Polar Silk Road: Why Russia’s Northern Sea Route is the Best Option for China

Russia’s Northern Sea Route emerges as the best option for Beijing’s “Polar Silk Road” project, RIA Novosti contributor Dmitry Lekukh underscores. Besides developing the secure transit routes along the Russian Arctic and Far East, Moscow and Beijing are likely to bolster the exploration of natural reserves in the region, he noted.

China’s newly announced “Polar Silk Road” evokes the memory of President Vladimir Putin’s remark about the possibility to link the Beijing-led One Belt One Road project with Russia’s Northern Sea Route, which is likely to become one of major trade routes connecting Asia and Europe, RIA Novosti contributor Dmitry Lekukh writes.

“The Chinese government hereby issues this white paper, to expound its basic positions on Arctic affairs, to elaborate on its policy goals, basic principles and major policies and positions regarding its engagement in Arctic affairs, to guide relevant Chinese government departments and institutions in Arctic-related activities and cooperation, to encourage relevant parties to get better involved in Arctic governance, and to work with the international community to safeguard and promote peace and stability in, and the sustainable development of, the Arctic,” China’s Arctic Policy white paper, which was released on January 26, reads.

The journalist argued that Russia’s northern route, which goes along Russia’s Arctic and Far East regions, corresponds best to Beijing’s geopolitical interests and security.

Lekukh drew attention to the fact that the trade route through the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean is overburdened. Moreover, the Middle East still remains a hotbed of instability. Another potential route running through Central America — either the existing Panama or the hypothetical Nicaraguan canal — doesn’t meet Beijing’s need to bolster ties between Europe and Asia, the journalist noted.

According to Lekukh, only two polar routes could be of a truly strategic, long-term interest for China: the Northwest Passage, which runs along the northern coast of North America; and Russia’s Northern Sea Route, which appears to be “far more attractive” for the Chinese, as the first lane goes through the territorial waters of Beijing’s geopolitical competitors, the US and its ally, Canada.

“For [Russia], China’s active participation in the development of the Northern Sea Route is attractive not only because of potential investments [into Russia’s economy on the part of Beijing],” the journalist explained, “For us, the Chinese could be of particular interest as constant ‘purchasers of services’… And it’s absolutely logical because the Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese and the countries of the European Union will be also interested in [Russia’s] Northern Sea Route ‘services’.”

However, it’s beyond doubt that China will become the “transit wholesaler” on the NSR, Lekukh highlighted.

Meanwhile, China’s sphere of interest in the Arctic also includes the joint exploration of the region’s natural resources with the Russian Federation; while Moscow, for its part, is vitally interested in Beijing’s helping hand developing the Arctic infrastructure, the RIA Novosti contributor assumed.

Apparently, therefore, the two countries are boosting cooperation in the field of new Arctic technologies for ocean research, modeling of ice loads and ship structural analysis, Lekukh wrote, adding that in December 2017 the St. Petersburg State Maritime Technical University and the China Shipbuilding Research Center struck an agreement to jointly develop these technologies.

“It is a very good sign that the authorities of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China have approximately the same vision for the need to cooperate on the development of this [Arctic] region. Neighborliness and common interests are the best way to establish cooperation, and not only in the ‘Arctic areas’,” the journalist underscored, admitting, however, that it will take time and effort to implement the mutually beneficial Sino-Russian project.

Source: https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201801301061169398-china-polar-silk-road/

It’s not a gas – time for Europe to stand up to US hawks on Russia

Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at http://www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66

Will the new tough sanctions package on Russia passed almost unanimously by Congress and awaiting the signature of President Trump be the straw that broke the camel’s back for the European Union?

The bill, which also targets Iran and North Korea, not only expands sanctions against Russia and potentially throws a massive spanner in the works of the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline between Germany and Russia, but also seeks to limit the president’s ability to ease, or lift the sanctions in the future. The message from the neocon dominated Congress is clear: Russia must be kept in the ’sin-bin’(until of course a nice ‘liberal’ who will do everything the hawks in Washington demand comes to power), and economic/business links between Europe and Russia must be broken.

