Turkey signals joint defense plan with Russia

Speaking at Anadolu Agency’s Editors’ Desk, Cavusoglu said the previous day’s meeting between Presidents Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Vladimir Putin had paved the way for closer ties following a nine-month freeze after the shooting down of a Russian warplane.

“The officials will go to St. Petersburg tonight,” Cavusoglu said. “Our delegation will consist of foreign ministry [personnel], the Turkish Armed Forces, along with our intelligence chief.”

Cavusoglu said meetings will be held at ministerial level.

Erdogan’s trip to Russia and the revival of ties between Russia and Turkey have sparked concern that the NATO member is turning increasingly to the East as it feels rebuffed by the West over a host of issues such as EU membership and the West’s tepid response to the defeated July 15 coup.

Questioned about increased cooperation between the Turkish and Russian defense industries in the context of Turkey’s NATO role, Cavusoglu said Ankara had already established defense sector cooperation with non-NATO countries, including missile development.

“Turkey wanted to cooperate with NATO members up to this point,” the minister said. “But the results we got did not satisfy us. Therefore, it is natural to look for other options. But we don’t see this as a move against NATO.”

Referring to the Nov. 24 downing of a Russian warplane over the Turkey-Syria border by the Turkish Air Force, Cavusoglu explained that the Turkish pilots involved in the incident had been arrested on suspicion of being involved in the coup bid.

“Some of the pilots, who were involved in the downed Russian jet incident, are remanded in custody right now,” he said. “This is because of the allegation of being a member of the Fetullah Terrorist Organization [FETO], not because they were involved in the incident. The judiciary will look into the case in every aspect and evaluate.”

NATO - In depth Look At Nato Shows It Has No Role To Play In Politics

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on 1949 in Washington DC, and ratified by its twelve member states. The treaty was clearly a response to the growing military threat that appeared by the communist ideology and military power of the Soviet Union, at the same time, the treaty was also viewed by some members as an insurance policy, provided mainly by the United States against the resurgent Germany.

This essay discusses the role of NATO; further it will examine why NATO should not be dissolved, and will discuss Libya as case study. This essay also discusses why NATO should be dissolved, and will draw upon the war on terror in Afghanistan. This essay will conclude that NATO does not have much relevance in 21th century nor it had following the Cold and the Collapsed of the Soviet Union, therefore, it's not imperative for NATO to maintain alliance.

NATO was founded on the grounds that the organisation will protect its members, but mainly from the military threat of Soviet Unions, Lord Hastings Ismay, the first Secretary General clearly defined NATO; "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down (William: 2008, 348)." Ismay argument demonstrates that the international institution was founded mainly because of the of military threat of Soviet Union during the Cold War. NATO's former Secretary General Willy Clases stated that:

"it could build on its past, moving to establish closer ties with Central and East European states; deepen its political , economic and social ties with the United states; build a better relationship with Russia and certain Mediterranean and North African states; and work with regional and international organisation to ensure the stability of Europe its neighbours ( MaCalla:199,445)

Clases statement shows very strong aims of NATO to survive and will expand as global cop; continue its task to safeguard its member states; nevertheless, scepticism remains about its future. NATO's former Secretary General, Manfred Worner stated that "The treaty of Washington of 1949, nowhere mentions the Soviet Union" (MaCalla: 1996, 446). Worner argument reveals that military Threat of Soviet Union was not the main reason; however, NATO has wider international prospects.

At the end of the Cold War, it was perceived that the absence of a compelling external threat, NATO members would no longer see any compelling reason to maintain the alliance, and it would soon appear to be ineffective and incompetent security organisation. Waltz (William: 2008, 349) argued that the:

"alliances will tend to be less robust in a multipolar world because major powers will possess more options as their numbers increase... prudence suggests that existing alliance commitments can no longer be taken for granted ( William:2008,350)".

However, Walt argument proved to have minimal effect on the organisation. NATO flourished at least in some ways since following Cold War, and was broadly engaged in extensive combat operations, such as Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and recently in Libya.

Adler and Barnett (William et al: 2000) argued that persistence of NATO clearly demonstrates that the international community posses great challenges of security relations than neo realism has traditionally allowed. Their statement shows that NATO has survived many security challenges over time and continued to prosper as a security management institution in 21th century, on the other hand, the emergence of non-state actors brought massive challenges for the states security, states are now fighting non- state actors, such as Al-Qaida and Taliban, NATO responded efficiently by engaging on the War on Terror in Afghanistan, training and developing Afghan National Security Forces, and ensuring partnership agreement to continue military support to the country beyond 2014, after the withdrawal of NATO soldiers from the country. Thus, NATO's interest in promoting peace and stability has not only benefited its members but also wider international community.

NATO should be dissolved clearly it achieved its purpose and outlived its usefulness. Wallander and Keohane ( William et al:2000) argued that NATO is no longer an alliance, its purpose and operations has changed over time and it has transformed in to a regional collective security arrangement or security management institution. Their argument demonstrates that NATO still have great importance in the region, nonetheless, its aims have changed and there is still security threats for its members, but there is still many global security challenges facing NATO member states, this could be the fight on terror, environmental security challenges or the remnants of the Soviet Union, Russia, thus, these challenges keep NATO active and should therefore not be dissolved. NATO as security management institution take human rights and humanitarian intervention into account, NATO efficiently responded to crisis in Libya. The NATO humanitarian intervention in Libya was legitimate, because it was authorised by UN Security Council, the main purpose of this operation was to save human lives and it was successful.

