Archive for the ‘Russia’ category

Humor | Shaky Ground

September 30, 2015

Shaky Ground, Hope n’ Change, September 30, 2015

Shaky Ground

On Monday, Vladimir Putin met briefly with Barack Obama at the United Nations because he was  hungry and wanted to eat the president’s lunch, drink his milk shake, and then gobble up other nations for dessert.

Actually, we think that only happened metaphorically, but we’re not 100% sure because it’s hard to imagine President Dweebypants being in a room with Putin for more than 15 seconds without basically giving the Russian strongman everything he wants.

The two leaders were at the U.N. to explain their differing approaches to the twin crises of Syria and ISIS. Putin believes in arming Syria and its murderous dictator, Assad, and combining forces with other nations to crush ISIS and then crush anyone else who doesn’t like the idea of Putin taking over the world.

Obama, on the other hand, basically said that Assad is a stinker and Putin is on the wrong side of history, and that the United States – which has the most powerful military in the world – was immediately launching a “wish initiative” which consists of hoping (and hoping damn hard) that things will somehow magically “transition” in a way which benefits our national interests.

Mr. Obama also reaffirmed, while wearing his frowny face, that he wouldn’t hesitate to use military force to protect our country or our allies (Iran, last time we looked) but that he really doesn’t want to because the sort of military forcefulness which Putin is employing so successfully is “butch” and lacks panache.

Frankly, Hope n’ Change is embarrassed to have this babbling milquetoast appearing at the U.N. and confirming the increasingly terrified world’s belief that the United States is no longer in the superpower business. We’re also depressed thinking just how much more damage this nitwit can do with his remaining days in office.

Putin to Obama: Kiss my…

September 29, 2015

Putin to Obama: Kiss my… , Power LineScott Johnson, September 29, 2015

It’s a sort of PUTIN TO OBAMA moment. Cameron Joseph’s cover story is here. Like everyone else in world politics — everyone outside the White House, that is — Putin has Obama’s number.

NYDN

Israel’s biggest fears are materializing

September 27, 2015

Israel’s biggest fears are materializing, Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, September 27, 2015

144334028328300476a_bThe Munich moment is upon us. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif at U.N. headquarters on Saturday | Photo credit: AP

Washington is reaching out to Russia, which is openly helping Syrian President Bashar Assad, who is working in conjunction with Iran, which in turn supports Hezbollah. Now Europe is prepared to talk to Assad, but what about us, for heaven’s sake?

Two years ago to the day, in September 2013, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry compared Bashar Assad to Adolf Hitler, after the Syrian dictator once again used chemical weapons against his own people. “This is our Munich moment,” Kerry said at the time.

As far as the Americans were concerned, Assad had crossed a line. In those days (more like in those hours, actually), Washington briefly believed that a failure to respond to Assad’s actions would send a dangerous message to Iran regarding its nuclear ambitions.

“Will [Iran] remember that the Assad regime was stopped from those weapons’ current or future use, or will they remember that the world stood aside and created impunity?” Kerry asked at the time. History and retrospect have turned what may have been Kerry’s greatest speech into remarks entirely detached from reality.

The United States did not attack, Assad is still in power, and an ominous nuclear deal has been signed with Iran. It is no wonder that there is a new kind of atmosphere in the region, under American auspices. There are no more good guys and bad guys; everyone is a partner. And thanks to this new reality, Assad now has a renewed license to rule, after having received a license to kill.

Washington is reaching out to Russia, which is openly helping Assad in Syria, who is working in conjunction with Iran, which in turn supports Hezbollah. Europe (Angela Merkel), in the meantime, startled by its refugee crisis, is already prepared to talk with Assad; the same Assad who was compared to Hitler only two years ago. But what about us, for heaven’s sake?

Regretfully, Israel’s biggest fears are now materializing. Instead of being the architects and shaping a new reality in the Middle East, Washington is falling into line with the existing reality. Russia, Syria and Iran are enjoying the consequent vacuum. When the cat is away, the mice will play. Now, all of a sudden, even Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah is letting himself go on television, beaming with joy. Aside from the 75 tanks Damascus is giving him, he now sees his two patrons (Damascus and Tehran) become partners with the West, without having to change one bit.

There is no diplomatic vacuum

The latest developments in Syria are not encouraging: Assad’s first target, with Russia’s help, is expected to be the Nusra Front rebel group, which not only threatens Assad but is also a bitter enemy of the Islamic State group. In other words, somewhat paradoxically, Islamic State could initially benefit from the Russian intervention in Syria.

And one final word about Iran’s rapprochement with the international community: We have been told repeatedly that this was only about the nuclear deal, but in reality we can see cooperation between the U.S. and Iran in Iraq and in the war against Islamic State. We can also see American-Iranian dialogue regarding Syria’s future, and on Saturday night we learned of a gigantic deal worth upwards of $21 billion between Iran and Russia. This time I am forced to agree with Secretary Kerry: This really does look like a Munich moment.

