Tag Archives: NATO

Ukraine As Vietnam

Posted on by

On Saturday, The Conservative Treehouse posted an article about British troops in Ukraine.

This is the headline:

The article reports:

First the backdrop.  Let us not pretend a confluence of events do not all go in one direction.

U.S. troops are conducting military exercises in eastern Moldova {link}.  The CIA and State Department are the operational mechanism for all Ukraine military operations, and in total control of the Ukraine government {link}.  American contracted mercenary troops operating in Ukraine are being treated at U.S. military hospitals in Germany {link}.  U.S. military operations are flying drone missions above Ukraine, and U.S. satellites are coordinating the battlespace.  Additionally, the U.S. is sending Abrams tanks, F-16 fighter jets along with support and training teams, and long-range missile launching systems into Ukraine.

For all intents and purposes, the U.S driven NATO military forces are already actively engaged in Ukraine.

Simultaneously, the Dept of Defense {link} and CIA {link} have announced the deployment of advanced artificial intelligence operations for U.S. internet systems. That creation aligns with the Dept of Homeland Security organizing “homeland intelligence experts” {link} to control and monitor public information and shape U.S. public opinion.  All of this is happening under the guise of national security.  We have the COVID-19 backdrop to identify the public-private partnership approach to controlling information.  This same process can easily be deployed to cover Ukraine sensitive content.

There’s your backdrop with citations.  Now, given all of that, doesn’t the alignment of the demonstrable datapoints all flow in one unilateral direction?

The War in Vietnam began with advisors. I don’t pretend to know exactly what the right solution for Ukraine is. However, I do know that we are draining the average American’s resources dry while those in the defense industry are making a killing (no pun intended) replacing weapons destroyed in the Ukrainian war.

The article concludes:

Last point, as you contemplate the severity by which everything is being organized, regardless of public opinion, don’t forget to overlay this context with their opposition to President Donald Trump; the one guy who could stop all of this.

Now do you see the context for the U.S. intelligence apparatus to manipulate everything about the 2024 election, including the use of RFK Jr?

What Security Does Europe Actually Have?

Posted on by

On Sunday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog wondering what protection against Russian invasion does Europe have from NATO or the European Union. It’s a very timely question.

The article notes:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused a number of European countries–probably all of them–to reconsider their military defense postures. If Russia attacks them, will they be able to resist? And whom can they count on to come to their aid?

Responses vary. Germany is talking about abandoning its post-WWII de-militarization. France, in Gaullist tradition, wants the EU to take the lead on security. Others rely on a presumed airtight NATO guarantee of military assistance.

Sweden is an interesting case. Sweden is not a member of NATO, although it has collaborated closely with NATO’s central command. Instead, Sweden has allied itself with the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, the U.K.

This is a portion of the interview with Björn Fägersten, head of the Europe program at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, included in the article:

Does the EU’s mutual defence clause have a similar effect to Nato’s Article 5?

Björn Fägersten: In a purely legal sense they are equivalent – in some ways the EU is a bit sharper. But on the other hand, the EU’s clause has a sub-clause that makes clear that it doesn’t affect member states’ individual choices on security policy, for instance for those countries that are neutral.

A key difference between the EU and Nato is that the EU has no real apparatus. Nato has a joint military headquarters, SHAPE, but the EU doesn’t have an equivalent.

Within the EU there are also expectations that Nato will be at the centre of European planning – most EU countries are members. In the EU’s Global Strategy from 2016 it is made clear that Nato is the cornerstone of the EU’s defence.

Looking to the future, many in the EU, not least Macron, have long spoken about the need for strategic autonomy, where Europe will take a more independent line in defence from the US. Last week Germany announced a huge increase in defence spending. How will that change the equation for Sweden?

BF: If in the long term Europe starts taking greater responsibility while the US takes the main responsibility for handling China, that would change Sweden’s calculation. Sweden would like there to be an American interest in its security, but if, for example, a new president was elected in the US in 2024 who had a more doubtful approach to European security, Sweden would be forced to rapidly reevaluate its defence strategy.

The article concludes:

Call me a cynical lawyer, but does “such action as it deems necessary” really obligate the U.S., or anyone else, to a full military response to Russian aggression in Europe? Might “such action” merely encompass economic sanctions in the event of a Russian invasion of, say, Lithuania?

I suppose it is best if Russia’s leaders assume that Article 5 represents an airtight mutual security pact, but it is easy to imagine a weaselly or mentally challenged president–or, perhaps, one who is uniquely focused on American self-interest–going back on 70 years of interpretation of Article 5 and more or less abandoning our European allies. No doubt that is something that they, too, are imagining.

Which I think is probably to the good. Donald Trump was right: it is long past time for powerful European countries, including Germany, to look to their own defense, even if in cooperation with us. And, of course, the more able they are to defend themselves against Russian aggression, the more likely they are to receive military help from their NATO allies, including us, should the time come.

There is value in working together and providing mutual aid, but there is also a lot of value in standing on your own two feet.

A Reasonable Perspective On Ukraine

Posted on by

I haven’t written a lot about Ukraine because I think there is a lot of false news floating around about Ukraine and I don’t want to be misled by something that looks real but isn’t. However, I trust the Center for Security Policy, so I am posted excerpts from their article on Ukraine. The article was posted on March 3rd.

The article reports:

The courageous leader of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, faces some harsh choices. But so does Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. Russia has taken many casualties, with more than 5,000 soldiers killed already. The Russian currency has all but collapsed and there is deep-seated anger in Russia against Putin and his war. Putin needs to wrap this war up fast, or he could be replaced by his adversaries in Russia.

Both Russia and Ukraine have asked for security guarantees –from NATO. Sorting out the NATO relationship is all important.