European leaders, many of whom would like to see sanctions on Russia eased have been quick to voice their disapproval. They know the huge cost to their economies the sanctions and Russian countermeasures have had, €4 billion to Italy alone, and further escalation of financial warfare with the Kremlin would be utterly disastrous.

Why should European companies and workers suffer because of the anti-Russian obsession of the American elites? Do we honestly think the US would impose sanctions on a country to its great economic detriment if European countries demanded it? You can literally bet your bottom dollar that they wouldn’t.

“I think the US sanctions are absolutely unacceptable. You can’t mix up political and economic interests, at the expense of European jobs,” was the angry verdict of Austria’s Chancellor Christian Kern.

‘‘Sanctions against Russia should not become a tool of industrial policy in US interests,” said Martin Schaefer, spokesman for the German Foreign Ministry.

“America First cannot mean that Europe’s interests come last,”declared EU President, Jean-Claude Juncker.

Alas, that’s what’s been happening for some time now – and Donald Trump has nothing to do with it.

The sad truth is that since the era of strong, independently-minded leaders such as Charles de Gaulle, Olof Palme, and Bruno Kreisky, Europe HAS subordinated its interests to that of the US and lobbies operating in the US.

Take the 2012 EU sanctions on Iran. At first, Europe resisted pressure from the US (and the pro-Israel lobby), to impose an oil embargo on Tehran over an unproven nuclear weapons program. They eventually succumbed – to great cost to EU member states such as Greece, Spain, and Italy who benefited from the importation of cheaper Iranian oil.

So often in recent years, Europeans have been left picking up the tab for neocon policies.

Consider the refugee crisis. This has been caused in large part due to US-led ‘wars of intervention’ in the Middle East and elsewhere. The vast majority of refugees heading to Europe are coming from countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Syria, which have either been attacked or invaded by the US or where Washington has backed proxy forces to topple the governments. Of course, imperialistic European countries, under craven ’Atlanticist’ leadership, have played a key role in these conflicts too, with Britain particularly culpable and France too, in regards to the destruction of Libya.

While some European countries, like Germany, have opened their doors quite widely to refugees fleeing the war zones the US has lagged some way behind.

“The US accepts far fewer Syrian refugees than other Western countries,” notes the Guardian.

Now lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to hit European pockets even harder. Congress is clearly out to sabotage the Nord Stream-2 pipeline, with its proposal the US would be able to sanction any company which was involved in the maintenance or development of Russia’s energy export pipelines.

“This bill, if it comes into force, would allow measures against European natural or juridical persons for situations that have no connection with the United States,” declared a statement from the French Foreign Ministry.

Of course, that’s utterly outrageous. But again it’s not without precedent. In 1996 Congress passed the Iran and Libyan Sanctions Act, giving the US the right to impose economic sanctions on firms doing business with those two countries. The Helms-Burton Act of 1996 also penalized foreign companies that did business in Cuba, by preventing them doing business in the US.

It’s not enough the US sanctions countries it doesn’t like, everyone else has to join in too. Or else.

Apologists for 21st-century imperialism would call this “fighting for democracy and human rights.” Straight-talkers would call it what it is: bullying.

We only have to follow the money trail to see who benefits from all of this. If European-Russian energy projects are scuppered, US gas companies, offering more expensive liquefied natural gas, would be the big winners.

Back in June, the first US natural gas was shipped to Poland. “The United States is in a position to start aggressively marketing gas exports to Europe because of its “”fracking revolution,”…After decades of consuming nearly all of the energy it produced, the United States is now expected to become the world’s third-largest exporter of gas by 2020,”enthuses the CIA-seed funded, RFE/RL.

This desire, to dominate Europe’s energy market, and the childish desire of hawks in Congress to get Donald Trump to ‘prove’ he is not a ‘Russian agent’ by signing a bill that will kill off any hopes of better relations between Washington and Moscow, is the background to the new sanctions legislation.