The consequences of a dissolved NATO will not help the wider international order, this is because NATO is also an enforcement arm of the UN Security Council, helped to combat Terrorism, WMD and Cyber Warfare, on the other hand, NATO members states shares democratic values, William et al (2000:358) argued that NATO persists because it's member states shared democratic norms and identities. This shows that democracy is the common language in these countries, and therefore, they can communicate very well and identify their common enemies and share military burden in order to make each ally stronger than individual part. The North Atlantic treaty organisation was set up to defend against the threat of Soviet aggression, however, today it's viewed as increasingly dysfunctional, and still searching for a new role two decades after the collapsed of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War ( Kashmeri:2010).

William (2008) argued that NATO has had little effect on counter-terrorism efforts. Williams statement points to the inability of NATO on combating terrorism. It could be argued that NATO was failed to stop Terrorists attacks on their members states, NATO was incapable to stop major terrorist attacks of 911, 7/7 London bombing or Madrid attacks, on the other hand, NATO did not achieved much of its goals on combating terrorism in Afghanistan, NATO failed to eliminate Top Taliban leader, Mullah Omer and could not stop much of the insurgency in the South of the country, as a result, NATO's member states had to pay huge cost of a lengthy War in Afghanistan, NATO lost their real aims in Afghanistan, its initial purpose of War in Afghanistan was to battle Terrorism, however, the aim spread to many other challenges, and it is now fighting for human rights, war on drug, reconstruction and building a democratic society for Afghans, NATO clearly lost its mandate in Afghanistan and its members had to pay massive amount of finance to support the war at the time where their own national economies were struggling with huge debts and deficits.

NATO believed that the organisation will transform into a World cop, by adopting a strategy of 'Out of Area' (Kashmeri: 1996), this dream is diminishing at slow pace in the mountainous Afghanistan, where many of its European members are avoiding main battle, France and Netherland has already withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, while leaving other members in uncertainty and disarray, on the other hand, US close ally Canada has also withdrawn troops from Afghanistan, making it more difficult for other NATO members to achieve significant goals, the remaining members are struggling to find resources to send a few hundred trainers to Afghanistan.

NATO does not have much relevance in 21th century nor it had following the Cold War and the collapsed of the Soviet Union, it was not imperative for NATO to maintain alliance. Mearsheimer ( 1994) stated that international institutions maintain only 'false promise' as a foundation for security. Mearsheimer's statement demonstrates that NATO is ineffective and therefore should be disbanded, security issues are best achieved through states, thus, security institutions have no place in international system. If the international community is posed with global threats, NATO would be unsuccessful, it would be more advantageous for each region including Europe to build their own security force rather than creating a global NATO force. It could also be argued that security institutions are manipulated by powers for their own national interest; hence, NATO is a great tool for US to advance its agenda. The extension of NATO force has also threatened development of democracy in Russia, most democratic activists in Russia have oppose NATO enlargement, precisely, on the grounds that it hinders the progress of democracy in Russia.

NATO is a tool of US and the majority of Americans have different social moral values compare to their European counterparts. Steele (2004) argued that Americans do not share values, but institutions with Europe. This illustrates that Europe and the US have similar institutions, like Europe they have a separation of powers between executive and legislature and an independent judiciary, but both Europe and the US have different values and this distinction is crucial. It clearly shows that they do not have common values or perceptions, and these perceptions may include security issues, and what constitutes a threat for the US may not constitutes a threat for the Europe. Steele (2004) clearly distinguish these differences, in the US more people have guns than have passports, and there is not one European nation of which is the same as US on this. However, millions of US nationals do share European values, but this only amounts to 48% and that the US is deeply polarised is incorrect.

European states are officially embedded as America's allies, and it's clear that the allies should support America and respect their leadership, thus, this makes it hard for European states to not follow American perceptions about security, if they don't they will fear of being attacked as disloyal. It's very obvious that Europeans like Americans have their own interest, sometimes they will coincides, and these interest will also differ, but it's normal (Steele:2004), it's clear that the US has some bilateral security treaties with other countries. And that could be a good deal for European states. If Austria, Finland, Ireland and Sweden could take considerable risk of staying neutral during the Cold War, thus, no need to join NATO in 21th century, in which the world is much safe than it was in bipolar order. It's clearly true that NATO will not function with the unanimity it demonstrated during the Cold War, however, the lesson has been learned from Iraq War and that the organisation has become no more than a " coalition of the reluctant"( Steele:2004), because it's strong member such as France and Germany did not joined the Iraq War.

The US as a leader and most powerful member of NATO, has always pushed the European allies to spend much on their defence infrastructure, blaming them for spending too little or spending on the wrong policies. This has been a regular feature of NATO meetings for years. Valasek argued that

"Virtually every piece of legislation in the U.S Congress involving NATO, such as bills on enlargement or missile defence, pass with at least an attempt by lawmakers to attach amendments mandating greater European contributions (Velasak:2001,20"

Velasak statement reveals that the Europeans are being pushed for something which they are not interested and it's also not in their national interests to spend much more on their defence infrastructure and pay heavily for the costs of wars, thus, NATO has become a threat to Europe. NATO's existence undermines Europe's own efforts to build their own regional security institutions which will more efficiently respond to external security threats. Some member states, particularly, the UK often looks over their shoulders for not upsetting big brother, the US. If the UK is so much cautious of not upsetting the US, thus, Central and East European States are more cautious not to upset the US, because they need the US more for their external security. On the other hand, the Common Security and Defence policy of Europe ( CSDP) does not have much power, assets or organisation, their first Task of deployment took place in 2003 in the Republic of Macedonia "EUFOR Concordia"(Chivvis:2008). The organisation seemed to be so weak that they used NATO assets, however, it was considered to be success, but their missions are considered to be very low profiled and small, hence, it makes it so ambiguous that they can respond efficiently to a real global threat.