Like it or not, Putin’s is the ‘only game in town’

September 26, 2015

Like it or not, Putin’s is the ‘only game in town’ Gulf News, Mustapha Karkouti, September 26, 2015

(Nature abhors a vacuum and Obama created one in the Middle East. Please see also, A Chinese aircraft carrier docks at Tartus to support Russian-Iranian military buildup. — DM)

With a nearly total absence of any significant US-led coalition presence in Syria, apart from slow-effective air strikes, Moscow seems to be the only dominant player in that region. As the Kremlin clearly stated, Putin’s intention is to prevent a repetition of Libya’s 2011 scenario and avoid the total collapse of Bashar Al Assad’s authority, similar to what happened following Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow after the badly-planned intervention by Nato. Putin is simply, but clearly, saying to the West: Where you failed in Libya, I’ll do better in Syria.

[W]hatever Putin’s plans are in the long run, his mission in the country is largely seen by the majority of Syrians as a sinister effort to save Al Assad and help him consolidate his authority in Syria.

**********************

It is very rare that a Russian head of state holds top strategic talks with an Israeli prime minister in the Russian capital. This happened just recently when Vladimir Putin met Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss Syria’s latest developments. The two chiefs are not known to have had close and friendly personal relations, but they displayed those sitting side by side in the Kremlin last week. The arrival in Moscow last Monday of Netanyahu accompanied by his chief of staff and head of military intelligence, is by all means unprecedented.

The visit is significant as it is a part of tripartite diplomatic activities that involve discussions with the US as well. The American Defence Secretary Ashton Carter has recently had a long and “useful” discussion with his Russian counterpart over Syria. With the current congestion of military activities in the sky above the region by the Israelis and Americans and the rapidly increasing presence of Russian forces and hardware, there is obviously a need to liaise to avoid any unpredicted conflict, i.e. shooting down one another’s planes by mistake. But both the US and Israel’s main concern goes far beyond the technicalities. They aim mostly at finding out what exactly the Kremlin’s long term purpose in Syria is and how far Moscow is capable of effectively controlling the direction of the tragic game currently being played in this sad country.

Sitting next to Netanyahu, Putin reassuringly explained what he was trying to achieve by stating that Moscow’s main goal was “to protect the Syrian state”, or more accurately, what’s left of it. The Russian president seemed fully aware of Netanyahu’s main concern of the Iran-supported potential attacks by Hezbollah and the Syrian army across the occupied Golan Heights, when he told his visitor that neither Damascus nor the Iranian-financed Lebanese militia was “in any state to open a second front”. In others words, Putin reassured Netanyahu that Moscow was fully engaged with Tehran and Damascus on that front.

Saving Al Assad

With a nearly total absence of any significant US-led coalition presence in Syria, apart from slow-effective air strikes, Moscow seems to be the only dominant player in that region. As the Kremlin clearly stated, Putin’s intention is to prevent a repetition of Libya’s 2011 scenario and avoid the total collapse of Bashar Al Assad’s authority, similar to what happened following Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow after the badly-planned intervention by Nato. Putin is simply, but clearly, saying to the West: Where you failed in Libya, I’ll do better in Syria.

The timing of Moscow’s build-up along the Syrian coastal area couldn’t be more perfect, particularly with western policy on the country in a state of limbo. Surely, moving dozens of combat aircraft and hundreds of troops to the aid of the encircled Syrian president must have been given the green light a while ago. This is precisely how Putin sees the situation. Under the nose of the Americans and the world community, Russian personnel and Special Forces have re-emerged in large numbers at an old air base of theirs near Al Assad’s stronghold of Latakia. Russia has always had, through the former Soviet Union, significant military presence in Syria during the long years of the Cold War and beyond.

However, whatever Putin’s plans are in the long run, his mission in the country is largely seen by the majority of Syrians as a sinister effort to save Al Assad and help him consolidate his authority in Syria.

After all, Al Assad is the man largely accused of killing thousands of Syrians during the almost five-year war in the country. It has become absolutely clear that all players in the region, including US, Israel, Turkey and Iran are adjusting to the new reality as a result of the speed and scale of Russian’s deployment. It is commonly known now that Israel was made aware of Moscow’s deployment before it began, while Iran had been informed of the move as early as the first week of August. In fact, shipments from Black Sea ports to the Syrian port of Tartous began to pass through the Bosphorus as from August 20.

The Russians had moved by last Tuesday into the coastal stretch between Latakia and Tartous 28 combat jets (12 Su24 bombers, 12 Su25 ground attack aircraft and 4 Su-30 multi-role fighters), two types of drones and 20 multi-purpose helicopters. Almost the equivalent of Al Assad’s entire air power. Pentagon officials have confirmed these deployments and said Russian drones are now fully operating where offensive air attacks could be expected very soon.

Turkey on its part, is willing to dip its hands in ‘Syria’s Cake’ as a highly Turkish informed source told me few days ago, and send troops into the country, provided it gets the green light to set up its ‘no-fly zone’ along Syria’s northern borders. In fact, discussion between Ankara and several European capitals, including Berlin, over the issue has been going on for sometimes as many European leaders consider the no-fly zone option is urgently needed method to help controlling the flow of refugees into European Union countries.

However, with Iran well entrenched behind Al Assad at an annual cost of $6-$10 billion (Dh22-36.7 billion), it is also a decisive regional power of huge influence in shaping events in shrinking Syria and beyond. Additionally, there is newcomer into the killing fields of Syria as China has just officially revealed that it is sending personnel and advisers to assess the situation. And with almost total US absence in the Levant, Russia would militarily and politically remain the most significant power to shore up Al Assad’s regime as long as it is possible.