…A solution covers four main issues. The first is the future of the Donbass area; the second is NATO membership for Ukraine; the third is the Crimea; and the fourth involves nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the easiest solution is Donbass, which the Minsk Accords saw as becoming autonomous regions of Ukraine. Since Russia has now recognized the two breakaway areas (Donetsk and Luhansk) as independent states, it is more difficult now to find a way to a solution. Nevertheless, it is possible. One formula would be for the two breakaways to remain independent only while their status as autonomous Ukrainian areas is worked out, at which point it would be politically and economically expedient for them to become autonomous parts of Ukraine.

NATO, however, is a bigger issue for the Russians and for Ukraine. Ukraine believes, rightly or wrongly, that NATO guarantees their security (even though the support they have received from NATO has not achieved that goal at all). Russia believes NATO in Ukraine is a major threat to Russian security. How to solve this problem?

The article notes that the easiest solution to end the war would be for Ukraine to give up on the idea of joining NATO. That would solve at least part of the problem. Is that the problem or is the quest to reunite the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the real goal? I don’t know.

The article continues:

A straightforward solution is for NATO to give Ukraine a special type of membership whereby NATO would come to Ukraine’s help if it is attacked. But to assuage Russia, NATO would not put any troops in Ukraine nor any NATO bases, and would not try to convert Ukraine’s military infrastructure into the NATO system. NATO, of course, is not directly part of the Russia-Ukraine negotiations, but some sort of formula can be agreed (no NATO bases, infrastructure etc) in Ukraine, leaving aside Ukraine asking for special status under Article 5 (collective security) in the NATO treaty.

If NATO membership for Ukraine is actually the issue, that would be a possible solution.

The article concludes:

European leaders, especially Emmanuel Macron of France, have tried to find a way forward, which is more than can be said of Joe Biden, who has tried to exploit the Ukraine mess for domestic political reasons. Instead of Macron visiting Putin, maybe he should stop off in Washington and see if he can turn around thinking in the White House.

Meanwhile, Americans need to be very careful about believing what they are hearing from the mainstream media.

 

This May Be A Problem For The NATO Alliance

Posted on by

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed in 1949. The alliance was originally formed to stave off the possibility of the Soviet Union annexing more of Europe. In 1952, Turkey and Greece were added to NATO. Greece left NATO in 1974 when Turkey invaded Cyprus and NATO did not react (Cyprus was not a member of NATO, so no response was triggered). Greece rejoined NATO in 1980. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan became President of Turkey in 2014 and has been moving Turkey toward an Islamic dictatorship since he took power.

Yesterday The Hill reported that President Erdogan has called on his foreign minister to banish 10 ambassadors from Western countries, including the United States, after they called for the “urgent release” of a Turkish philanthropist, Reuters reported.

The article reports:

Earlier this week, ambassadors from the embassies of 10 countries called on a resolution for the case of Osman Kavala, who has been in prison for several years after facing charges both in 2013 and 2016 for allegedly financially backing the 2013 protests and for his supposed involvement in a 2016 attempted coup.  

Those charges have been disputed by Kavala, and he was originally absolved of his 2013-related charges; however, earlier this year, the 2013-charges were reinstated along with charges from the 2016 incident, according to Reuters. 

“Today marks four years since the ongoing detention of Osman Kavala began. The continuing delays in his trial, including by merging different cases and creating new ones after a previous acquittal, cast a shadow over respect for democracy, the rule of law and transparency in the Turkish judiciary system,” according to a statement issued on Monday through the U.S. Embassy in Turkey.

“Together, the embassies of Canada, France, Finland, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and the United States of America believe a just and speedy resolution to his case must be in line with Turkey’s international obligations and domestic laws,” the statement continued. “Noting the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights on the matter, we call for Turkey to secure his urgent release.”

Erdoğan claimed in his speech Saturday that the countries will “know and understand Turkey,” adding that “the day they do not know and understand Turkey, they will leave,” according to Reuters.

This is something to watch to see if President Erdogan’s actions have an impact on Turkey’s relationship with NATO. Since becoming President, Erdogan has drawn closer to the Muslim world and pretty much cut his friendly ties to Israel. I truly believe that it is President Erdogan’s intent to reestablish the caliphate that was the Ottoman Empire (with Turkey at the head). That will be interesting as Iran also plans to reestablish that caliphate with Iran at the head. Stay tuned.

Telling The Truth

Posted on by

Marc Thiessen posted an op-ed piece at The Washington Post yesterday. The piece is also available at the American Enterprise Institute website. The op-ed piece explains why President Biden should not go to Ground Zero on September 11th.

The op-ed notes:

Biden has no business setting foot in those sacred places on that hallowed day. I take no joy in saying this. As a general rule, I believe that when a president attends a ceremony on behalf of the American people, he is not representing himself but the office of the presidency. We respect that office, even if we do not respect the man who occupies it.

But this is different. Joe Biden is the president who surrendered to the enemies who attacked us on 9/11. He not only surrendered but did so with dishonor — leaving stranded behind enemy lines American citizens, legal permanent residents, and the majority of our Afghan allies who risked their lives to help us. Not by accident, mind you. Intentionally. He ordered the last US plane to take off from Kabul knowing that he was leaving them behind — even though he pledged not to leave until every American was out. He forced our NATO allies — who were in Afghanistan only because America was attacked on 9/11 — to do the same to their nationals and Afghan allies. This is a stain on the honor of our nation. At the very moment the bells ring at Ground Zero on 9/11, US citizens and allies will be hiding from Taliban death squads because of Biden’s shameful decisions.

In carrying out America’s retreat, Biden knowingly put the safety of US service members securing the airport in the hands of the Taliban and the Haqqani network — a US-designated terrorist organization — by refusing a Taliban offer to let the US military secure Kabul while we evacuated. The Taliban set up checkpoints where it prevented many Americans from reaching the airport, but it allowed a suicide bomber to get through — killing 13 Americans and injuring 18 more. On Saturday, those who died as a result of Biden’s blunder will rest in freshly dug graves, while those who survived will watch the ceremonies from hospital beds with injuries they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.