If Europe doesn’t oppose it forcefully, then it’s effectively signing up to its own assisted suicide. Moscow has already said it doesn’t rule out any measures ‘to bring the US to its senses’- and as a first step has ordered the US to reduce its embassy staff in Moscow to 455 people (from about 1,100) and to stop using storage facilities.

Do EU leaders want to join in with foaming-at-the-mouth US neocons and ’liberal hawks’ in their fanatical crusade against Russia? Again, if war does break out, as some seem to want, it’ll be Europe that takes the biggest hit, and not the US.

It’s not hard to find historical parallels. The subservient EU relationship to Washington in recent decades can be compared to the ’Dual Monarchy’ of Austria-Hungary which officially came into being in 1867. While Vienna and Budapest had ’equal’ status, it was clear who called the shots – literally. When Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo in June 1914, it was the Hungarians who urged caution. Hungarian Prime Minister, Count Istvan Tisza, was opposed to any military assault on Serbia without prior diplomatic action and opposed giving Belgrade a list of demands that would be impossible to fulfill. In the end, he capitulated – and the Great War started.

“Tisza resisted for a fortnight,” notes historian Peter Hanak. “In spite of this though, Austrian and German politicians, together with the military, finally convinced him that the time was now ripe for the Central Powers to go to war. Any delay would only serve the interests of the Entente-made up of the ‘enemies’: France, Britain, and Russia.”

The result was a catastrophe not just for Hungary, which lost around two-thirds of its territory, but the whole of Europe. And, in October 1918, Tisza, the man who had caved-in to external pressure, against his own country’s best interests, was shot dead after angry soldiers and workers broke into his house.

As in 1914, Europe is now at a critical point in its history. Will its leaders ‘do a Tisza’ and surrender to the war-hawks, or will they resist the pressure to agree- or acquiesce- to an anti-Russian, anti-European policy which they know is not in their countries’ interests? The next few weeks will tell us all.

Twitter @NeilClark66

West Pressure on Serbia Over Anti-Russia Sanctions Unacceptable – FM

 

Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic said that pressurizing Serbia into supporting sanctions against Russia is unacceptable

BELGRADE (Sputnik) — Pressurizing Serbia into supporting sanctions against Russia is unacceptable, Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dacic said.

“Serbia will never do something that contradicts our national interests. Many major Western states are present at international forums as the so-called ‘friends of Kosovo,’ and we are expected to introduce sanctions against Serbia’s friends. We want good relations with everyone but we cannot act against ourselves,” Dacic was quoted as saying by the Foreign Ministry. He added that “intimidating Serbia does not work anymore” and that Belgrade was open to cooperating with everyone but put the country’s national interests first. Russia supports Serbia’s position on Kosovo, which declared independence from Serbia in February 2008. It has since been recognized by over 100 UN member states, while Belgrade considers Kosovo part of Serbia. Dozens of countries, including Russia, do not recognize Kosovo’s sovereignty. Since 2014, relations between Russia and the West has gone downhill amid the crisis in Ukraine. Brussels, Washington and their allies have introduced several rounds of anti-Russia sanctions Crimea’s reunification with Russia and Moscow’s alleged involvement in the Ukrainian conflict. Russia has repeatedly denied the allegations, warning that the Western sanctions are counterproductive and undermine global stability.

Russia is one of Serbia’s main trading partners in the world with the bilateral trade turnover in 2015 standing at a hefty $1.5 billion and Russian investments of the past few years exceeding $3 billion.
Moreover, thanks to the free trade regime existing between the two countries, 99 percent of Serbian exports to Russia come here customs free.

Despite the current economic crisis, Serbian exports to Russia have gone up 9.5 percent since January, and a similar free trade deal with the Eurasian Economic Union would increase the number of potential buyers of Serbian goods to 200 million. However, Serbia’s entry into the EU would render this free trade agreement null and void simply because no such arrangement currently exists in the EU.