 

A Chinese aircraft carrier docks at Tartus to support Russian-Iranian military buildup

September 26, 2015

A Chinese aircraft carrier docks at Tartus to support Russian-Iranian military buildup, DEBKAfile, September 26, 2015

liaoning_Tartus_25.9.15

This turn of events has a highly detrimental effect on Israel’s strategic and military position. It also strengthens Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in his determination to turn the nuclear deal concluded in July into a tool for isolating the US politically, militarily and economically in the Middle East, rather than a milestone on the road to a breakthrough in ties with Iran, as the Obama administration had hoped. 

***********************

As US President Barack Obama welcomed Chinese President Xi Jinping to the White House on Friday, Sept. 25, and spoke of the friendship between the two countries, the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning-CV-16 docked at the Syrian port of Tartus, accompanied by a guided missile cruiser. This is revealed exclusively byDEBKAfile.

Beijing is not finding it hard to dance at two weddings, wooing the US for better relations, while at the same time backing Russia in its military intervention in Syria. Coupled with the warm smiles and handshakes exchanged at the lavish reception on the White House lawn, Beijing was clearly bent on showing muscle – not just in the South China Sea, but by allying itself with the Russian-Iranian political and military buildup in support of Syrian President Bashar Assad and his regime.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Chinese aircraft carrier passed through the Suez Canal on Sept. 22, one day after the summit in Moscow between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

When they talked, Putin made no mention of the Chinese warship entering the eastern Mediterranean or its destination. Its arrival has upended the entire strategic situation surrounding the Syrian conflict, adding a new global dimension to Moscow and Tehran’s military support for Assad.

This was grasped at length by US Secretary of State John Kerry. On Sept. 25, he sent Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who also led the US negotiating team for the nuclear talks with Iran, to announce that the Obama administration is ready for dialogue with Iran about the situation in Syria, and this topic would be raised when Kerry’s met Iranian Foreign Minister Muhammad Jawad Zarif in New York on Sept. 26.

But if the top US diplomat hoped to bypass the Russian initiative in Syria by going straight to Tehran, he was too late. Iran is already moving forward fast to augment its military presence in the war-torn country, buttressed by the ground, air and sea support of two world powers, Russia and China.

This turn of events has a highly detrimental effect on Israel’s strategic and military position. It also strengthens Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in his determination to turn the nuclear deal concluded in July into a tool for isolating the US politically, militarily and economically in the Middle East, rather than a milestone on the road to a breakthrough in ties with Iran, as the Obama administration had hoped.

Our military sources find evidence that the Chinese forces are digging in for a prolonged stay in Syria. The carrier put into Tartus minus its aircraft contingent. The warplanes and helicopters should be in place on its decks by mid-November – flying in directly from China via Iran or transported by giant Russian transports from China through Iranian and Iraqi airspace.

This explains the urgency of establishing a RussianSyria-Iranian “military coordination cell” in Baghdad in the last couple of days. This mechanism, plus the Russian officers sighted in Baghdad, indicates that the Russian military presence is not limited to Syria but is beginning to spill over into Iraq as well.

The coordination cell – or war room – was presented as necessary to begin working with Iranian-backed Shiite militias fighting the Islamic State in both places. But more immediately, it is urgently needed to control the heavy traffic of Russian, Iranian and Chinese military flights transiting Iraqi air space.

Our sources report that the Chinese will be sending out to Syria a squadron of J-15 Flying Shark fighters, some for takeoff positions on the carrier’s decks, the rest to be stationed at the Russian airbase near Latakia. The Chinese will also deploy Z-18F anti-submarine helicopters and Z-18J airborne early warning helicopters. In addition, Beijing will consign at least 1,000 marines to fight alongside their counterparts from Russia and Iran against terrorist groups, including ISIS.

DEBKAfile’s counterterrorism sources point out that just as Russian marines will be instructed to single out rebel militias with recruits from Chechnya and the Caucasus, the Chinese marines will seek out and destroy Uighur fighters from the northern predominantly Muslim Chinese province of Xinjiang.

In the same way that Putin has no wish to see the Chechen fighters back in Russia, so too Chinese President Xi wants to prevent the Uighurs from returning home from the Syrian battlefields.

Obama talks tough on Chinese Islands, then runs away

September 18, 2015

Obama talks tough on Chinese Islands, then runs away, Front Page Magazine, Daniel Greenfield, September 18, 2015

obama_bow_china_2

[W]hile Obama makes empty noises about China seizing land, and empty noises about Russia seizing land and empty noises about Iran’s nuclear program, he has conceded all three. Everything else is just empty talk about all the “options” we have, once that smart diplomacy has gotten through appeasing the enemy.

**************************

In public, Obama Inc. sounds tough and determined that China’s artificial islands don’t represent a legitimate territorial claim.

Also Wednesday, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter talked tough on China, referring to its increasingly aggressive military posture in the Pacific region.

In a reference to China’s construction of islands in the South China Sea, for which it then asserts air and sea rights, Carter continued: “There should be an immediate and lasting halt to land reclamation by all claimants. We also oppose any further militarization of disputed features.”

Like Obama, he warned China that the U.S. would not back down and would project its authority.

“There should be no mistake: The United States will fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, as U.S. forces do all over the world,” Carter said. “America, alongside its allies and partners in the regional architecture, will not be deterred from exercising these rights.

“After all, turning an underwater rock into an airfield simply does not afford the rights of sovereignty or permit restrictions on international air or maritime transit,” he added.

