid unintentional conflict, to reduce tensions and to increase transparency, ranging from arms control agreements to voluntary measures,' she said.
'It should ... focus on implementing its existing commitments.'
NATO has suspended all practical and military cooperation with Russia but can still convene political meetings.
The Ukraine crisis began in March 2014, when Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine
The following month, a separatist war broke out in eastern Ukraine between pro-Russian rebels and government forces. While Putin has been accused of supporting the separatists which has so far claimed more than 7,000 lives.
Copy link to paste in your message
Ukrainian soldiers guard an armored military vehicle during the event near the Polish border
Copy link to paste in your message
Russia's foreign ministry issued a response just hours after the exercises (pictured) began near Ukraine's border with Poland. They wil involve 1,800 troops from 18 countries and will last for two weeks
He has always denied charges of orchestrating Ukraine's separatist revolt to unsettle the pro-Western leadership that rose to power in the wake of last year's ouster of a Moscow-backed president.
But the veteran Russian leader has done little to mask his views of eastern Europe being part of Moscow's traditional sphere of influence.
The West imposed sanctions against Russia, which responded with sanctions against a number of countries, including a total ban on food imports from the EU, United States and other member states.
The crisis has put relations between Russia and the West at their their worst since the Cold War with military tensions on the increase.
British warplanes, currently stationed in the Baltic States, have been intercepting Russian planes flying on the fringes of the region's airspace since last year.
In one mission alone, UK Typhoons intercepted a staggering ten Russian planes over Estonia.
Russian jets have also carried out flights near UK airspace, leading to accusations of increasing acts of provocation by Moscow.
Copy link to paste in your message
U.S. servicemen in a Ukrainian Armoured Personal Carrier (APC) as part of the opening ceremony for joint drills in Ukraine
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said: 'Russia is continuing to test Nato's resolve, but we have shown we are standing firm.'
The ELN study said the exercises showed what each side views as its most vulnerable points.
For Nato, it's Poland and the Baltic states while for Russia, concerns are more numerous and include the Arctic, Crimea and border areas with Nato members Estonia and Latvia.
The ELN has formulated a few ideas to defuse tensions, including for governments to examine the need for more restraint in the size and scenarios of future exercises.
While there were many similar characteristics between exercises, including preparing for the rapid mobilisation of troops, there was a 'notable difference in scale'.
The report stated: 'While the particular Russian exercise we analyse relied heavily on elite formations such as airborne troops, the ability of the Russian armed forces to mobilise thousands of conscripts inevitably results in exercises of a size that the smaller, predominantly professional armed forces of Nato countries simply cannot match.'
Share or comment on this article
Read the whole story
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
Next Page of Stories
Loading...
Page 6
There are ideas and calls in the U.S. arena for stronger, firmer, and more decisive measures to implement the policy declared by U.S. President Barack Obama to eliminate ISIS, as part of a comprehensive and calculated strategy away from arbitrariness and hesitation. Many high-level military officials who previously served in senior posts have started talking publicly about the "failure" of the United States to defeat al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and other radical Islamists because of the policies and decisions of the executive branch, particularly under Obama. Some are talking about the need for an Arab version of NATO, stressing the crucial importance of an actual U.S. partnership with such an alliance, as this would serve the U.S. interest. Otherwise -- as one such military voice cautioned -- the threat of ISIS, al-Qaeda, and radical Islamists is coming to the U.S. homeland. John McCain, Republican senator and Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, says eliminating ISIS is contingent upon the Obama administration adopting a clear position against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his Iranian allies. He says that in the short term, there is no other option but to create no-fly zones in Syria while significantly stepping up air strikes with the participation of special forces on the ground, which would bolster those fighting ISIS and the regime in Damascus. In the long run, McCain believes it is necessary to create an Arab force in Syria and Iraq with broad U.S. participation in the air and limited participation on the ground, with the goal of supporting the Arab force. He explains that any Iranian participation in the war on ISIS in Syria is unacceptable because of what he calls the unholy alliance between Iran and Syria, saying that any U.S. consent of this would be immoral. But what is absent from the U.S. discourse on how to defeat ISIS is the need for a quasi-preemptive strategy in Yemen and Libya, which are becoming a fertile ground for the growth of Islamic radicalism in all forms. What is present so far is the continued reluctance to lead in earnest, not only because of the attitudes, personality, and thinking of President Obama, but also because of the inherent inconsistency in the U.S. public opinion and character.