As the evacuation took place, Biden repeatedly lied to the American people. He said no Americans were having trouble getting to the airport, which was blatantly untrue. He said the United States had no interest in Afghanistan because al-Qaeda was “gone” — when in fact al-Qaeda is deeply embedded with the Taliban. He claimed no allies were questioning the United States’ credibility, when many of our allies were aghast at his display of weakness and publicly pleading with him to extend his artificial deadline. He said that none of his military advisers had recommended leaving a residual force, when some had. He even asked the Afghan president to lie about how the fight against the Taliban was going, urging him to project a different picture “whether it is true or not.” And after it was all over, he still declared his Afghan debacle an “extraordinary success.”

Please follow the link to read the rest of the editorial. What is stated is true. President Biden has disgraced his office and disgraced America. We have lost our status in the world because of his dishonesty and his unwillingness to live up to our obligations to our allies to keep them informed of our actions and include them in our decision-making process.

A Weak American President Is A Danger To World Peace

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon posted an article today about the escalation of military activity near the Black Sea.

The article reports:

ANKARA (Reuters)—The United States has canceled the deployment of two warships to the Black Sea, Turkish diplomatic sources said on Wednesday, amid concerns over a Russian military build-up on Ukraine’s borders.

Washington and NATO have been alarmed by the build-up near Ukraine and in Crimea, the peninsula that Moscow annexed from Ukraine in 2014. Last week, Turkey said Washington would send two warships to the Black Sea, in a decision Russia called an unfriendly provocation.

The U.S. Embassy in Ankara had notified Turkey’s foreign ministry of the move, the sources said, but did not provide a reason. Turkey’s state-run Anadolu news agency later reported that no new notices had been conveyed to Ankara for potential deployments at later dates.

U.S. officials said that Turkey may have misunderstood the initial notification and the deployment was never confirmed.

They said the United States frequently notifies Turkey for potential access to the Black Sea. But a request does not necessarily mean its ships will pass through, but rather ensures that if they choose to, they already have the required approval.

Russia, which warned Washington to stay far away from Crimea and its Black Sea coast, says the build-up is a three-week snap military drill to test combat readiness in response to what it calls threatening behavior from NATO. It has said the exercise is due to wrap up within two weeks.

Does anyone want to guess how many days or weeks it will be before Russia invades Ukraine.

The article notes:

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday called on Russia to pull back troops from Ukrainian borders.

Biden, in a phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday, proposed a summit of the estranged leaders to tackle disputes and told Moscow to reduce tensions over Ukraine, the White House said.

The Conservative Treehouse also posted an article about the Russian buildup of military forces on the Ukraine border.

The Conservative Treehouse notes:

A Background Note – Additional leverage Putin holds goes back to the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline to supply the energy needs of Germany. German Chancellor Angela Merkel was warned by President Trump not to go forward with the pipeline that creates a geopolitical leverage for Russia. Merkel went ahead despite the warnings, and adding salt to the issue, Germany never upheld their NATO funding commitments (2% of GDP). This was a major source of contention between Trump and Merkel.

…And don’t forget… the number one asset of Russia is energy (oil and gas); JoeBama’s energy policy has effectively assisted the Russian economy. So there’s that…

America under President Biden is consistently moving in the wrong direction.

The 2020 Davos Economic Conference

Posted on by

The 2020 Davos Economic Conference will convene this month. The Conservative Treehouse posted an article yesterday announcing that President Trump has announced the Presidential Delegation that will attend the World Economic Forum in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, from January 20 to January 24, 2020.

The article notes some interesting aspects of this conference:

As a result of the recent U.K. election, pending Brexit, a favorable $7.5 billion WTO ruling and USTR Lighthizer’s new $2.4 billion EU targeted tariff program, the administration has significant advantages going into a trade discussion with the EU in 2020.

Team USA has the world’s strongest economy, the largest market, legally bolstered tariff authority and a quiver full of powerful economic arrows.

Meanwhile Team EU has: (1) the UK leaving; (2) severe drops in German industrial manufacturing; (3) a shrinking French economy; (4) yellow-vests in the streets; and (5) demands for greater economic autonomy from many key member states.

Overlay Germany, France and Italy large economy challenges such as: their promise to meet NATO obligations – and their attachment to the strangling Paris Climate Treaty, and the EU’s collective economic position is precarious at best.

The article includes the list of delegates:

The Honorable Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury, will lead the delegation.

Members of the Presidential Delegation:

1. The Honorable Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury (Lead)
2. The Honorable Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce
3. The Honorable Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor
4. The Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation
5. The Honorable Robert Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative
6. The Honorable Keith Krach, Under Secretary for Growth, Energy and the Environment, Department of State
7. The Honorable Ivanka Trump, Assistant to the President and Advisor to the President
8. The Honorable Jared Kushner, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the President
9. The Honorable Christopher Liddell, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Coordination.

The pictures included in the article are an indication of things to come:

Stay tuned.

Some Random Thoughts On The Troop Withdrawal

Posted on by

According to conservative news sources, the troop withdrawal from the Turkish border is simply moving fifty troops–it is not a withdrawal. I wish it were a withdrawal, we are not currently capable of fighting a war right now–we are unable to unite and focus on the job at hand.

Yesterday The Federalist posted an article about the dust-up.

The article notes:

Congress is the institution vested with the power to declare wars, to debate where we send troops, and decide which conflicts are funded. Presidents have been ignoring this arrangement, abuse authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs), and imbue themselves with the power to engage in conflicts wherever they like, without any coherent endgame, and without any buy-in from Congress.

Congress, in turn, has shown no interest in genuinely challenging executive power, because its members are far more concerned with political self-preservation. Ignoring abuse shields them from tough choices and ensuing criticism—even as they use war as a partisan cudgel.