In Obamaville though, all this is hot air and empty noise. Obama is a coward who bullies Americans, but cringes and bows whenever an enemy of the United States pushes him around. That was the empty rhetoric meant to fool the few Americans who still believe in Obama.

Here’s the pathetic reality.

 The Obama administration has restricted the U.S. Pacific Command from sending ships and aircraft within 12 miles of disputed Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea, bolstering Beijing’s illegal claims over the vital seaway, Pentagon leaders revealed to Congress on Thursday.

“The administration has continued to restrict our Navy ships from operating within 12 nautical miles of China’s reclaimed islands,” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) said in opening remarks criticizing the failure to guarantee safe passage for international commercial ships in Asia.

“This is a dangerous mistake that grants de facto recognition of China’s man-made sovereignty claims,” he said.

McCain, however, noted that the U.S. restrictions on close-in island military flights and ship visits were continuing despite the provocative dispatch of five Chinese warships in an unprecedented deployment to waters within 12 miles of Alaska’s Aleutian Islands—at the same time President Obama was concluding a recent visit to the state earlier this month.

A visibly angered McCain told Shear the best way to assert that international waters around the islands do not belong to China would be for American ships to make 12-mile passages by the disputed islands. “And we haven’t done that since 2012. I don’t find that acceptable, Mr. Secretary,” he said.

Adm. Harry Harris, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, was asked if he is authorized to order ships to travel within 12 miles of any of the man-made islands and answered, no. Harris also said no U.S. surveillance aircraft have flown directly over any of the islands.

Brave Obama ran away. When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled and gallantly he chickened out. Bravely taking to his feet, He beat a very brave retreat.

So while Obama makes empty noises about China seizing land, and empty noises about Russia seizing land and empty noises about Iran’s nuclear program, he has conceded all three. Everything else is just empty talk about all the “options” we have, once that smart diplomacy has gotten through appeasing the enemy.

Bravest of the brave, Barack.

Cartoon of the day

September 14, 2015

H/t Freedom is just another word

 

cartoon-reagan-obama

Is Europe Losing Control Over Its Destiny?

September 13, 2015

Is Europe Losing Control Over Its Destiny? Gatestone InstituteSoeren Kern, September 13, 2015

  • The move by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels to force European countries to throw open their borders — and to require them to provide migrants with free clothing, food, housing and healthcare for an indefinite period of time — not only represents an audacious usurpation of national sovereignty, it is also certain to encourage millions of additional migrants from the Muslim world to begin making their way to Europe.
  • “We are not facing a refugee crisis, we are facing a migration crisis… Let us not forget that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.” — Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary.
  • “[T]he continent is experiencing a mass movement of people not seen since the aftermath of the Second World War. Unlike the end of the war, however, none of the masses currently on the move is European… The control over one’s own borders is one of the most important characteristics — and responsibilities — of a modern state. Countries lose control over their destinies and even cease to exist when they lose control over who gets in.” — Arthur Chrenkoff, New York Observer.
  • Statistics show that of the 625,920 people who applied for asylum in the European Union in 2014, only 29.5% were from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.
  • “If you do not like it, just go away.” — Czech Republic President Milos Zeman, commenting that no one had invited migrants to his country, but once they arrive, they should respect the rules of his country or leave.
  • “The lesson for the United States is that reducing our global influence does not increase international peace and security. Quite the opposite. Obama’s retreat from the Middle East, whether in the aftermath of Libya, his disinterest in the Islamic State’s continuing rise, or his surrender to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, are all part of the larger pattern.” — Ambassador John R. Bolton, Fox News Opinion.
  • “Since Slovakia is a Christian country, we cannot tolerate an influx of 300,000-400,000 Muslim immigrants who would like to start building mosques all over our land and trying to change the nature, culture and values of the state…. If we do not start telling the truth about migration, we will never move from this spot.” — Prime Minister Robert Fico, Slovakia.

The European Commission, the powerful administrative arm of the European Union, has unveiled a controversial plan that would compel EU member countries to accept 160,000 migrants and refugees from the Middle East and North Africa.

The move by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels to force European countries to throw open their borders — and to require them to provide migrants with free clothing, food, housing and healthcare for an indefinite period of time — not only represents an audacious usurpation of national sovereignty, it is also certain to encourage millions of additional migrants from the Muslim world to begin making their way to Europe.

The migration proposal, announced on September 9, would “share” 120,000 migrants currently holed up in Greece, Hungary and Italy with other countries in the European Union. This number is in addition to previous demands by the European Commission that 40,000 Syrian and Eritrean migrants be relocated from Greece and Italy.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose open-door immigration policy is partly responsible for fueling the rush of migrants to Europe, has already warned that the European Commission’s plan is “merely a first step” and that Europe may have to accept even bigger numbers. German Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said that Germany could take 500,000 migrants annually for “several more years.”

1243Welcome to Germany! At left, German Chancellor Angela Merkel. At right, some of the hundreds of migrants who arrived in Munich on September 12, 2015.

It remains unclear just how many of the migrants arriving in Europe are refugees fleeing warzones, and how many are economic migrants seeking a better life in the West. Statistics show that of the 625,920 people who applied for asylum in the European Union in 2014, only 29.5% were from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

German officials have admitted that 40% of the migrants arriving in the country in 2015 are from the Balkans, including Albania, Kosovo and Serbia, which implies that at least half of those arriving in Germany this year are economic migrants fleeing poverty not war.