The Arab public opinion is no less inconsistent or lazy than the U.S. and European public opinion, though it is sharper. The whole world has now seen the appalling yet calculated barbarism in the high quality, high definition video footage of ISIS's immolation of the captured young Jordanian pilot Moath al-Kasasbeh. Jordan and the Arab and Muslim countries are riding a wave of anger and outrage at the horrific crime and the baseness of ISIS, which poses an existential threat to the Arab nations.
But it is not enough to be angry. The Arab and Muslim worlds must rise up against ISIS. Those who consider the group a natural response to Iranian encroachment in the Arab region and those who see ISIS as an instrument of responding to Shiite exclusion of Sunnis in Iraq must desist. Otherwise, this will only be an investment in burning the Arab spirit and Islamic principles.
The above requires regional and international policies that would accompany it in order for it to succeed or even happen. In this context, it is vital to repair the U.S.-led international anti-ISIS coalition, where Obama must stop avoiding international decisions and engaging in gaffes, hesitation, and shirking what the circumstances require him to do.
President Obama said the barbaric execution would "redouble the vigilance and determination on the part of global coalition to make sure that they [ISIS] are degraded and ultimately defeated." But one question is this: How will the U.S. president translate this pledge into action as the leader of the coalition? The poles of the coalition are reproachful of Obama because of his political attitudes that are averse to clarity and devoid of strategy, such as by insisting on the need for Bashar al-Assad to step down without having a roadmap or practical preparations for implementing this. They are also reproachful because of the lack of U.S. military preparations in the framework of the coalition.
The UAE suspended its air operations against ISIS, urging the United States to provide better protection for pilots in the event that their planes are downed by moving U.S. search and rescue equipment from Kuwait to northern Iraq. The UAE is right to do so.
Jordan will need more and more after King Abdullah II ordered the death sentences against Sajida Rishawi to be implemented. ISIS had demanded Rishawi's release in return for the pilot Kasasbeh, at a time when it had already burned him alive a month ago.
In the beginning, some Jordanian tribes, when Jordan declared its intention to do a prisoner swap, called publicly for Jordan to withdraw from the international anti-ISIS coalition, saying this was not Jordan's war. After the video was posted, the Jordanian tribes, including that of Kasasbeh's father, began calling for revenge and supported the decision of King Abdullah to expedite the death sentences involving convicted jihadists and to remain in the coalition.
It is likely that ISIS would step up its revenge and escalate against Jordan. For its part, Jordan will likely resume its air sorties as part of the coalition's air campaign against ISIS, after having suspended its operations following the capture of the Jordanian pilot. This will require the members of the coalition, especially the United States, to implement practical and advances measures to protect Jordan. Here, Japan may be the first country to step up support for Jordan, after ISIS executed a Japanese journalist. ISIS had linked his release to the release of Sajida Rishawi, a demand Jordan agreed to but in return for the release of both the Japanese and Jordanian hostage and demanded proof of life. The deal was unsuccessful.
It is therefore expected that a serious and comprehensive review of the work of the international coalition would take place, in the aftermath of the beheadings and immolation exhibited by ISIS this week. It is now clear that air strikes alone will not bring about the full defeat of ISIS, and that there is no alternative to a clearer and broader political and military strategy in the air and on the ground.
The Arab and international popular climate is now more open to more stringent measures to stop the horrendous crimes perpetrated by ISIS, which has moved from beheading to burning people alive. This is a deliberate escalation by ISIS meant to invite denunciation while attracting volunteers for its ranks, and to provoke the United States into broader participation in the war against it possibly. This would be especially the case if ISIS decides to kill the American woman it holds hostage, and indeed, the execution of a young American woman in her 20s would have a huge impact on U.S. decision makers and the nature of U.S. measures.
The beheading of the Japanese journalist and immolation of the Jordanian pilot constitute the most blatant challenge for the members of the coalition and the American political and military diffidence. The talk being circulated about a response is not limited to escalating the military operations of the coalition, but also includes prospects for possible -- or impossible -- accords between the United States and Russia on the Syrian arena. It also includes the Iranian regional and nuclear dimension in the U.S. calculations, bearing in mind that Iran is playing a direct military role in Syria alongside the regime to keep Assad in power, while the regime in Damascus is marketing itself as a natural ally for the coalition in its bid to defeat ISIS.