Alexander Chepurin proposed the creation of “a Russian-Serbian mechanism” to monitor potential problems Belgrade’s EU integration would entail.

The Russian ambassador’s proposal left the participants of the Belgrade summit divided with Serbia’s former envoy to the US, Ivan Vujacic, warning that for all its good intentions, this “mechanism” would complicate Belgrade’s already difficult integrations talks with Brussels, especially in view of the tense relations now existing between the EU and Russia. Former Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos said, for his part, that Alexander Chepurin’s proposal; made a lot of sense. “If you have shared interests, the best thing you should do is to discuss things. I believe that that the negotiations between Serbia and the EU are a two-way road. Serbia has good relations with Russia and any dialogue on this issue would benefit us all,” he emphasized. The European Union granted Serbia candidate status for membership in 2012, demanding from Belgrade to implement a number of reforms as well as effectively recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Serbia opened two of the 35 chapters needed for accession to the European Union in mid-December 2015, including one on normalizing ties with Kosovo.

Source:

The Eurasian Century Is NOW Unstoppable

The transfer of the geopolitical center of gravity to Eurasia is something the West will have to get used to

 

William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, “New Eastern Outlook


I recently returned from a fascinating two week speaking tour in China. The occasion was the international premier of my newest book, One Belt, One Road–China and the New Eurasian Century.

In the course of my visit I was invited by China’s Northwest University in Xi’an to give a lecture and seminar on the present global political and economic situation in the context of China’s New Economic Silk Road as the One Belt, One Road project is often called.

What I’ve seen in my many visits to China, and have studied about the entirety of this enormously impressive international infrastructure project convinces me that a Eurasian Century at this point is unstoppable.

The idiotic wars of the Washington war-hawks and their military industry–in Syria, in Ukraine, Libya, Iraq and now the South China Sea provocations against China–are not going to stop what is now clearly the most impressive and economically altering project in more than a century.

The term “American Century” was triumphantly proclaimed in a famous editorial in Life magazine in 1941 in the early phase of World War II, before the United States had even entered the war, to describe the system publisher Henry Luce saw dominating the postwar world after the fall of the rival British Empire.

The American Century has lasted a mere seven decades if we date from the end of the war. Its record has been one of dismal failure on balance. The industrial base of the United States, the predominant leading industrial nation and leading scientific innovator, today is a hollowed, rotted shell with once-booming cities like Detroit or Philadelphia or Los Angeles now burned-out ghettos of unemployed and homeless.

The Federal Debt of the United States, owing to the endless wars its Presidents engage in, as well as the fruitless bailouts of Wall Street banks and Government Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae, is well over 103% of GDP at an astonishing $19.5 trillion, or more than $163,000 per taxpaying American and Washington is adding to the debt this year at near $600 billion. Countries like China and Russia are moving away from subsidizing that debt at a record pace.

America’s economic basic infrastructure–bridges, sewer and water treatment plants, electric grid, railways, highways–have been neglected for more than four decades for a variety of reasons.

The American Society of Civil Engineers recently estimated that gross domestic product will be reduced by $4 trillion between 2016 and 2025 because of lost business sales, rising costs and reduced incomes if the country continues to underinvest in its infrastructure. That is on top of the fact that they estimate the country at present urgently requires new infrastructure investment of $3.3 trillion by the coming decade just to renew.

Yet US states and cities are not able to finance such an investment in the future in the present debt situation, nor is the debt-choked Federal Government, so long as a cartel of corrupt brain-dead Wall Street banks and financial funds hold America to ransom.

This is the sunset for the American Century, a poorly disguised imperial experiment in hubris and arrogance by a gaggle of boring old patriarchs like David Rockefeller and his friends on Wall Street and in the military industry. It is the starkest contrast to what is going on to the east, across all Eurasia today.