Even if you don’t believe all these conflicts rise to an Article I declaration, and I don’t, the more accountability there is in foreign entanglements the better. Right now we have little genuine debate or consensus building—in a nation that already exhibits exceptionally little interest in foreign policy—regarding the deployment of our troops, almost always in perpetuity, around the world.

It’s a bipartisan problem. Barack Obama, whose political star rose due to his opposition to the Iraq war, was perhaps our worst offender, circumventing Congress and relying on a decade-old AUMF (authorizations for the use of military force), which he invoked 19 times during his presidency, to justify a half-hearted intervention against ISIS (not al-Qaeda) in Syria (not Afghanistan.)

The article notes that military overreach is a problem in both parties:

It’s a bipartisan problem. Barack Obama, whose political star rose due to his opposition to the Iraq war, was perhaps our worst offender, circumventing Congress and relying on a decade-old AUMF, which he invoked 19 times during his presidency, to justify a half-hearted intervention against ISIS (not al-Qaeda) in Syria (not Afghanistan.)

Trump could bomb Iran tomorrow, use Obama’s reasoning, and have a far stronger legal defense for his actions.

It was also Obama who joined Europeans in the failed intervention in Libya, where he worked under NATO goals rather than the United States law. There was hardly a peep from Democrats fretting over the corrosion of the Constitution.

American would function much more efficiently if our Congressmen and President would simply follow the U.S. Constitution. At this point I am not sure many of them have read it–although they did take an oath to uphold it.

Give Peace A Chance

Posted on by

The news media is melting down at hearing that President Trump has withdrawn troops out of northern Syria ahead of a Turkish military advance to expel Kurdish forces from the area. There are a few things that they might consider before jumping off of a cliff. First of all, Turkey is a member of NATO (I realize that their allegiance has shifted away from NATO under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, but they are still a member.). Second of all, the struggle between the Turks and the Kurds has been going on for a long time. Frankly, it is something they need to work out themselves. Our presence is not really helpful in this situation.

Breitbart posted an article about the troop withdrawal today.

The article reports:

President Donald Trump on Monday defended his administration’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops out of northern Syria and warned Turkey that he will “totally destroy and obliterate” if it engages in activities deemed “off limits” in the war-torn country.

“As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!),” Trump tweeted.

The article concludes:

Nonetheless, President Trump dismissed critics of his decision, stating it is time for the U.S. to halt fighting “ridiculous Endless Wars, many of them tribal, and bring our soldiers home.”

I agree. Hopefully, we can use economic pressure against Turkey to prevent a humanitarian crisis. We have been at war in the Middle East for more than eighteen years. We can’t fight a real war there because some in Congress will use the war for political purposes, so we need to come home.

I pray that we can begin to use economic pressure rather than troops to fight wars in the future.

This Could Get Very Interesting

Posted on by

The U.K. Telegraph reported on Wednesday that MI6 chiefs are secretly battling Donald Trump to stop him publishing classified information linked to the Russian election meddling investigation. 

The article reports:

The UK is warning that the US president would undermine intelligence gathering if he releases pages of an FBI application to wiretap one of his former campaign advisers.

However Trump allies are fighting back, demanding transparency and asking why Britain would oppose the move unless it had something to hide.

It forces the spotlight on whether the UK played a role in the FBI’s investigation launched before the 2016 presidential election into Trump campaign ties to the Kremlin.

The Conservative Treehouse posted an article on Wednesday that reminds us of some of the possible reasons for the problem:

In 2016 candidate Trump supported Brexit; the professional political class in the U.K. were vehemently against it. Additionally, candidate Trump was openly challenging the structure of NATO and demanding changes to the alliance. This was antithetical to the interests of the U.K. government and likely sent shockwaves through their collectivist system when candidate Trump won the GOP nomination. The Brits had a strong motive to see Trump destroyed and aligned with weaponized U.S. intelligence toward that end.

As President, Mr. Trump, has held true to his campaign promises and forced the British -and the EU writ large- to be more responsible for their own military security. President Trump has challenged the post-WW2 NATO structures and forced the EU to pay more for their defense. Many member nations are vocally unhappy with this shifted landscape because it means less money for liberal/socialist causes. [Note: Including Canada]

Lastly, the U.K. and E.U. (mostly German anxiety) are facing a much tougher trade objective as outlined by President Trump. The trade conflict is costing them billions in addition to their increased need to spend on their own defense via NATO to keep Trump off their back. He might be just one man, but President Trump has them surrounded.

President Trump is not allowing the same one-way benefits within the U.S. trade relationship with the EU; and as he highlighted with the use of tariffs, he is not hesitant to smash the EU economy (mostly Germany) with crippling auto-tariffs if needed.

Trump is leveraging access to the U.S. markets as pressure on the Europeans to comply with U.S. demands. The Europeans, including the British, are not used to this level of confrontation from the U.S. Their economic frames of reference surround acquiescence from prior American presidents. They are increasingly unnerved and the horrible President Trump simply doesn’t care.

And then there’s the newly emphasized Iran sanctions… the economic MOAB that threatens any/all European interests who might dare to get caught doing business with the Iranian regime. President Trump has shown he is not the least bit hesitant to pull the trigger on Treasury penalties against any nation or multinational interest who would defy the sanctions.

Simply put, the Brits did not like the idea of an American President who put America first. The question remains as to what they actually did about it.

The Turkish Vote

Posted on by

Bloomberg posted an article yesterday about the results of the referendum in Turkey. The results of the election are not good news for freedom-loving people in Turkey or in the Middle East.

The article reports:

Turkey voted to hand Recep Tayyip Erdogan sweeping authority in the most radical overhaul since the republic was founded 93 years ago on the expectation he’ll safeguard security amid regional wars and kickstart the economy.

The referendum won approval of 51.3 percent to 48.7 percent of Turks, according to the state-run Anadolu news agency, as opposition parties alleged fraud and the European Union branded it as unfair. Once implemented, Erdogan will have authority to appoint ministers and top judges at his discretion and call elections at any time. It will also give him much greater sway over fiscal policy and may deepen investors’ concerns about the independence of the central bank.