To sum up, this essay demonstrated that NATO was founded for common defence against the hostile Soviet Union during the Cold War. NATO flourished in some ways and its humanitarian interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya provided NATO further legitimacy. Therefore, NATO's achievements as a legitimate international security institution cannot be underestimated; however, the North Atlantic Treaty was signed to confront Soviet Union military power, and achieved its purpose and outlived its usefulness, and it's time for the organisation to die a peaceful death, it's elimination will lead the path for regional security structure, which would efficiently deal with external security threats, on the other hand, NATO is a tool being used by the US, as the US is the most powerful member and assumed leader of the organisation, therefore, this advance US agenda and sometimes the US interest coincide with European interests, this is because most of Americans and Europeans do not share similar values. Iraq War was a clear example of this interest, which led NATO's main members to opt out of the War; however, US had great interest in the War and continued without their support.

This report was written by an anonymous writer at the UK Academic Writing Services

EU-Diges

NATO Relations With Turkey Following Coup: Will Turkey be expelled from NATO?

Splitting up?

Many analysts believe Turkey and NATO are on a collision course. One end of their argument hinges on the belief — apparently shared to an extent by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the Turkish government — that the United States and NATO played a role in the unsuccessful coup attempt July 15.

Minister of Justice Bekir Bozdag, who heads for Washington soon to try to negotiate the extradition of Fethullah Gulen, the Pennsylvania-based Turkish cleric accused of masterminding the coup, has laid Turkey’s position on the line.

“The US knows Fethullah Gulen carried out this coup. Mr. Obama knows this just as he knows his own name. I am convinced that American intelligence knows it, too. I am convinced the State Department knows it. … Other countries know it, too, because every country has an intelligence agency,” Bozdag insisted during a TV interview.

Bozdag’s remarks, which imply that Washington and NATO knew what was coming and did nothing, are being echoed by the pro-Erdogan Islamist media in Turkey, which is essentially anti-Western and sees NATO as the enemy of Islam.

Remarks such as those by Bozdag are eliciting equally harsh responses from the West. Gregory Copley, a strategic analyst, appears to have no doubt that “Turkey has now formally declared the US (and therefore NATO) as its enemy” and is exhorting the alliance to act accordingly.

The other end of the argument regarding a collision in the making between Turkey and NATO hinges on the belief that Erdogan is using the failed coup attempt to initiate a massive purge against his opponents in order to further strengthen his hold on power. It is being suggested that an undemocratic Turkey has no place in an alliance based on democratic principles.

US Secretary of State John Kerry encouraged this view when he appeared to hint that Turkey could not remain in NATO if it strayed from democracy and the rule of law as it seeks those behind the failed coup attempt.

“NATO also has a requirement with respect to democracy,” Kerry told reporters in response to a question on Turkey during a press conference in Brussels with Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief.

He added that “the level of vigilance and scrutiny” with regard to developments in Turkey would be very significant in the days ahead.

If Kerry’s remarks are meant to sound a warning, they are falling on deaf ears in Turkey where a campaign against Turkey’s NATO membership is also gaining steam. Former senior officers from the military, like retired Rear Adm. Cem Gurdeniz, are among those questioning this membership.

In an interview with daily Hurriyet, Gurdeniz said there had always been a struggle between “Atlanticists” and the “Eurasia camp” in the military. He said if the coup was successful, Turkey would have become part of “Atlanticist” plans to its detriment.

“The losses incurred would have included the declaration of an independent Kurdistan, autonomy [for Kurds] in southeastern Anatolia and the loss of Cyprus,” he said. Gurdeniz said Turkey “should play a balancing role between the Atlantic and Eurasia,” arguing that it was patently clear NATO did not serve Turkey’s interests anymore.

He went on to question whether NATO’s advanced radar systems in Kurecik, in eastern Turkey, deployed under its Ballistic Missile Defense program, was in Turkey’s interests. He also asked why NATO was keen to conduct military exercises in the Black Sea and was pressurizing Turkey for a permanent presence there, pointing out that this was something NATO never did during the Cold War.

Gurdeniz’s remarks point to the kind of confusion reigning in Ankara with regard to NATO, because it was Erdogan, during the recent NATO summit in Warsaw, who called on the alliance to bolster its presence in the Black Sea to prevent this sea from becoming “a Russian lake.”

Turkey being a country of bitter ironies, Gurdeniz — a staunch Kemalist secularist — was among those arrested under the so-called Balyoz (Sledgehammer) case, while still serving in the military, and was convicted to 18 years in prison in 2013 for allegedly plotting to overthrow the government led by Erdogan.

He was released after Erdogan and his onetime Islamist ally Gulen became enemies. Gurdeniz accused Gulen supporters in the judiciary, who are now being rounded up as coup plotters, for his own incarceration as a coup plotter.

Whatever is being written or said on either side of the fence today, the truth is that Ankara’s NATO membership was never threatened following successful coups in Turkey in the past, when the Cold War was raging, and NATO could not endanger the strategic advantages Turkey provided against the Soviet Union.

Turkey’s place on the map remains equally important today for NATO, if not more so. Retired Ambassador Unal Unsal, a former Turkish permanent representative to NATO, believes it would be difficult for the alliance to turn its back on Turkey at a time when the Middle East and the Black Sea region is in turmoil, when there is the possibility of a Trump presidency and when the EU is struggling with its Brexit debacle.