Flowing the Thought to Transform

The Eurasian Century is the name I give to the economic emergence of the countries contiguous from China across Central Asia, Russia, Belarus, Iran and potentially Turkey. They are being integrally linked through the largest public infrastructure projects in modern history, in fact the most ambitious ever, largely concentrated on the 2013 initiative by Chinese President Xi Jinping called the One Belt, One Road initiative or OBOR.

The project and its implications for Europe and the rest of the world economy have been so far greeted in the west with a stone silence that defies explanation.

It’s been now three years that have transpired since then-new Chinese President Xi Jinping made one of his first foreign visits to Kazakhstan where he discussed the idea of building a vast, modern network of high-speed train lines crossing the vast Eurasian land space from the Pacific coast of China and Russia through Central Asia into Iran, into the states of the Eurasian Economic Union, principally Russia and potentially on to the select states of the European Union.

That initial proposal was unveiled in detail last year by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s economic planning organization, and the ministries of Foreign Affairs and Commerce.

It’s a useful point to look now more closely at what has transpired to date. It reveals most impressive developments, more because the development process is creative and organic. The great project is no simple blueprint made by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and then simply imposed, top down, across the so-far 60 countries of Eurasia and South East Asia.

An international conference was recently held in Xi’an, origin of the ancient version of One Belt, One Road, namely the Silk Road. The purpose of the international gathering was to review what has so far taken place.

It’s fascinating, notably, in the care that’s being taken by China to do it in a different way, as indications so far are, different from the way American Robber Barons like Cornelius Vanderbilt, E.H. Harriman, Jay Gould or Russell Sage built rail monopolies and deluded and defrauded investors with railroad monopolies more than a century ago.

The seminar, titled the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): Shared Memory and Common Development, on September 26th, brought together over 400 participants from more than 30 countries including government officials, universities, corporations, think tanks and media.

A key role is being played by Renmin University of China’s Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies to identify progress and problems of the OBOR project. Their report in Xi’an presented principles underlying the OBOR international project: It adheres to the principles of the UN Charter; it is completely open for new participant nations to cooperate; it will follow market rules and seek mutual benefit of participating countries.

Those are noble words. What’s more interesting is the flow process underway to realize such words and to build the mammoth game-changing infrastructure.

Notably, China’s Xi Jinping decided to encourage input from sources other than the state central planning agency or the Communist Party for the complex OBOR. He encouraged creation of private and independent think-tanks to become a source of new creative ideas and approaches.

Today there is a Chinese Think Tank Cooperation Alliance group coordinating efforts around OBOR headed by the dean of the Renmin University. In turn they partner with think tanks along the OBOR route including think tanks in Iran, Turkey, India, Nepal, Kazakhstan and other countries.

There will be two main routes of the OBOR. On land there are several routes or corridors in work. The Initiative will focus on jointly building what is being called a new Eurasian Land Bridge from China via Kazakhstan on to Rotterdam. Other OBOR land rail corridors include developing China-Mongolia-Russia, China-Central Asia-West Asia, China-Pakistan, Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar, and China-Indochina Peninsula economic corridors.vThis is huge.

It will build on international transport routes, relying on core cities along the OBOR route and using key economic industrial parks as “cooperation platforms.”

At sea, the Initiative will focus on jointly building smooth, secure and efficient transport routes connecting major sea ports along the “Belt and Road” including modern upgraded super port construction that will link present China ports at Haikou and Fujian with Kuala Lumpur’s port in Malaysia at the Malacca Strait passage, Calcutta in India, Nairobi in Kenya and via the Suez Canal to Athens and beyond. Crucial is that land and sea parts of OBOR are seen as one whole circulatory system or flow of trade.

The OBOR Initiative will link key Eurasian ports with interior rail and pipeline infrastructure in a way not before seen

To date China has signed memoranda of understanding with 56 countries and regional organizations regarding OBOR. Since his initial proposal in 2013, President Xi Jinping has personally visited 37 countries to discuss implementation of OBOR. China Railway Group and China Communications Construction Company have signed contracts for key routes and ports in 26 countries.