The win “represents a blow to the assumption that liberal or even in some cases hybrid democracies are structured to prevent authoritarian figures from hijacking the political system,” Anthony Skinner, a director with U.K.-based forecasting company Verisk Maplecroft, said before the results were declared.

Erdogan triumphed by appealing to voters in the small towns that dot the Anatolian heartland where he won overwhelmingly. These Turks want a firm hand at the helm to combat the resurgence of terrorism, fight Kurdish separatism and Islamic State in Syria and defend Turkey’s global interests. The result is a victory not only for him, but for type of authoritarian system exemplified by Vladimir Putin that has gained admirers around the world.

It helps when looking at this situation to look at some of the history of Turkey and some of its current friends. Turkey is a member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) as well as a member of NATO. The OIC describes itself as “the collective voice of the Muslim world” and works to “safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.” It’s important to note here that the definition of peace under Sharia Law is the subjugation of all countries and people of the world to Sharia Law. This is not a group that favors democracy.

Historically, Turkey was the heart of the Ottoman Empire, which was defeated in World War I.  In 1924, Ataturk (Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the Republic of Turkey, serving as its first President from 1923 until his death in 1938) enacted a new constitution in Turkey. The new constitution instituted laws and jurisprudence much like European laws. There was also a thorough secularization of modernization of the administration. The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the secularization of Turkey caused Hassan al Banna to found the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928 with the purpose of unifying the Islamic states under a new caliphate.

We need to remember that the Ottoman Empire was dissolved less than one hundred years ago. There are still many Muslims who want to bring back the caliphate. I suspect that in addition to his desire to obtain more power and more control, Recep Tayyip Erdogan may well be moving in the direction he feels will bring back the caliphate.

 

 

Foreign Money Influencing American Policy

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon posted an article about the foreign funding behind anit-fracking groups in America.

Before we follow the money, lets look at some history. During World War II, the British limited immigration to Israel because they did not want to antagonize the Arabs. It wasn’t that the British loved the Arabs–the Arabs had the oil Britain needed. In 1960 the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting CountriesilOPEC) was formed in Baghdad, Iraq. The mandate of OPEC is to “coordinate and unify the petroleum policies” of its members and to “ensure the stabilization of oil markets in order to secure an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consumers, a steady income to producers and a fair return on capital for those investing in the petroleum industry.” (Essentially, they formed a monopoly which they  stated would benefit producers and consumers.) We saw how well this worked when they tripled the price of oil in the 1970’s. We have also seen oil used as a political weapon to discourage international support of Israel. Now OPEC has a problem. If America becomes energy independent, OPEC has lost its political clout, and the repressive regimes in the Middle East that control OPEC might lose a lot of their support from western nations. What better way to discourage energy independence in America than to support the groups that oppose fracking and other petroleum industries.

The article reports:

A shadowy Bermudan company that has funneled tens of millions of dollars to anti-fracking environmentalist groups in the United States is run by executives with deep ties to Russian oil interests and offshore money laundering schemes involving members of President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

One of those executives, Nicholas Hoskins, is a director at a hedge fund management firm that has invested heavily in Russian oil and gas. He is also senior counsel at the Bermudan law firm Wakefield Quin and the vice president of a London-based investment firm whose president until recently chaired the board of the state-owned Russian oil company Rosneft.

In addition to those roles, Hoskins is a director at a company called Klein Ltd. No one knows where that firm’s money comes from. Its only publicly documented activities have been transfers of $23 million to U.S. environmentalist groups that push policies that would hamstring surging American oil and gas production, which has hurt Russia’s energy-reliant economy.

Russia needs high energy prices to support its economy. Fracking is a threat to those prices.

The article concludes:

“I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organizations—environmental organizations working against shale gas—to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas,” Anders Fogh Rasmussen, formerly NATO’s secretary general, said last year.

It is unlikely that the Kremlin is directly involved in doing so in the United States, according to Ron Arnold of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

“If anybody in Russia is behind all the secretive Bermuda investment house and law firm action, it’s most likely some oligarch bidding against U.S. competition,” he said in an email.

Arnold, the author of Undue Influence: Wealthy Foundations, Grant Driven Environmental Groups, and Zealous Bureaucrats That Control Your Future, said that the opacity of Klein Ltd.’s involvement with the Sea Change Foundation exemplifies attempts to shield the source of donations to such groups.

“In my experience of trying to penetrate offshore money funnels for U.S. leftist foundations and green groups, I have found that Liechtenstein, Panama and Bermuda are the Big Three green equivalents of the Cayman Islands for hedge fund managers—totally opaque and impervious to my specially designed research tools,” Arnold said.

The Russians are not the first to play this game. In September 2012, Power Line reported:

Earlier today, Steve gave this week’s Green Weenie award to Matt Damon for the anti-fracking movie Promised Land, which, it turns out, was financed by the United Arab Emirates. Who, trust me, acted out of a noble concern for the environment and had no thought of suppressing American fossil fuel development which would compete with the Emirates’ product and likely cost the Emirates billions of dollars.

Before you buy into the latest environmental (or other) cause, find out who is funding it.

A Foreign Policy Totally Devoid Of Common Sense

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon is reporting today that as Russia begins moving tactical nuclear weapons into the Crimea, the Obama administration is funding non-official arms control talks with Russia through a Washington think-tank that are aimed at curbing U.S. tactical nuclear arms in Europe.

First of all, I would like to remind everyone that Russia has paid no price for taking over the Crimea–there is no one standing up for the rights of the people in the Ukraine to expel the Russians from the Crimea and re-unite their country. The Russian takeover of the Crimea is considered part of the current baseline, and no one is talking about it as if it were the problem it is.