From the Arab side, the members of the coalition, the Gulf countries and Jordan, in addition to Egypt, are in remarkable accord and have important joint positions. This could form a nucleus for that "Arab force" that has to be considered as a serious option sooner or later.
On the international level, the equation between the United States and Russia has returned to regional and international considerations. On the surface at least, fighting ISIS in Syria seems to be something both the United States and Russia agree on, as both countries consider the organization their enemy. As for the necessary measures in the broader strategy that requires abandoning Bashar al-Assad to mobilize an upsurge against ISIS, these are hitting the wall of the American-Russian relationship and the requirements of accord between them.
The question today is what does Russia, which is in a standoff with the West in Ukraine, want? Russia has accused the United States and Saudi Arabia of "starving" the Russian people by driving oil prices down. What are the demands of President Vladimir Putin, who is well aware of the risk ISIS poses to him on his home soil and immediate vicinity? Is he ready to adapt with what is needed in Syria in relation to Assad's fate, to allow the international coalition to defeat ISIS? Or is he still insisting on clinging to the Syrian president under any circumstances and at any price?
What is the price Vladimir Putin wants? Accords and trade-offs? Or are his goals strictly confined to strategic and nationalistic calculations? Meanwhile, will oil prices and their damaging effect on Russia force it to reconsider and seek different kinds of negotiations and trade-offs?
This will depend on the extent of the existential threat felt by Russia. So far, the United States, Russia, and the European countries do not see ISIS as an existential threat. For this reason, they may drag their feet. If this happens, ISIS might respond in kind, considering this a signal for it to restrict its destructive and barbaric activities to the Arab region.
For this reason, the voices rising in the American arena to caution against repercussions for the U.S. homeland should the hesitant and reluctant policies continue are sounding the alarm about the threat that the popular majority wants to be dealt with, while the U.S. administration wants to mitigate until the nuclear negotiations with Iran are concluded.
For this reason as well, retired military figures and others in Congress consider the leniency with Iran's nuclear and regional ambitions as a threat to the stability of the Middle East and U.S. interests. This is a taste of what is to come should nuclear negotiations fail with Iran.
These voices are reminding people that the United States has the option of imposing an economic blockade on Iran, should the nuclear talks fail. It also has the ability to thwart Iranian intervention in Syria -- whether direct or through groups like Hezbollah -- and trim Iran regional ambitions.
The coming phase will be difficult for the Arab region. But it will not be a phase in which Islamic radicalism in its multiple sectarian flavors will triumph.
Translated from Arabic by Karim Traboulsi
Read the whole story
· · · · · ·
Russian President Vladimir Putin is taking advantage of a military exhibition in Moscow to discuss an Iranian-Russian initiative for ending the civil war in Syria with visiting Middle Eastern leaders. Jordan’s King Abdullah and Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan of the United Arab Emirates arrived in Moscow on Monday, followed Tuesday by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi. Delegations from several other Arab states are expected, as well as an Iranian delegation that will sign a deal to buy S-300 surface-to-air missiles.
The Iranian-Russian initiative has gathered momentum following the signing of the nuclear accord between Iran and the six powers. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently hosted Iranian and Saudi representatives to discuss details of the initiative, which includes an expansion of the Arab-Western coalition’s attacks against the Islamic State organization so as to include the Syrian army and its allies. Also arriving in Moscow was a delegation representing the National Syrian Coalition, the internationally recognized umbrella organization of Syrian opposition groups. Assad’s opponents reject the idea of including him in the fight against Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, and want to ensure that any future scenario includes his departure.
The Syrian air force continued to bomb rebel-controlled Damascus suburbs as well as villages and towns held by Islamist extremist groups in the country’s northwest. The London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 42 people were killed in the bombing. In Douma, which was heavily bombed last week — over 150 people died, and the city’s main market was destroyed — 23 were killed. In northwestern Syria 17 people died when barrels bombs were dropped on the village of al-Bara.
The MAKS-2015 air show, which will include representatives from 30 countries, comes as Russia is making every effort to increase its revenues in face of sanctions imposed by Western countries because of the Ukrainian crisis as well as the sharp drop in oil prices. Despite the economic crisis, Russia is spending billions of dollars to upgrade its armed forces and increasing its naval activity in the Arctic Ocean and the Far East. Russian arms sales in 2014 exceeded $15.5 billion in arms sales, despite the sanctions on its military industries. It is the second largest exporter of arms in the world, after the United States.