Power plants, electricity transmission facilities and oil and gas pipelines, covering 19 countries along the “Belt and Road” in some 40 energy projects have begun. China Unicom, China Telecom and China Mobile are speeding up cross-border transmission projects in countries along the “Belt and Road” to expand international telecommunication infrastructure.

Already, taking the full sea and land routes of OBOR, some $3 trillion of China trade since June 2013 has flowed over the route, more than a quarter of China’s total trade volume.

To date China has also invested more than $51 billion in the countries along the present OBOR route. The new land rail routes will greatly reduce transportation costs across Eurasia, enable formerly isolated regions to connect efficiently to sea and land markets and ignite tremendous new economic growth across Eurasia.

The effects of the OBOR are already beginning to appear. Earlier this year an Iranian container ship arrived at Qinzhou Port in China with 978 containers from several countries along the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road opening the first shipping route linking the Middle East and the Beibu Gulf or Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnamese.

In February 2016 a container train with Chinese goods took only 14 days to complete the 5,900 mile (9,500km) journey from China’s eastern Zhejiang province through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

That was 30 days shorter than the sea voyage from Shanghai to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, according to the head of the Iranian railway company. China and Iran, now formally part of the OBOR, have targeted bilateral trade, none in US dollars by the way, to exceed $600 billion in the coming decade.

China is presently in negotiations with 28 countries China is in talks with 28 countries including Russia, on high-speed rail projects, China’s train maker, China CNR reports.

It includes a major joint China-Russia $15 billion high-speed Kazan to Moscow line. The 770 kilometers of track between Moscow and Russia’s Tatarstan capital, Kazan, will cut time for the journey from 12 hours now to just 3.5 hours. China has agreed to invest $6 billion in the project which would become a part of a $100 billion high-speed railway between Moscow and Beijing.

Notably, for the new high-speed track being laid, China is developing a new generation of trains capable of reaching speeds of 400 kilometers per hour. And the new trains will solve the costly rail gauge switching problem between China rails and Russian.

Trains in Russia run on a 1520mm track, compared to the narrower 1435mm track used in Europe and China. Jia Limin, the head of China’s high-speed rail innovation program told China Daily that, “The train… will have wheels that can be adjusted to fit various gauges on other countries’ tracks, compared with trains now that need to have their wheels changed before entering foreign systems.”

Given its strategy of building thousands of kilometers of high-speed railways and developing its domestic Chinese rail sock manufacture as well as other rail technology, China today is the world’s leading producer of rail technology.


Please follow the link to finish reading of the original article posted by

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/10/11/eurasian-century-now-unstoppable.html

Question for EU – Is it time to leave NATO?

 

While NATO officials are preparing for a July summit in Warsaw, European social activists and prominent politicians have launched a new anti-NATO campaign, protesting against the bloc’s nuclear buildup and anti-Russia provocations, French journalist Karel Vereycken told Sputnik

 

“NATO and the EU are complementary, and we already work more closely together than ever before,” Stoltenberg told Poland.pl, adding that the two blocs conduct a coordinated policy to counter the Russian “threat.”

“The EU delivered economic sanctions, and NATO delivered the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War,” he emphasized.

However, it would be an exaggeration to say that the Europeans are unanimously welcoming the summit and its controversial and provocative agenda.


Let’s face it – as it is EU is serving more and more as some sort of the political wing of NATO and less and less as the factor of European cooperation on economical, political and social levels. Continuing with current trends will certainly bring both EU and NATO to a point of self-destruction – the only way for EU to reinvent itself and regain trust and support of people is to distance itself from NATO which is completely controlled by USA and their main henchman in Europe – UK. 
In my opinion the best solution would be – UK out of EU and EU out of NATO. And it seems that similar opinion is shared by a growing number of citizens of EU. 

Following the event announcement, European social activists and prominent politicians have drawn up a petition entitled “The Warsaw Summit Prepares for War, It’s Time to Leave NATO Now!”