“The going in Turkey may not be good, but a Turkey out of NATO would cause more complications, especially if Ankara slides toward Russia,” Unsal told Al Monitor.

Acknowledging that the NATO charter has conditions regarding democracy in member states, Unsal nevertheless pointed out that this had not prevented Portugal from becoming a founding member of the alliance in 1949, even though it was being ruled by authoritarian Antonio de Oliveira Salazar.

Unsal indicated that what is being said today about NATO membership in conjunction with democracy and rule of law in Turkey has to be said for the sake of appearance. He added that expelling a country from the alliance would require consensus in the Atlantic Council, which would be difficult to secure under current circumstances.

Unsal did not discount the possibility, however, that Erdogan, in one of his many huffs, may decide to pull Turkey out of NATO, and suggested that the consequences of this might not be as dire for Turkey as it appears at first glance.

“Maintaining Turkey’s strategic ties with the US is what will ultimately remain crucial for Ankara, rather than its ties with NATO, and everyone knows that the US means NATO,” Unsal said.

Copley, who claims Ankara has declared the United States and NATO its enemy, nevertheless ended his analysis for Oilprice.com by underlining the alliances dilemma regarding Turkey.

“No one in NATO or the senior member states has actually done the calculation as to how to structure global and regional strategies without Turkey, or how to remove Turkish officers from NATO facilities — how to manage the region without Turkey,” he wrote.

The West does not appear to be well-poised currently to do this “calculation,” which makes the suggestions that Turkey be expelled from NATO ring hollow, given what is transpiring in the world.

Read bmore: Will Turkey be expelled from NATO?

US Foreign Policy: ISIS and European Refugees Crises A Direct Result of Iraqi War

Blair and Bush launch Iraq war based on false information

Why are Governments keeping silent about the undeniable fact that the terrorism and security crises Europe is facing comes as a direct result of the Iraqi war.

Also,  as more and more innocent victims die as a result of terrorism in Europe and around the world, Governments need to recognize the facts and identify the culprits who provided false information to the so-called "coalition of the willing" which resulted in  more than a million civilian and military deaths.

During the years following the aftermath of the Iraqi war it should be crystal clear to our political leaders that military actions are not the answer to solving any political crises  So far this strategy has only increased the security problems around the worls and resulted in a very unstable political and social environment..

Across Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey people have crossed borders and traveled many kilometres within their own country to find respite from war.

Millions have crossed continents and have ended up in Europe seeking that same respite. By and large it's taken Europe by surprise. Opinions vary on how to deal with the crisis. Some say Europe and the US should step up. Others say the rich Gulf states should use their enormous wealth to help.

The fact remains: why is no Government leader in the US or Europe backing the obvious that a strategic mistake was made by the invasion and occupation of Iraq?  Can our Governments still be trusted ?

March 2003 was the pivotal point. Based on controversial evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the war drums beat loudly.

The WMD claim was eventually publicly discredited by the CIA's own Iraq survey group report . That report proved whispers and intelligence community doubts from the time that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

But it wasn't just those who questioned the evidence. Mass opposition from the British and American public concluded in marches in various Western capitals opposing the war.

Those voices went ignored and in March 2003, the then US president George Bush Bush  and the British prime minister Tony Blait  met in the Azores, Portugal, with the Spanish prime minister, and set into motion events that now include the dead body of three-year-old Aylan Kurdi that washed up on a Turkish beach.

The Arab Spring was officially launched when Mohamed Morsi, who became Egypt's first democratically elected president, was toppled by the military in 2013. Initially it was not religious or even violent in nature.

It was popular anger at dictators propped up by the West coupled with frustration at the lack of economic development.

Down the dictators fell, and with them, decades of religious suppression. That religious fervour found expression in anger at the US' role in Iraq.

Suddenly religious groups were able to speak freely, and freely they did, mainly about the US and its role in the region.

Then when the protests reached Syria, President Bashar al-Assad knew he didn't want to suffer the same fate as his Arab counterparts.

The West quickly abandoned him and said no negotiations while he was in power. Left with little choice he moved on those that opposed him in a violent and bloody manner.

The Iraq war was the war too far - the one that has changed the Middle East.

It was the war that solidified and unified disparate young men from different countries into following the path of violent jihad.

Had the Iraq war not happened, then Saddam Hussein would have been contained as he was.
This dictator was a threat to freedom and to his own people, but was no longer a threat to his neighbours.

The leaders of ISIL and other radical groups would have found death in Afghanistan or prison elsewhere. However, hindsight and "what if" are the words of those that have the luxury of not living in a tent.

The Iraq war did happen.

The refugee crisis is happening.

Now the only questions the world perhaps should be asking is how we can bring about a political solution to the war in Syria and how we bring all sides to the table.

What the refugee crisis has done is force the Western European public to think. Whether they can force their governments to act and bring about a solution is another question.

The architects of the Iraq war still say their actions had nothing to do with the current crisis.

It is high time that the US, EU members states and other Nations, including China and Russia step up to the plate and let international justice take its course by prosecuting those who lied about the weapons of mass destruction, for war crimes. 

In the same breath, these nations under auspices of the United Nations should also declare the Middle East a nuclear and military free zone and weapon sales to this area should be prohibited.

The NATO, which has outlived its cold war purpose should be disbanded,  and replaced by a Multi-National Development Network to initially benefit the populations of Middle Eastern and North African Nations, and eventually also other nations ravaged by famine, war or tribal conflicts.

All this might sound like a utopian fantasy or unattainable dream, but it is certainly worth the effort and a far more productive proposition than enriching the weapons industry which is killing millions of innocent civilians around the world today.