Critical observers are describing the migration chaos engulfing Europe in apocalyptic terms: an “unstoppable demographic revolution,” a “total Armageddon scenario,” and an “exodus of biblical proportions.”

What follows is a selection of quotes and commentary from a variety of political leaders and opinion-shapers in Europe and elsewhere about the consequences of untrammeled immigration from the Muslim world.

In Britain, Nigel Farage, the leader of the Eurosceptic UK Independence Party (UKIP), spoke to the BBC Radio 4’s Today program. He said:

“The problem we’ve got is we’ve opened the door to an exodus of biblical proportions meaning millions and millions of refugees. We’ve lost sight of what it is to be a refugee. How many millions does Europe want to take? That is the question.

“Genuine refugees have tended to be groups of people, ethnic groups or religious groups who were directly under persecution and were fleeing in fear of their lives. The problem we’ve got now if you look at the definition of the EU’s common asylum policy, it includes anyone fleeing from a war-torn country, and it even includes people fleeing extreme poverty.”

British MEP Janice Atkinson, said:

“Nobody voted for illegal immigration. Plenty of people voted to put us here to oppose it. The hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants overwhelming our borders and our capacities to cope are exactly that — illegal.

“Let’s be clear about another thing: despite what the human rights industry and the massed ranks of taxpayer-funded charities and lobby-groups repeat, this is not a refugee crisis but a massive crisis of illegal immigration which must be resisted for what it is.”

English author and journalist Peter Hitchens, in an essay titled, “We won’t save refugees by destroying our own country,” wrote:

“Actually we can’t do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged. It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves….

“Thanks to a thousand years of uninvaded peace, we have developed astonishing levels of trust, safety and freedom…. I am amazed at how relaxed we are about giving this away.

“Our advantages depend very much on our shared past, our inherited traditions, habits and memories. Newcomers can learn them, but only if they come in small enough numbers. Mass immigration means we adapt to them, when they should be adapting to us….

“So now, on the basis of an emotional spasm, dressed up as civilization and generosity, are we going to say that we abandon this legacy and decline our obligation to pass it on, like the enfeebled, wastrel heirs of an ancient inheritance letting the great house and the estate go to ruin?

“I can see neither sense nor justice in allowing these things to become a pretext for an unstoppable demographic revolution in which Europe (including, alas, our islands) merges its culture and its economy with North Africa and the Middle East. If we let this happen, Europe would lose almost all the things that make others want to live there.”

British MEP Daniel Hannon warned that Germany’s open-door immigration policy was drawing ever more migrants to Europe. He wrote:

“The belief that Germany is relaxing its policy is bound to lead to a level of migration that surpasses anything seen so far. Refugees and economic migrants will be thrown together in a rush. Some will be trampled, and some boats will be overturned. But many more will reach Italy and Greece. Eventually, the front-line EU states will stop trying to enforce the rules, and will simply wave new arrivals across their territory, tempting even more into attempting the crossing.”

The London-based Financial Times lamented the lack of a unified European response to the migration crisis:

“This has been a miserable summer for European ideals. From a bloc founded in the pursuit of peace have emerged frightful images of refugees suffocating on motorway lay-bys, squalid makeshift camps, lifeless toddlers washed ashore, burning asylum centers, serial numbers penned on forearms, the sight of black-clad police pepper spraying families fleeing war. Inundated with asylum seekers, yet lacking the central functions to cope, Europe is divided over what to do. Higher walls? Welcome mats? Is this a national problem or should the burden be shared?

British political scientist Anthony Glees accused the German government of rank hypocrisy for demanding that Greece comply with the strict letter of EU law to obtain a financial bailout, but that same German government unilaterally dispensed with EU law to open Europe’s borders wide open to hundreds of thousands of migrants from the Muslim world. He said:

“Europe’s tectonic plates will move if Germany behaves as a hippie state, guided only by feelings. Prime Minister David Cameron said, quite rightly, in my opinion, that the United Kingdom must act not only with the heart, but also with the head. And the question in the UK is that if Frau Merkel now pursues this policy, a very different policy which it pursued vis-à-vis Greece, where will this end? The UK already intervenes militarily in the fight against the so-called Islamic State. Germany, however, has kept its distance from these things. But then at the same time to say to desperate people in Syria and Iraq, please come to the Federal Republic of Germany, many Britons view this as nonsensical. This will have no end!

“I think it may be that Germany still has historical feelings that are completely absent in Britain. It may be that in 2015, there are still memories of what happened with refugees before the Second World War (1938/1939). But in Britain, where we are currently not only fighting terrorism, not only coping with the problem of economic migrants, but also coping with the humanitarian problem, the German approach seems sloppy and not properly thought through, especially when it comes to Europe when the Germans do not abide by the rules. One may think whatever they might about the Hungarian government, but the rules are there, and if Germany does not comply with the rules, the entire Union is in danger of falling apart.

In Brussels, the self-proclaimed capital of Europe, the president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, insisted that immigration from Muslim countries would be a solution to Europe’s demographic decline. He said:

“Let us not forget, we are an ageing continent in demographic decline. We will be needing talent. Over time, migration must change from a problem to be tackled to a well-managed resource. To this end, the Commission will come forward with a well-designed legal migration package in early 2016.”