“The upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw on July 8-9 is expected to be yet another provocation against Russia. By this call, we, the undersigned, want to say ‘stop’ to this nuclear escalation before the irreparable occurs!” the petition translated in German, Italian and French languages reads.

“We the undersigned see that NATO is carrying out a provocative policy of ‘encirclement’,” the authors of the petition continue, referring to the Alliance’s continuous expansion towards the Russian borders; the deployment of the Aegis anti-missile defense system in Romania, Poland, Turkey and Spain; NATO’s military buildup in the Baltic States, Poland and Romania; and the creation of a “Nordic Front” against Russia, comprised of Denmark, Iceland and Norway as well as of NATO partner states Sweden and Finland.

The petition has called attention to the fact that the modernization of nuclear weapons by the US and stationing new B61-12 guided nuclear bombs in Europe, poses a grave threat to the EU’s security, evoking disturbing memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

It urges European leaders to adopt a policy of the “empty chair” at the Warsaw NATO Summit of 2016 and to leave the Alliance, which no longer has any ‘raison d’être’ in order to put an end to this threat.

Europeans know that Russia does not pose any danger to the EU. Bruce Konviser of Deutsche Welle reported Thursday that ahead of the summit NATO “is struggling to assemble four battalions to safeguard its eastern flank from a possible Russian attack.”

“The US, Britain, and a reluctant Germany have each agreed to lead one multinational battalion. But so far NATO’s other major players, France and Italy are balking at leading the fourth battalion,” Konviser writes, adding that at the same time many Alliance’s member states are “falling short of their economic commitments” to NATO.

The Alliance has outlived itself, having lost its ‘raison d’être’ back in the 1990s, when its adversaries — the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact — ceased to exist.

Source: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160602/1040675105/leave-nato-europeans-petition.html


Apart from UK, the most aggressive supporters of increased NATO presence close to the Russian borders happen to be the most loyal allies of Nazi Germany in World War II. Coincidence? I don’t think so! Playing with the fires of war might get them and their masters from the other side of Atlantic Ocean to where Nazi Germany found itself in 1945. 

The Europeans have let themselves become drawn into an ‘insane march on Russia’ so that the US can satisfy its global interests, but this might lead to very catastrophic consequences.

The EU – occupied, confused and suicidal

 

The EU is the biggest “regime change” ever performed by Anglo-Saxon gang of the “five eyes” led by USA/UK. Is that any surprise? Of course not for a bunch of countries that accepted to live under foreign occupation since around 1939. I guess that is why they love using word “freedom” so much – some sort of nostalgia.


 

 

This disaster did not have to happen, it was entirely man made. In a saner world, the EU, Russia and the Ukraine could have negotiated a tripartite deal which would have given the Ukraine the role which geography and history have given it: to be a bridge between Russia and the EU. But the EU categorically rejected this option, several times, simply declaring that “the Ukraine is a sovereign state and Russia has no say in Ukrainian matters”.

from The Saker: 

This article was written for the Unz Review:http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-eus-suicide-by-reality-denial/

What had to happen did happen. The EU, being the chain of weak links it is, did eventually give in, and the Dutch people were the first one to vote against the association with the Ukraine. Of course, the Euroburocrats can now find some reason to declare the vote invalid, they can declare that some law was violated, they can even negotiate some minor change the to association agreement, or they might even decide that they can simply ignore this vote. But none of that will make any difference: the undeniable truth is that the Ukrainians are not welcome in the EU, not as associates and even less so as members. So no EU, no NATO no “European future” for the Ukraine. The entire hot air balloon which has been fueling the naïve and ugly hopes of the Euromaidan has burst and the Euro-Ukrainian project is crash and burning like the Hindenburg.