EU-Digest

Eastern Europe and irresponsible journalism: In Europe and Russia, There’s Talk of War - by Jill Dougherty

"Recently, I grabbed a taxi in Moscow. When the driver asked me where I was from, I told him the United States. “I went there once,” he said, “to Chicago. I really liked it.”

“But tell me something,” he added. “When are we going to war?”

Atomic War: often result of irresponsible Politicians and Journalists

The question, put so starkly, so honestly, shocked me. “Well, I hope never,” I replied. “No one wants war.”

At the office, I ask a Russian employee about the mood in his working class Moscow neighborhood. The old people are buying salt, matches and gretchka [buckwheat], he tells me—the time-worn refuge for Russians stocking up on essentials in case of war.

In the past two months, I’ve traveled to the Baltic region, to Georgia, and to Russia. Talk of war is everywhere.

In Estonia, at the Lennart Meri security conference, we take a bus two and a half hours to the east of Tallinn, to Narva, a city on the border with Russia, for a discussion: “What is Narva Afraid of?” a variant on the geo-political debate: “Is Narva Next?”

In an interview widely quoted in the Russian media, a foreign affairs expert and a member of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Foreign Policy and Defense Council, Sergei Karaganov, told the German magazine Der Spiegel that Western propaganda against Russia “is reminiscent of the period preceding a new war.”

“The help offered by NATO is not symbolic help for the Baltic states,” he said. “It is a provocation. If NATO initiates an encroachment--against a nuclear power like ourselves--it will be punished.”

President Vladimir Putin himself plays both sides against the middle, warning the West that Russia will have to “strengthen the potential of its strategic nuclear forces” in order to counter the United States’ missile shield, while at the same time insisting it’s the West, not Russia, that’s destroying the balance that kept the world from nuclear conflict during the Cold War.

During the St. Petersburg Economic Forum in June, he tells the heads of international news agencies that the U.S. is lying when it claims its missile defense system will not threaten Russia:

As I browse in a Moscow gift shop, a t-shirt catches my eye: a buff-looking Vladimir Putin dressed in a black turtleneck and tight black pants, with the words “SAVE THE WORLD” in white letters across his image.

How? There’s no answer on this t-shirt and, in the real world, no magic prescription.
But all the talk of war isn’t as crazy as it seems, several Russians tell me. “They may not love us,” they say, “but they fear us.”

Note EU-Digest: This quoted article by Jill Dougherty is a perfect example of pro-NATO propaganda, support of the weapons industry and irresponsible journalism. It is packed with scary comments, refueling cold war fears and whipping up peoples emotions. 

The EU must speak out that it does not want another cold or God forbid a hot war war with Russia, and that it does not support NATO troop movements on Russia's borders, regardless of what the  US or the usually "short sighted" Eastern European EU members are saying.The NATO, being perfectly honest, is also an organization,  whose time has come and gone, and for the past 20 years certainly has not achieved any positive track record    

Read more:  In  Europe and Russia, There’s Talk of War

NATO: Bulgaria Throws Wrench In Works Of NATO Black Sea Plans

Bulgaria's prime minister has said the country will not participate in a proposed joint NATO naval fleet in the Black Sea, slowing the momentum of a project that had thus far received broad support from NATO members and partners.

The move would “turn the Black Sea into a territory of war,” Prime Minister Boyko Borissov said on Thursday, adding that he “wants to see cruising yachts, and tourists, rather than warships.”

“To send warships as a fleet against the Russian ships exceeds the limit of what I can allow,” Borissov told reporters in Sofia on Thursday, as quoted by Bloomberg. “To deploy destroyers, aircraft carriers near Bourgas or Varna during the tourist season is unacceptable.”

The Romanian-led proposal to create a sort of joint NATO Black Sea naval force has the support of Turkey, the United States, NATO headquarters, as well as non-NATO members Georgia and Ukraine.

Bulgaria's refusal could have several causes. For one, presidential elections are coming up and Borissov may be concerned that rival, more pro-Russia parties could use the move against him, said Dimitar Bechev, a Bulgarian political scientist and fellow at Harvard's Center for European Studies. "Most of all, I think he's concerned about domestic repurcussions," Bechev said in an interview with The Bug Pit. He added that Bulgaria could likely eventually join whatever NATO naval force emerges in an "under the radar" fashion

Bulgaria also has reasons to be skeptical of the merits of a NATO Black Sea force, added Michael Kofman, a military analyst at CNA Corporation and a fellow at the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute. He noted that Bulgaria is still participating in a new multinational NATO brigade to be based in Romania, sending 400 soldiers.

And Russia maintains an overwhelming superiority in the Black Sea, including such a strong sea-denial system of land-based anti-ship weapons that they could easily destroy any enemy forces in the sea. "There's little sense in further militarizing a space in which there is no chance of coming out on top with the correlation of forces. The consequence is a net security minus for member states. A NATO fleet has little viability and is unnecessary to achieve sea denial in the Black Sea. Bulgaria simply has more common sense than some others.," Kofman said in an interview with The Bug Pit.

It remains unclear what form a joint NATO Black Sea force might take, but Bulgaria's refusal to take part is a significant blow, politically if not militarily. The plan is nevertheless on the agenda of the upcoming alliance summit in Warsaw from July 8-9.

Read more: Bulgaria Throws Wrench In Works Of NATO Black Sea Plans | EurasiaNet.org

NATO:- are Eastern Europeans and Baltic States Serving two Masters? and why is NATO catering to them?

Have they outlived their purpose ?