During the so-called State of the European Union address on September 9, Juncker said that there was no difference between Christian, Jewish and Muslim migrants. He said:

“Europe has made the mistake in the past of distinguishing between Jews, Christians and Muslims. There is no religion, no belief and no philosophy when it comes to refugees.”

Although unemployment is rampant within the European Union, especially among young Europeans, Juncker said:

“I am strongly in favor of allowing asylum seekers to work and earn their own money whilst their applications are being processed. Labor, work, being in a job is a matter of dignity…so we should do everything to change our national legislation in order to allow refugees, migrants, to work since day one of their arrival in Europe.”

In the Czech Republic, President Milos Zeman said that no one had invited migrants to his country, but once they arrive, they should respect the rules of his country or leave. He said:

“If you do not like it, just go away. Someone may consider it appealing to the worst instincts, but this is the same stance that Hungarians share when they are building a fence against Serbia, and Americans who have built a fence on its border with Mexico.”

In Denmark, Andreas Kamm, the secretary general of the Danish Refugee Council (Dansk Flygtningehjælp), warned that the current refugee crisis could lead to total collapse of European society. In an interview with the newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Kamm said he believes that Europe is facing “a total Armageddon scenario.” He added:

“We are experiencing a historical imbalance between the very high numbers of refugees and migrants and the global capacity to provide them with protection and assistance. We are running the risk that conflicts between the migrants and local populations will go awry and escalate. The answer cannot be that Europe imports surplus populations. We cannot be required to destroy our own society.”

Danish Finance Minister Claus Hjort Frederiksen said: “I’m most indignant over the Arab countries who are rolling in money and who only take very few refugees. Countries like Saudi Arabia. It’s completely scandalous.”

In Germany, Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière, in an interview with Die Zeit, said:

“The migration crisis presents a formidable challenge. It is bigger than any of us have previously thought — socially, politically, economically, culturally…. Now we will get hundreds of thousands of Muslims with an Arab background. According to what I am told by my French colleague, this is a significant difference as far as integration is concerned…. I am being told that between 15% and 20% of the adult migrants are illiterate.

“We must get used to the idea that our country is changing. School, police, housing, courts, health care, everywhere! We also need an amendment to the constitution. And all this has to happen very quickly, within weeks! This will require a huge change in our established way of thinking.”

In an interview with Politico, Josef Joffe, a normally astute Jewish-German intellectual who is the publisher of the newspaper Die Zeit, seemed completely oblivious to the long-term consequences of importing hundreds of thousands of Muslims to Germany, when he said:

“It is a true miracle. Our poster-boy refugee is now the Syrian doctor who combines educational achievement with moral obligation, given the unspeakable cruelty against civilians in the Syrian war. Germany, like the countries of English settlement, is turning into an Einwanderungsland, a country of immigration, accepting different colors, faiths and origins. So Germany is evolving into a kind of America, where you need not be born as American, but can become one. It is a mental and emotional revolution.”

In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán warned of the “explosive consequences” of culture clash between Europe and migrants from the Muslim world. In a September 3 essay published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Orbán wrote:

“To understand what we must do, we need to grasp the true nature of the situation we are facing. Europe is not in the grip of a ‘refugee problem’ or a ‘refugee situation,’ but the European continent is threatened by an ever mounting wave of modern-era migration. Movement of people is taking place on an immense scale, and from a European perspective the number of potential future immigrants seems limitless.

“With each passing day we see that hundreds of thousands have been turning up and clamoring at our borders, and there are millions more intending to set out for Europe, driven by economic motives….

“We must acknowledge that the European Union’s misguided immigration policy is responsible for this situation. Irresponsibility is the mark of every European politician who holds out the promise of a better life to immigrants and encourages them to leave everything behind and risk their lives in setting out for Europe. If Europe does not return to the path of common sense, it will find itself laid low in a battle for its fate….

“Let us not forget that those arriving have been raised in another religion, and represent a radically different culture. Most of them are not Christians, but Muslims. This is an important question, because Europe and European identity is rooted in Christianity. Is it not worrying in itself that European Christianity is now barely able to keep Europe Christian? If we lose sight of this, the idea of Europe could become a minority interest in its own continent.”

Referring to Hungary’s occupation by the Ottoman Empire from 1541 to 1699, Orbán said:

“I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country. We do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see. That is a historical experience for us.”

According to Zoltán Kovács, a spokesman for Hungary’s center-right government, the EU’s response to the crisis has been a complete failure. He said:

“The EU does not differentiate between those who are in real need of help. Genuine refugees are pushed together with economic migrants. We are not facing a refugee crisis, we are facing a migration crisis. People are coming here from a hundred countries around the world. It is completely unacceptable that illegal means of movement are now institutionalized.”

In Slovakia, Prime Minister Robert Fico said that 95% of so-called refugees were actually economic migrants:

“We won’t assist in this folly with arms opened wide with the notion that we’ll accept them all regardless of whether they’re economic migrants or not. If we do not start telling the truth about migration, we will never move from this spot.”

Fico also warned of the consequences of untrammeled Muslim immigration. He said:

“Since Slovakia is a Christian country, we cannot tolerate an influx of 300,000-400,000 Muslim immigrants who would like to start building mosques all over our land and trying to change the nature, culture and values ​​of the state.”