This disaster did not have to happen, it was entirely man made. In a saner world, the EU, Russia and the Ukraine could have negotiated a tripartite deal which would have given the Ukraine the role which geography and history have given it: to be a bridge between Russia and the EU. But the EU categorically rejected this option, several times, simply declaring that “the Ukraine is a sovereign state and Russia has no say in Ukrainian matters”. This zero sum game was forced on Russia against her will but now it is the EU which has lost it all, even if this is by no means a victory for Russia either. The sad reality is that everybody has lost. Now the EU has to accept the total defeat of its Ukrainian policy, Russia is now alone looking at a dying failed state right across her border, while the Ukraine is simply falling apart and dying a painful death. Will the Eurobureaucrats accept this outcome?

Probably not.

They will do what they have always done. They will lie, deny, minimize and, most importantly, pretend like nothing has happened. They will say that 60% of 30% of a small EU nation do not get to make decisions for the entire continent. Or they will declare that instead of just an old fashioned “association” the EU will offer the Ukraine something much better – a “heartfelt friendship” maybe. Or a “love eternal”. Or even a “continental brotherhood”. But that will all be in vain because the people of Europe are clearly weary of the Ukronazis, even their Polish “friends” are now considering building a wall of their own, to keep their “Ukrainian friends” out of Poland; feel the love!

Please follow the link to the original article to finish reading

Source:

https://theinternationalreporter.org/2016/04/08/the-eus-suicide-by-reality-denial/

 

Bosnia – Hotbed of Radical Islam in Europe

 

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

From 1992 to 1995, Bosnia was ravaged by a war pitting Muslims (known as Bosniaks), Serbs and Croats against each other.

Thousands of foreign Mujahedeen guerrillas entered the country to battle rampaging Serb forces. The 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement ended the fighting. It also partitioned Bosniaalong religious lines, creating two quasi-national entities – the Muslim-Croat Federation and the Bosnian Serb Republic.

Yet, after the war, many jihadists did not leave. The Saudi government has spent millions funding the construction of mosques and religious education centers. More ominously, Saudi-backed clerics have vigorously promoted Wahhabism, an intolerant and extreme form of Islam. In pamphlets, books and sermons, Wahhabis demand an Islamist Bosnia where Orthodox Christian Serbs and Catholic Croats are subjugated under Shariah law. The goal is also to drive out Western, especially American, influence. It’s no accident that Mr. Jasarevic is a Wahhabi. Militant Islam has regained a foothold in the Balkans.

For the past decade, anti-American sentiment has intensified among segments of Bosniaks. Following the toppling of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, U.S. troops found more than 1,000 dead jihadists on the battlefield possessing Bosnian passports. The Saudis have supported several Bosnian charities serving as front groups for al Qaeda cells. Radical organizations, such as the Young Muslims, have proliferated. During the Iraq war, some Bosnian Muslim fighters joined the insurgency against American forces. At one of Sarajevo’s main mosques, the second-highest-ranking cleric in the country, Ismet Spahic, publicly denounced the U.S.-led campaign in Iraq as “genocide.” Western intelligence reports say Bosnia has become fertile soil for recruiting “white al Qaeda” – Islamic extremists with Caucasian features, who could easily blend into American or European cities and commit heinous atrocities.

Western public officials, however, have refused even to acknowledge the Islamist problem. For example, from 2002 through 2006, the international high representative for Bosnia, Paddy Ashdown, repeatedly downplayed the rise of Wahhabism under his watch. Mr. Ashdown acted as the viceroy of Bosnia. He preferred to preside over pompous ceremonies, amass administrative power and gorge at elaborate banquets. He refused to speak out against incidents of Islamic extremism, such as vandalism against Catholic churches, the harassment of priests and nuns, and the growing persecution of Bosnian Croatians. He feared offending Muslim sensibilities.

The irony is that it was American air power that finally brought the Bosnian Serbs to heel and saved countless Bosniak lives. And still, jihadists such as Mr. Jasarevic are eager to wage holy war. This reveals the moral depravity and spiritual darkness at the heart of Islamic fundamentalism. The fundamentalists cannot be appeased. The West – including the peoples of the Balkans – must awaken to this evil force lurking in the heart of Europe.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

Source:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/10/radical-islam-in-the-heart-of-europe/