The article reports:

Regarding the nuclear deployments to Crimea, Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member James Inhofe (R., Okla.) first disclosed last month that Putin had announced in August his approval of deploying nuclear-capable Iskander-M short-range missiles along with Tu-22 nuclear-capable bombers in Crimea, located on the Black Sea.

“The stationing of new nuclear forces on the Crimean peninsula, Ukrainian territory Russia annexed in March, is both a new and menacing threat to the security of Europe and also a clear message from Putin that he intends to continue to violate the territorial integrity of his neighbors,” Inhofe stated in a Sept. 8 op-ed in Foreign Policy.

In their Sept. 23 letter to the president, McKeon, Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Ala.), chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, and Rep. Michael Turner (R., Ohio), chairman of the subcommittee on tactical air and land forces, noted Russia’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty by building a banned cruise missile. The missile has been identified by U.S. officials as the R-500.

The lawmakers said the Russian nuclear deployment in Crimea represents the “clear, and perhaps irrevocable tearing” of the 1997 agreement between NATO and Russia that allowed Russia to maintain a military presence within the alliance.

This is another example of America’s lack of strength making the world less safe–not safer. We need to increase our defense spending to make sure we have the weapons in place if Russia decides to go after a country in Europe next.

Calling President Obama’s Bluff

Posted on by

The American Thinker posted an article today about President Obama’s latest assurances that NATO would protect the Baltic states. The President has a habit of drawing red lines and then stepping over them. Unfortunately, we have passed the point where the rest of the world takes him seriously.

The article reminds us that as soon as President Obama drew his red line in Syria, Putin made a move that left Russia as the dominant player in Syria. Now Putin is reacting to President Obama’s statement that NATO would protect the Baltic republics.

On September 5, the Wall Street Journal reported:

The apparent abduction and detention of an Estonian security officer raised tensions between Estonia and Russia just two days after President Barack Obama came to the country and vowed to defend it as a NATO member.

Estonia’s Internal Security Service, known as KAPO, said its officer Eston Kohver was “illegally detained” at gunpoint early Friday while on duty in southeastern Estonia. It said his abductors had come from Russia and had jammed radio communications and used a smoke grenade in the incident.

“It is unacceptable that people who have crossed the Estonian border kidnap an Estonian citizen from Estonian territory,” President Toomas Hendrik Ilves tweeted on Friday. “I expect the case to be solved quickly.”

The article at America Thinker concludes:

We are in very dangerous territory now. Russia will be encouraged to escalate its provocations, having seen that Obama’s threats are empty. Putin as already mentioned that Russia is a nuclear power, a not so veiled threat to start World War Three should his future aggression meet a response. The risk is that having shown he can be bullied, Obama will respond too late and too strongly, thereby setting off Armageddon.

Weakness is provocative. Obama believes the opposite, and he is as wrong as Neville Chamberlain was.

An Emboldened Russia Begins To Move

Posted on by

There was no real cost to Russia for taking over the Crimean region of Ukraine, so Russia has decided to see exactly how far it can go. There are three stories linked on the Drudge Report right now that are merely a taste of things to come.

The three stories are:

RAF Jet Chases Russian Planes Away

U. S. Troops Arrive in Poland For Exercises across Eastern Europe amid Ukraine crisis

Russia Says Conducting Military Drill Near Ukraine

The first story is from Sky News. The story reports:

Two Russian bombers which flew close to UK airspace have been chased away by an RAF jet fighter.

The aircraft, believed to be Tupolev 95s, were spotted off the coast of northeast Scotland.

They were turned away from Britain when an RAF Typhoon was scrambled from Leuchars airbase, near Dundee.

Crews stationed there are on standby to intercept unidentified aircraft at a moment’s notice.

…The two Russian planes were escorted by the Typhoon, as well as military aircraft from the Netherlands and Denmark, until they flew off towards Scandinavia.

Also known as ‘Bears’, the aircraft – turboprop-powered bombers which also conduct airborne surveillance – have been used for more than 50 years.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said: “The Russian military aircraft remained in international airspace at all times and they are perfectly entitled to do so.

“Russian military flights have never entered UK sovereign airspace without authorisation.”

If you believe the denial by Russia that the planes entered UK airspace, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying. You can have all the tolls.

The second story is from Fox News.  The story reports:

U.S. Army paratroopers are arriving in Poland on Wednesday as part of a wave of U.S. troops heading to shore up America‘s Eastern European allies in the face of Russian meddling in Ukraine. 

Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said an initial contingent of about 600 troops will head to four countries across Eastern Europe for military exercises over the next month. 

First, about 150 soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team based in Vicenza, Italy, are arriving in Poland. 

Additional Army companies will head to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania and are expected to arrive by Monday for similar land-based exercises in those countries.

Six hundred soldiers is not going to stop anything, but it might send a message that continued aggression against former Soviet satellites will not be accepted.

The third article is from Reuters. It is a correction of a previous article. The article states:

Russia on Wednesday conducted military exercises in its south-western Rostov region, which borders Ukraine, a spokesman for Russia’s southern military district said.

Another probe to see if the NATO nations or any other nations are willing to stand up to the naked aggression of Russia.

I hope that our State Department and Defense Department are smart enough to get out of this without starting World War III. Unfortunately, I am not optimistic.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

All Elections Have Consequences

Posted on by

The 2014 mid-term election is rapidly approaching. We can’t change the White House, but we can change Congress. Unfortunately we have two more years of President Obama in the White House. One of the consequences of that fact is the decline of respect for America around the world.

Military.com posted an article yesterday that illustrates how far America has fallen during the Obama Administration.

The article reports:

A Russian Su-24 fighter jet made multiple low-level passes close to a U.S. destroyer in the Black Sea in the latest “provocation” by Moscow related to the crisis in Ukraine, Pentagon and White House officials said Monday.

The Russian Jet never flew directly over the Arleigh Burke Class destroyer Donald Cook but at one point made a pass at 500 feet within 1,000 yards of the ship, Pentagon officials said.