In the United States, Ambassador John Bolton warned that Europe’s migration crisis is America’s problem too. He wrote:

“While Americans may believe that Europe, long disdainful of our own intense debate over border-security problems, is getting what it deserves, we should nonetheless focus on both the potential threats and lessons applicable to us.

“One critical cause of Europe’s illegal-immigration spike is the growing chaos across the greater Middle East. This spreading anarchy derives, in substantial part, from Barack Obama’s deliberate policy of ‘leading from behind’ by reducing U.S. attention to and involvement in the region. When America’s presence diminishes anywhere in the world, whatever minimal order and stability existed there can rapidly evaporate….

“For years, the central cause of population movements into Europe was economic: North Africans crossed the narrow Strait of Gibraltar or headed to France or Italy. Turks and Arabs entered through Greece and Eastern Europe. Once into the European Union, thanks to the Schengen Agreement, travel barriers are now almost nonexistent, and, as in the United States, illegal aliens can essentially travel freely….

“Spreading terrorism, armed conflict and collapsing political authority in the Middle East are now powerful causal factors equaling or exceeding continuing economic disparities. Europe fears being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people on the move, thereby losing control over decisions on who to admit and who to turn away. These concerns are legitimate, but there are deeper risks as well. Mirroring worries in Washington, there is a serious and rising Islamicist terrorist threat hidden within the tides of people seeking refuge.

“The lesson for the United States is that reducing our global influence does not increase international peace and security. Quite the opposite. Obama’s retreat from the Middle East, whether in the aftermath of Libya, his disinterest in the Islamic State’s continuing rise, or his surrender to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program, are all part of the larger pattern. Europe’s illegal immigration problem is our problem as well.”

Writing for the New York Observer, Arthur Chrenkoff wrote:

“As an unseasonably hot European summer gives way to autumn, the continent is experiencing a mass movement of people not seen since the aftermath of the Second World War. Unlike the end of the war, however, none of the masses currently on the move is European. As hundreds of thousands of people continue to arrive on Europe’s doorsteps and throng her roads and railway lines, many conservative commentators see a more apt, and more ominous, historical parallel in the Völkerwanderung or ‘wanderings of the peoples’ that foreshadowed the fall of the Roman Empire some sixteen centuries ago. Europeans have long historical memories….

“As we reflect on the vivid media images of boats and trains overflowing with desperate humanity, it is important to keep in mind two points: 1) The majority of the 350,000-400,000 immigrants who have arrived in Europe so far this year (these are the known numbers; no one knows how many enter undetected) are not Syrians. In fact, less than a third are, with the rest originating in a miscellany of African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries. 2) The majority seem to be single, healthy-looking young men, which traditionally suggests economic motives for migration, rather than the fear of death or persecution.

“What is happening in Europe at the moment is not so much, or at least not predominantly, a refugee crisis but a crisis of European immigration policies.

Chrenkoff summed it up this way:

“The control over one’s own borders is one of the most important characteristics — and responsibilities — of a modern state. Countries lose control over their destinies and even cease to exist when they lose control over who gets in.”

 

Obama’s victory was won by a politician, not a statesman

September 13, 2015

Obama’s victory was won by a politician, not a statesman, Israel Hayom, Boaz Bismuth, September 13, 2015

144213644746070861a_bU.S. President Barack Obama | Photo credit: AP

For once, however, Obama is right: Global warming is a burning issue that must be addressed, preferably starting in the Middle East, where the flames are unusually high.

*****************************

The U.S. House of Representatives voted Friday against the nuclear agreement with Iran, with a majority of 269 against, including 25 Democrats, and 162 in favor. This vote followed the expressed objections of 58 Senators, including four Democrats, who could not vote against the deal over a procedural win in the Senate on Thursday. It also followed a recent Pew Research Center survey showing that 49% of Americans oppose the deal, and only 21% support it.

Friday’s vote, albeit symbolic, proves that it is not the American people or their elected officials who want this deal — it is U.S. President Barack Obama who wants it, and what Obama wants, Obama gets.

The truth is, the U.S. does not believe Iran will adhere to the deal, but Obama, who since taking office has undermined the very foundations of the Middle East (and beyond), remains a savvy politician who knows exactly what needs to be done to push the nuclear deal through, despite the opposition it garners — opposition Obama is well aware of — so as to secure his legacy. Nevertheless, the nuclear deal is a victory won by a politician, not a statesman.

While Obama may have won the battle over the Iran nuclear deal, it was a procedural victory. History has taught us that the Senate rarely rejects a presidential foreign policy initiative.

The Iran nuclear deal would have been voted down if not for Obama’s considerable efforts. He understood the crucial need to present the Iran deal as an agreement, not as a treaty, which would have required he secure a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which he would not have been able to do. He also applied pressure on Democrats up for re-election, the majority of whom admitted the deal was far less than perfect.

According to American media, now that Obama has secured support for the Iran deal, he is turning his attention to global warming. For once, he is right — temperatures in the Middle East are scorching hot, and Obama had a hand in turning them up.

The recent sandstorm to cloud Israel was something of an ominous sign. The world has suddenly woken up to overt Russian presence in the Middle East. The Americans seem to have fallen asleep at the wheel, allowing Russian President Vladimir Putin to dictate a new reality on the ground, as he did in Ukraine. Could it be that Washington needed Moscow’s support for the Iran deal so badly it willingly dropped the ball?