The NATO's chief on Monday said the alliance will agree this week to send four multinational battalions to the Baltic states and Poland as part of its response to Russian meddling in Ukraine and a series of alleged provocations by Russian military.

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said the troop surge in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland was meant to “send a clear signal that NATO stands ready to defend any ally”.

“We will agree to deploy by rotation four robust multi-national battalions in the Baltic states and Poland," he told a news conference ahead of a meeting of NATO defence ministers in Brussels on Tuesday.

The Baltic states and Poland have expressed concern over perceived threats by Moscow, especially following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and covert Russian military interventions on the side of Ukrainian separatists.

The announcement also comes after a series of risky military encounters between Russian and US military personnel.

In April, the US Navy vehemently protested what it described as a “simulated attack” by a Russian fighter jet, which flew within nine metres of a US destroyer that was conducting exercises in the Baltic Sea.

The Donald Cook was in international waters off the coast of Poland. Those waters are also close to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.

Note EU-Digest: why is the US military  leadership of  NATO  playing with fire (and endangering the EU) to please Eastern European members of the EU. 

Whenever these same Eastern European members of the EU are asked to support EU programs related to the refugee crises or other important programs, they are usually un-supportive and take a very nationalistic and self-centered position. 

Hopefully Brussels and other EU member states will remind these Eastern European EU member states that they can not serve two masters. 

As the saying goes, you can't have your cake and eat it too ! 

The EU,  as a whole, needs to be reviewing the actual need for and value of NATO, a cold war creation, which has outlived its time and purpose within the context of the European Union.

Read more: NATO to deploy four battalions in bid to reassure Poland, Baltic allies - France 24

EU Rule of Law Crises: Europe’s Rule-of-Law "obstructed by Hungary and Poland "- by Guy Verhofstadt

Rule of Law - one of the basic princiles of Democracy

From the rubble of two world wars, European countries came together to launch what would become the world’s largest experiment in unification and cooperative, shared sovereignty. But, despite its impressive achievements over the decades, the European project now risks disintegration.

An unresolved financial crisis, a refugee crisis, a deteriorating security environment, and a stalled integration process have created throughout Europe a toxic, unstable political environment in which populism and nationalism thrive. Perhaps the clearest manifestation of this is the erosion of the rule of law in the European Union.

Two EU members in particular, Hungary and Poland, are now jeopardizing hard-won European democratic norms – and thus undermining the very purpose of European integration.

In Hungary, liberal-democratic values have come under systematic attack from Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government. Since his return to the premiership in 2010, Orbán has committed Hungary to an authoritarian nationalist path, and he has exploited the refugee crisis to cement a “siege mentality” that helps him sustain popular support.

In the process, fundamental rights have been ignored, media freed refugees have been demonized, and Orbán is doing everything in his power to weaken the EU. Attempts by EU institutions to convince Orbán to change course have only emboldened him to commit further outrages against democratic norms.

Meanwhile, a democratic crisis has emerged in Poland as well, starting last October, when the Law and Justice (PiS), a Euroskeptic party that also opposes immigration, secured an outright parliamentary majority by promising to implement populist economic policies and “put Poland first.” Yet, since the election, PiS has launched a series of attacks on the Polish constitution itself.

Government legislation aimed at reforming Poland’s Constitutional Court has been condemned by the Court itself and the European democracy watchdog, the Venice Commission. The government has effectively precluded the Court from ruling on the constitutionality of legislation. This weakens a key pillar of the democratic rule of law – and thus is highly problematic for Poland and Europe alike.

Hungary and Poland are the leading edge of a far-right agenda that has taken hold throughout Europe, pursued by parties that are exploiting the political vacuum created by the EU’s failure to address the financial and refugee crises. So how can the tables be turned?

In democratic countries, it is vital that democracy’s enemies be fought with democratic means. It is vital that the outside world impress on the Hungarian and Polish people themselves that in a globalized world, nationalism offers only false security and economic irrelevance. Both countries, at the heart of Europe, have profited enormously in every sense from EU membership; they must not throw away their opportunity to make further progress.

Hungarians and Poles rejected international isolation in 1989. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, both countries became staunch NATO allies even before they joined the EU. The geopolitical and security arguments for European unity are overwhelming, and there can be no united Europe without Hungary and Poland.

But all of us, and in particular the peoples of Hungary and Poland, must remember that NATO, like the EU, was founded on the fundamental principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law. A government that flouts those principles jeopardizes the coherence and solidarity of the alliance. It is therefore vital that the United States and other NATO allies speak out now and insist that functioning democratic checks and balances are safeguarded. It would be unimaginable for NATO heads of state to go ahead with their planned leadership summit in Warsaw in June if Poland remains in its constitutional crisis, with the government disregarding the rule of law and the opinion of a respected international body.

Hungarians and Poles must be reminded that Russian President Vladimir Putin is actively attempting to divide and weaken the EU and NATO. If Europe is to face down aggression from the Kremlin, it is essential that Poland and Hungary adhere to these groups’ fundamental values and principles.

But it is also necessary that the EU itself develop a more comprehensive mechanism for safeguarding the rule of law within the Union. The EU has mechanisms to regulate economic policies, safeguard the environment, and police the Single Market. But Europe has always been much more than an economic project; it is also a union of values, which no member can be allowed to repudiate without consequence.

Governments are created and fall apart, and politicians come and go; but democratic institutions should be spared from political interference. The sad reality is that, were they to apply for EU membership today, neither Hungary nor Poland would be admitted. Their people should weigh carefully what that means. 

Their current leaders claim to be defending national interests. But is it really in their countries’ interest to be sidelined by the US, NATO, and the rest of Europe?