The article further reports that the destroyer did not go to battle stations. Why not?

The article further reports:

Carney also said that President Obama was expected to phone Russian President Vladimir Putin to protest the Cook incident and warn of tougher economic sanctions if Russia fails to pull back the estimated 40,000 troops on Ukraine’s borders.

Carney stressed that the faceoff with Russia was not intended to start a new Cold War but “we have profound differences with Russia, and we confront those differences directly.”

“I can assure you that Russia’s provocations and further transgressions will come with a cost,” Carney said, referring to economic sanctions that are being discussed with the European Union.

“Certainly if they go further down the road in attempting to destabilize Ukraine the costs will continue to grow,” Carney said.

I think Russia has already figured out that President Obama’s red lines are drawn with invisible ink. We need someone in the White House who will honor the treaty obligations we made with Ukraine and make sure we honor our treaty obligations with NATO, because President Putin will be testing those shortly.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Syrian Warning To NATO

Posted on by

The BBC posted an article today confirming that the Syrian military had shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom jet that Syria claimed had strayed into Syrian airspace over Syrian waters.

The article reports:

A spokesman said the plane, an F-4 Phantom, was dealt with “according to the laws that govern such situations”, the state news agency Sana said.

The Turkish prime minister said his country would “take the necessary steps” once all the facts were known.

Meanwhile, the violence in Syria continues and escalates.

I have no answers for Syria–some of the people rebelling are as bad if not worse than the people in charge. We need to make some effort to protect the innocent civilian population, but I am not convinced that we should want to help arm the rebels or support them in any way.

The little news analysis block next to the news story stated:

The tone of the Syrian statement was strictly factual, and there was no expression of regret. If the plane did indeed violate Syrian airspace, that, and the apparent ease with which it was shot down, will be a considerable embarrassment to the Turkish government.

Hezbollah‘s TV station in Lebanon, al-Manar, which was among the first to report the incident, described it as “a clear message to Nato” about the perils of outside military intervention in the Syrian crisis.

I have no idea what it will take to bring peace and stability to Syria. I just hope that there is someone with some degree of power who does.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Things That Make You Wonder (Although Some Of Us Stopped Wondering A Long Time Ago)

Posted on by

Fox News is reporting today that Dr Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who helped the United States in the raid on Osama Bin Laden has been sentenced to 33 years in prison on Wednesday for conspiring against the state.

The article reports:

Shakil Afridi ran a vaccination program for the CIA to collect DNA and verify bin Laden’s presence at the compound in the town of Abbottabad where U.S. commandos killed the Al Qaeda chief last May in a unilateral raid. The operation outraged Pakistani officials, who portrayed it as an act of treachery by a supposed ally.

Wait a minute. Hasn’t the President been claiming all along that we were never sure that Osama Bin Laden was actually in the compound?

The article at Fox News reminds us:

On Tuesday, a Senate panel approved a foreign aid budget for next year that slashes U.S. assistance to Pakistan by more than half and threatens further reductions if it fails to open the NATO supply routes.

American lawmakers are also frustrated by suspicions that Pakistan is aiding militants who use its territory to attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan — allegations Islamabad has rejected. There is also lingering resentment over the fact that bin Laden was found hiding deep inside Pakistan.

But the U.S. cannot afford to turn its back on Pakistan entirely.

Pakistan is seen as vital to negotiating a peace deal with the Afghan Taliban and their allies given the country’s historical ties with the militants.

The Pakistani government is also keen to repair relations with the U.S., partly to receive over a billion dollars in American aid it needs to fill out its budget as it looks ahead to national elections scheduled for 2013. But patching up ties is politically sensitive in a country where anti-American sentiment is rampant.

Aside from the obvious questions surrounding the arrest of Dr. Afridi, why in the world are giving major amounts of money to a country that obviously does not support us? Also, why in the world are we negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban rather than defeating them?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/23/pakistani-doctor-who-helped-us-in-bin-laden-raid-sentenced-to-prison/#ixzz1vhmujw1A

Enhanced by Zemanta

How Did We Get Here ?

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Times posted a story about the current situation regarding the NATO missile defense sites in Eastern Europe that are supposed to be set up. These sites are supposed to be the subject of the recent open microphone remark by President Obama to Russian President Medvedev that President Obama would be able to be much more flexible in his second term. Well, evidently President Obama’s promise of flexibility in the future didn’t really impress the Russians.

The article in the Washington Times reports:

Russia’s most senior military officer (Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov) said Thursday that Moscow would strike and destroy NATO missile defense sites in Eastern Europe before they came online if the U.S. pushes ahead with deployment.

“A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,” Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said at an international missile defense conference in Moscow attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials.

How did America get to a place where we are being overtly threatened by the Russians?

The article concludes:

Russian officials insist that the system has the capability to shoot down their ICBMs, thus robbing their nuclear deterrent of its credibility and destabilizing the Cold War-era balance of mutually assured destruction.

Neither the State Department nor the Pentagon had any immediate comment on the Russian threat Thursday.

I need to point out here that the missile defense system in question is a missile defense system–no one is saying anything about offensive weapons (except the Russians). How did we get to a place where the Russians can tell us whether or not we can place defensive missiles in Europe?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Canary In The Coal Mind Is LIghtheaded

Posted on by
Česky: Vlajka Severoatlantické aliance (NATO)....

Česky: Vlajka Severoatlantické aliance (NATO). English: Flag of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Español: Bandera de la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN). Polski: Flaga Paktu Północnoatlantyckiego (NATO). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The canary in the coal mine is in trouble. When bad things happen to the Jews or to Israel, shortly afterward, bad things begin to happen to the rest of us.

Breitbart.com is reporting today that Turkey has blocked Israel from attending a NATO summit to be held in Chicago in May. The Turks claim that the move was made in retaliation for the refusal of Israel to formally apologize for its attack on the Mavi Marmara.