The buildup of Russian forces in Syria has vast regional and international ramifications, which cannot be ignored. The West and Israel can no longer operate in Syria under the auspices of alleged “open skies,” and just in case that point was lost on anyone, Russia warned the U.S. against any “unintended incidents” on Syrian soil.

Russia has introduced its presence in the Middle East in a time when it could be seen as favorable. The international community wants to see the Islamic State group defeated, as do the Russians. Unlike in Ukraine, this time the Russians are on the same side as the good guys.

The Russians, however, are not alone: They have returned with the Iranians on their side, which is actually a gift from the U.S. — something that has irked the Saudis to no end, as they now have to find alternative avenues of dealing with both Moscow and Tehran.

For once, however, Obama is right: Global warming is a burning issue that must be addressed, preferably starting in the Middle East, where the flames are unusually high.

Putin’s offer to shield & develop Israel’s gas fields predated Russia’s military buildup in Syria

September 13, 2015

Putin’s offer to shield & develop Israel’s gas fields predated Russia’s military buildup in Syria, DEBKAfile, September 13, 2015

(Nice little gas field you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it. — DM)

 

Leviathan480

More than a fortnight ago, Russian President Vladimir put a proposition to Israel for Moscow to undertake responsibility for guarding Israel’s Mediterranean gas fields, along with the offer of a Russian investment of $7-10 billion for developing Leviathan, the largest well, and building a pipeline to Turkey for exporting the gas to Europe, DEBKAfile reports. The offer was made to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in confidential phone conversations and through quiet envoys.

At the time, Putin did not share with Netanyahu his plans for an imminent buildup of marines, air force units, warships and missiles in Syria, although the plan had been worked out in detail with Tehran in late July. The Russian ruler put it this way: Leviathan abuts on the fringes of Lebanon’s economic water zone and is therefore vulnerable to potential sabotage by Iran, Syria or Hizballah, whether by commando or rocket attack.

A multibillion Russian investment in the field would make it a Russian project which neither Syria nor Hizballah would dare attack, even though it belongs to Israel.

But now the situation has assumed a different face. Russian forces are streaming to Latakia, and Moscow has declared the area from Tartous, Syria up to Cyprus closed to shipping and air traffic from Sept. 15 to Oct. 7 in view of a “military exercise including test firings of guided missiles” from Russian warships.

When he offered a shield for Israeli gas fields in late August, The Russian ruler knew that implementation would rest with Russian military forces on the spot, rather than Iranian and Syrian reluctance to harm Russian interests.

Then, on Aug. 30, Netanyahu discussed the new Russian proposition with Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi when they met in Florence, in the context of the former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s involvement in Middle Eastern and European energy business and his close ties with Putin.

Berlusconi and Netanyahu are also good friends.

The Israeli prime minister never explicitly confirmed to Putin that he would consider the Russian transaction.

He hesitated because he sensed that a deal with Moscow for gas projects would be unacceptable to Washington and Noble Energy of Texas, which holds a 39.66 percent share in the consortium controlling Leviathan, as well as stakes in the smaller Tanin and Tamar gas wells.

Meanwhile, two Israeli ministers, Moshe Kahlon, finance, and Arye Deri, economy, consistently obstructed the final government go-ahead for gas production, tactics which also held Netanyahu back from his reply to Putin.

But when the fresh influx of Russian troops and hardware to Syria became known (first revealed by DEBKAfile on Sept.1), Netanyahu began to appreciate that, not only had Israel’s military and strategic situation with regard to Syria and the eastern Mediterranean been stood on its head, so too had foreign investment prospects for development projects in Israeli gas.

Israel’s strategic landscape had in fact changed radically in four respects:

1.  Its government can no longer accept as a working hypothesis (which never, incidentally, held up) the short term expectancy of the Assad regime. The injection of Russian military might, combined with the Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces, have given Assad a substantial lease of life.

The Israel Defense Forces must therefore revamp its posture on the Syrian front, and reassess its sponsorship of the select rebel groups which are holding the line in southern Syria against hostile Iranian or Hizballah cross-border attacks on northern Israel.

The changing attitude was suggested in views heard in the last couple of days from top Israeli security officials, who now say that leaving Assad in office might be the better option, after all.

2.  The new Russian ground, air and sea buildup taking shape in Syria provides a shield not just for the Assad regime but also Hizballah. This too calls for changes in Israel’s military posture.

3.  The Russian military presence in Syria seriously inhibits Israel’s flexibility for launching military action against Iranian or Hizballah targets when needed.

4. Three aspects of the new situation stand out prominently:

a)  The Russian air force and navy are the strongest foreign military force in the eastern Mediterranean. The US deplloys [sic] nothing comparable.

b)  Israel’s military strength is substantial but no one is looking for a military clash with the Russians, although this did occur four decades ago, when Israel was fighting for its life against Russian-backed Arab invasions.

c)  In view of the prevalence of the Russian military presence in the eastern Mediterranean, it is hard to see any foreign investor coming forward to sink billions of dollars in Israeli gas.

d)  Although Russia called Saturday, Sept. 12, for “military-to-military cooperation with the United States” to avert “unintended incidents” amid its naval “exercises” off the coast of Syria, the tone of the call was cynical. It is more than likely that Moscow may revert to the original Putin offer of a Russian defense shield for Israeli gas fields. But with such strong Russian cards in place in Syria, he may well stiffen his terms for this deal.