Note EU-Digest: Guy Verhofstadt, a former Belgian prime minister, is President of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Group (ALDE) in the European Parliament. 

NATO's Planned June Leadership in June should be cancelled if Hungary and Poland  both continue to obstruct  the fundamental principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law on which not only the EU was founded but also the NATO.

EU-Digest

Can NATO finally be made obsolete in Europe? : European Defense Cooperation needs to be expanded and reinforced

It is high time for a strong EU Defense Force

It has become quite obvious that European governments need to cooperate more seriously on defense matters .

European nations face an unprecedented confluence of security crises, ranging from unpredictable US and to a lesser extend also Russian military involvements across the Middle East and Eastern Europe, which are generating internal security dangers, including terrorist attacks and a large influx of refugees .

Since it is obvious that no EU country can cope in putting this together it has to be a defense force which includes all the military forces of the EU nations, with a central command.

One new but key dimension of the security challenges facing the EU is that the EU now has to simultaneously defend not only the territories of the EU, but also manage external crises. Another important aspect in this picture  is that the lines between internal and external security have become  increasingly blurred.

Against this backdrop, at a summit in June 2016 the EU is expected to adopt a new global strategy, which will set out priorities and guidelines for EU foreign, security, and defense policies.

This summit and other institutional processes are important, even though right now European defense cooperation is being pushed more by the amalgamation of national priorities than just by the efforts of the EU.

European defense cooperation will continue, but it is mainly bottom up—driven by national governments—not top down, meaning directed and organized by the institutions in Brussels.

For example, although the previous decline in European defense spending has stopped, national budgets have fallen by around 15 percent since 2008. Institutional orthodoxy holds that reduced national budgets, especially for military equipment, should spur more cross-border collaboration. In fact, the opposite has been true.

Between 2006 and 2011, EU governments spent around 20 percent of their equipment budgets on pan-European collaboration each year. By 2013, this figure had fallen below 16 percent, according to the European Defense Agency.

Similarly, European governments have become less willing to send soldiers abroad for peacekeeping operations and more selective about which missions they participate in. All the European members of NATO contributed to the alliance’s operations in Afghanistan during the 2000s, but less than half took part in NATO’s 2011 military intervention in Libya. The EU has deployed over 30 peace operations since 2003, but 24 of these were initiated before 2009, and the pace and size of new missions has dropped considerably since then.

European funding of NATO’s central role in European territorial defense has been reinvigorated since 2014, mainly as result of the Ukraine tribulations between the US and Russia. Conventional deterrence is back in Europe as a core task for European governments. But so far, even these efforts have remained relatively modest.

With a strength of only 5,000, the multinational Very High Readiness Joint Task Force, under the flag of NATO prompts questions about the unit’s usefulness in an event of a military confrontation  with Russian forces.ccording to one recent war-gaming study, the longest it would take Russian military forces to reach the Estonian and Latvian capitals of Tallinn and Riga is sixty hours.

However, even if the EU is struggling to encourage much deeper collaboration among their members, it would be wrong to think that there is no progress on European defense cooperation. There are now nearly 400 ongoing military cooperation projects in Europe. These include initiatives such the European Air Transport Command in the Netherlands, which manages the missions of almost 200 tanker and transport aircraft from seven countries, and the Heavy Airlift Wing based in Hungary, which has helped eleven European countries procure and operate a fleet of C-17 transport planes.

Some countries are also working more closely in regional formats, such as Baltic, Nordic, and Visegrád (Central European) cooperation. And a number of European governments are pursuing deeper bilateral cooperation, including the integration of parts of their armed forces in some cases. Examples include Franco-British, German-Dutch, and Finnish-Swedish initiatives.

European governments are increasingly picking and choosing which forms of military cooperation they wish to pursue, depending on the capability project or military operation at hand. Sometimes they act through NATO or the EU, but almost all European governments are using other formats as well, whether regional, bilateral, or ad hoc coalitions. The combination of more complex security crises and reduced resources has meant that European governments are more focused on their core national interests than before, and both more targeted and flexible about how they wish to cooperate with the US or even among themselves.

The success of European defense cooperation will depend on the convergence or divergence of national policies, in particular the abilities of France, Germany, and the UK ( who collectively account for almost two-thirds of EU defense spendin)  to not only agree among themselves but to also convince other European governments to support a common approach.

It is high time for the EU to get their act together in the area of military cooperation, so it won't continue to be at the mercy of NATO and dragged into military adventures based on US foreign policy objectives. 

The expansion and improvement of an independent EU Defense force must also become an integral part of well defined Global EU foreign policy objectives, in order to become truly effective.

EU-Digest

Terrorism and the Press: Politicians duck the blame for terrorism and Press lets them get away with it - never asking any real questions

The Press: Say not, See Not, Hear Not

It is amazing listening to news stations during any terrorist attack. They report "blow by blow" all the gruesome and horrific details endlessly.

CNN in particular, turns these sad events into an endless nauseating soap opera with infinite and at times totally insignificant detail.

Questions are asked about why the most wanted man in Europe was able to elude the police for so long, even though he was living in his home district of Molenbeek in Brussels.

Television and newspapers ask nervously about the chances of Isis carrying out another atrocity aimed at dominating the news agenda and showing that it is still in business.

The reporting of the events in Brussels is in keeping with that after the January (Charlie Hebdo) and November Paris attacks and the Tunisian beach killings by Isis last year, or the killings in Ankara and Istanbul 

For several days there is blanket coverage by the media as it allocates time and space far beyond what is needed to relate developments. But then the focus shifts abruptly elsewhere and Isis becomes yesterday’s story, treated as if the movement has ceased to exist or at least lost its capacity to affect our lives.