The article reports:

The Obama Administration, whose fearless leader just assured Jews of his support for Israel at the Holocaust Museum, was noncommittal in its response when queried whether they would openly state to NATO that they wanted Israel to participate.  State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland was evasive when she was confronted:

Q: Well, would you be — would the United [States] — would the administration be comfortable if Israel did not participate?

MS. NULAND: Again, we — there are many, many ways that these partnership activities may go forward. They’ve been done in different ways at different summits. So I’m not going to get into what we’re talking about, how it might work, who’s going to come. We’re still working on all of that.

Q: You — the administration won’t come out and say that it wants Israel to be at the — to participate at the — at the — at the summit in Chicago?

MS. NULAND: We haven’t made any announcements …

Q: … If you can’t come out and say that the United States wants Israel to participate, its main ally in the Middle East, and you won’t come out and say that the administration wants them to participate in whatever event is going on in Chicago, that’s — that is going to be seized on …

MS. NULAND: So every summit is done on a case-by-case basis, and we haven’t made a decision about who’s going to be invited yet …

Q: … But the Turks wouldn’t be objecting to Israel’s participation, if someone hadn’t proposed that Israel participate. And if you have proposed that they participate —

MS. NULAND: Again —

Q: — and you’re not willing to stick up for it, I don’t understand why —

MS. NULAND: I’m not going to get into, here, what we have proposed and where we are in the internal dialogue at NATO until the issues are settled by consensus.

So Turkey, whose government is now run by Islamists and whose leader is ostensibly Obama’s friend, is dictating policy to the United States. And as usual, Obama is only too willing to throw Israel under the bus.

It’s time to elect a President who will actually support Israel.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Is America Endorsing Mob Rule ?

Posted on by
Muammar al-Gaddafi at the 12th AU summit, Febr...

Image via Wikipedia

This is the link to the YouTube video of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talking about the death of Libyan leader Muammar Al-Qaddafi. I understand that it is possible to be happy about the death of a tyrant, but her statement is totally out of bounds. She could have commented on Qaddafi’s death in a much more graceful way.

Andrew McCarthy (a senior fellow at the National Review Institute) posted an article at National Review Online today with his comments on the death of Gaddafi. Mr. McCarthy was the Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York who prosecuted the ‘Blind Sheik’ after the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. In prosecuting that case, Mr. McCarthy studied the Koran and the Islamist culture in order to get a better picture of the root causes of the attack. In National Review Online, he reminds us that the removal of Qaddafi as the ruler of Libya may not have the result America is looking for.

Mr. McCarthy reminds us that the Arab Spring has some ugly aspects:

The most obviously ugly of these is that a throng of seething Islamists stripped, beat, paraded, and finally shot Qaddafi execution-style, all the while screaming the signature “Allahu Akbar!” battle cry with a fervor that would have made Mohamed Atta blush. They then shoved the despot’s corpse into a refrigerator — to maintain it for further triumphant display before thousands of gawking spectators. Too bad there was no official from the Obama administration’s Islamic Thought Police on hand to remind the mob of the Koran’s oft-quoted (but oftener ignored) teaching that to slay a single person is to slay all of mankind.

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

Qaddafi’s escape from his last holdout was thus cut off by NATO airstrikes. Trapped and hidden in a sewer, he was dragged out and brutalized — not for intelligence, but for sport. There is video here if you can stomach it. What NATO abetted was not a military capture. It was an assassination. We will be worse off that it happened. And the way it happened should sicken us.

No one will argue that Qaddafi was a brutal dictator. However, in recent years he had greatly limited his terrorist activities and was no longer a threat to the west. As the new government immediately declared Sharia Law when they took over Libya, it is a pretty safe bet that they will be a threat to the west. Terrorism from Libya may again become an everyday thing. The way Qaddafi died is upsetting. Secretary of State Clinton’s comments on Qaddafi’s death are even more upsetting. I think we have backed the wrong people in the Arab Spring. The only way that freedom and democracy will come the the Middle East and North Africa is the have a revolution in Iran. That was the revolution we refused to support after the last fixed election. The Obama administration seems to have a definite gift for backing the wrong horse.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Following The Money In Uganda

Posted on by

A website called Klein Online posted an article on October 15th about some of the reasons for America’s involvement in Uganda.

The article reports:

An influential “crisis management organization” that boasts billionaire George Soros as a member of its executive board recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform. 

The president-emeritus of that organization, the International Crisis Group, is the principal author of Responsibility to Protect, the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the U.S.-led NATO campaign in Libya.

Soros’ own Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine that has been cited many times by activists urging intervention in Uganda.

As we prepare to leave Iraq to Iran and prepare to leave Afghanistan to the Taliban, we are protecting the financial interests of George Soros, a man who has stated that he has no love for America.

Max Fisher recently wrote in The Atlantic that he could not see how the Lord’s Resistance Army was a threat to America.

The article at Klein Online further reports:

Also in 2008, the Africa Institute for Energy Governance, a grantee of the Soros-funded Revenue Watch, helped established the Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, or PWYP, which was purportedly launched to coordinate and streamline the efforts of the government in promoting transparency and accountability in the oil sector.

Also, a steering committee was formed for PWYP Uganda to develop an agenda for implementing the oil advocacy initiatives and a constitution to guide PWYP’s oil work.

PWYP has since 2006 hosted a number of training workshops in Uganda purportedly to promote contract transparency in Uganda’s oil sector.

PWYP is directly funded by Soros’ Open Society as well as the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute. PWYP international is actually hosted by the Open Society Foundation in London.

The billionaire’s Open Society Institute, meanwhile, runs numerous offices in Uganda. It maintains a country manager in Uganda, as well as the Open Society Initiative for East Africa, which supports work in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda.

A stable society in Uganda is a good thing for everyone. However, it is a particularly good thing for George Soros. It’s nice that the United States military is willing to protect the finances of a man who is attempting to use those finances to destroy the United States.

Enhanced by Zemanta