The Egyptian daily Al Ahram reported that at their meeting, scheduled for Wednesday, Sissi and Putin will discuss “all aspects of bilateral relations, including prospects of further strengthening trade and economic cooperation.” The two leaders are expected to announce several economic, political and military accords, including the building of two nuclear power stations in western Egypt and the establishment of a new Russian industrial zone in the Suez Canal. Russia may also build a nuclear power station in Jordan.
Read the whole story
· ·
Winters are the stuff of legend in Russia and – despite a fair bit of warming – winter 2015/16 is shaping up to be one of the harshest, and most formative, in recent memory.
After a brief period of respite – and muted acceptance of the “new normal” – to start the year, Putin and company again face a colossal economic mess. From worst to first and back again, the Russian ruble continues its volatile post-Crimea journey. Its surprise run as the world’s number one performing major currency is long gone and the ruble has collapsed nearly 25 percent since the end of May, and 11 percent alone in August. For optimists and pessimists alike, speculation on the ruble’s future is an exercise in futility. To be sure – on its current path – it’s not a very fun activity either.
On a micro level, the ripple effects have hit hard. Real wages, or purchasing power, fell 4.8 percent in July and dropped 9.2 percent compared with the same period a year ago. Disposable income is also down 2.9 percent on the year. Unemployment remained steady, but an increasing number of workers are not getting paid; the amount of salary in arrears climbed 6.2 percent in July. Further, there is talk of delinking pension hikes from inflation, a move that would condemn a growing number of the population to abject poverty should the economic trends continue.
More broadly, the recession is in full swing. Russia’s gross domestic product slipped 4.6 percent year-on-year in the second quarter – a fall that makes it the worst performing mid-sized economy in the world, ahead of Iraq and Venezuela. Negative growth in 2016 is looking more and more possible and Bank of Russia economists estimate that western sanctions have lowered the GDP ceiling by as much as 0.6 percent this year.
Energy export revenues have obviously tanked, but longer-term sources of growth are also proving elusive in the current climate. Capital expenditures in industrial production and infrastructure are down and continue to fall. Conversely, capital flight may reach $90 billion by year’s end.
It’s quite apparent that a business-as-usual approach spells trouble for Russia; minus some budgetary magic, or a swift oil price turnaround, the reserve fund may dry up within a year. The solutions are not abundantly clear, but, for the first time in a long time, the costs of changing an inefficient status quo – Russia’s institutional trap – may finally outweigh the benefits of its existence.
Grumblings of discontent at the top have been quick to surface. President of the struggling Russian Railways Vladimir Yakunin is out – apparently of his own volition – and other CEOs, Rosneft’s Sechin and Gazprom’s Miller included, may see their tenures cut short in the name of greater efficiency.
Bailout legislation currently in the works aims to reduce the strain on nationally significant companies, but the list of suitors far exceeds the available capital. It is unclear whether or not Gazprom and Rosneft are among the early applicants for aid, but Putin has promised that current and future supply projects, and foreign contracts, will not be threatened.
Toward this end, a push for technological and operational independence has been prioritized. Baker Hughes has entered into a partnership with Novosibirsk State University on the modeling of oil fields; GazpromNeft is developing its own forecasting software; and the government is working to provide import-substituting producers with the appropriate financial levers for success. Still, both cost- and time-intensive, this is a long-term contingency plan that few can count on.
For its part, foreign experience will continue to play a major role. Halliburton’s Sperry Drilling, C.A.T.Oil AG, and Schlumberger are just some of the companies taking advantage of the increaseddemand for horizontal drilling in conventional plays. Rosneft will look for its newest acquisition, Trican Well Service, to provide similar, production enhancing, services.
Further, a draft bill seeks to open up large deposits of oil and gas for exploration – a tacit admission that the old, and oft-changing, mineral regime did little to spur greenfield development. However, interest in the blocks, previously off-limits to foreign producers, is hardly encouraging.
Maintaining output and market share amid low demand and low prices remains the goal du jour. And, to be sure, the oil and gas will keep flowing – there’s no other option. But, for the people at the top, and the people on the ground, it’s going to be a long winter.
Read the whole story
· · ·
- Get link
- X
- Other Apps
Comments
Post a Comment