The outpouring of official grief that commonly follows any atrocity, such as the march of 40 world leaders through the streets of Paris after the Charlie Hebdo killings last year, is used to help neuter any idea that the political failures of these same leaders might be to a degree responsible for the slaughter.

After all, such marches are usually held by the powerless to protest and show defiance, but in this case the march simply serves as a publicity stunt to divert attention from these leaders’ inability to act effectively and stop the wars in the Middle East which they had done much to provoke.

But it its not only the US which deserves the blame. By taking up the cause of the Syrian and Libyan opposition and destroying the Syrian and Libyan states, France and Britain opened the door to Isis and should share in the blame for the rise of Isis, terrorism and creating the refugee crises in Europe.

By refusing to admit to or learn from past mistakes, the West Europeans did little to lay the basis for the current, surprisingly successful “cessation of hostilities” in Syria, which is now considered by the public at large almost entirely as a Russian achievement. 

Once again the question can be asked - which major News Agency has shown the courage to sit down with any important political leader and ask them some serious investigative questions, like: "why have you made such a mess in the Middle East , or, "what is being done to stop weapon dealers from selling their weapons and munition around the world at will ", or, "how come the former US Bush Administration  is not taken into a criminal court  for war crimes ", or, "why is the West propping up the Egyptian military dictatorship, or, "why is the military industrial complex industry selling  weapons and aircraft to despotic and undemocratic nations like Saudi-Arabia, Egypt, Iraq and Somalia", or, "why can't the UN declare the Middle East region a nuclear free zone", or, "what are the requirements to be a member of NATO, when we see that one of their member states (TURKEY) does not respect freedom of the Press, throws investigative reporters in jail or takes over newspapers when they don't follow the party line" - and the list goes on and on.

Barton Gellman of the Washington Post says that for journalists just getting basic information from any governmen tagency has become very difficult: “Besides the actual risk of prosecution . . . there’s an investigative issue that very much relates to the ability to do national security journalism now. Almost everything you want to write about these days, if you are writing about diplomacy, or intelligence, or defense, is classified; everything indeed, except the boiler plate press release and the tightly controlled  news conference, is classified."

Unfortunately, that is just the way how most governments operate these days.  Today there is more classified information which can not be accessed than there is open-source information on the planet.”

Bottom-line, political clarity and honesty is a "Fata Morgana" when it comes to getting it from Governments. Consequently distinguishing  "fiction"    today is the new reality.

 Almere-Digest

EU Refugee Crises:‘Criminal refugee smuggling enormous business - bigger than guns & drugs", says Czech defense minister

Where is the NATO promised support to stop this?

The business of smuggling illegal migrants to Europe far exceeds the volume of black market trade of drugs and weapons in the EU, said the Czech Defense Minister, who has “no illusions” of Turkey or Greece’s ability to curb illegal smuggling networks.

“The size of criminal business involving the transport of illegal migrants to Europe is enormous, it exceeds the turnover from the sale of drugs and weapons, making – without exaggeration – billions of EUROS,” said Martin Stropnicky.

The EU border agency Frontex estimates that people-smuggling networks made more than €4 billion ($4.45bn) from their criminal activities last year, with the biggest piece of the pie stemming from smuggling migrants.

That profit is further used to support the illicit drugs and weapons trade.

As over 1.83 million people made it into the European Union in 2015, according to Frontex, Stropnicky expressed doubts about Turkey’s and Greece’s ability to halt or at least deal with the bursting numbers of migrants.

He said that recent statics show that illegal migrant crossings are reaching 5,000 people a day, and this is before the start of the summer season when the waters of the Mediterranean get warmer. More than 870,000 migrants arrived on the Greek islands in 2015 using the so-called Eastern Mediterranean route alone.

Multiple “efficiently” organized smuggling networks operate along the route that smuggle people into Greece via the sea crossing though the Aegean, where the distance between the Turkish coast and Greek islands is as little as 4 nautical miles (7.5 km). These networks which are organized through the use of the social media make a large portion of their profit by selling illegal documents to those fleeing the conflict zones.

“In addition to organizing the sea crossing, smugglers give the migrants information about the asylum processes in different EU member states and sell them forged documents. The highest demand is for Syrian passports, identification cards, birth certificates and residence permits,” Frontex claims.

The Czech Defense Minister also criticized Brussels’ ineffectiveness in coming up with a viable solution to limit the flow of migrants to its borders, echoing the Czech Republic’s president who has earlier criticized EU’s initiative to station some 1,500 border guards at the bloc's gate as laughable.

“I do not see 1,500 European police officers [on southern EU borders], I do not see new reception and identification centers agreed on at previous EU summits,” the defense minister said commenting on the latest EU meeting in Brussels where the bloc’s leaders debated Brexit alongside refugee crisis.

The minister further rejected the European Union’s pondering of "Plan B" which is to close the Balkan borders if necessary.

Despite efforts by European leaders to stem the flow of refugees arriving in Europe, the number of new arrivals has seen an increase in 2016. According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR), more asylum seekers arrived in Europe by boat during the first six weeks of this year than during the first four months of 2015.

Note EU-Digest: It's high time something serious gets done to stop these criminal smuggling activities and curb the flow of refugees.  

What is happening to the earlier agreed on NATO navy support. This is a unique opportunity for NATO to get involved in a far more productive and useful activity than they have done so far.

Read more: ‘Enormous business’: Criminal refugee smuggling bigger than guns & drugs – Czech defense minister — RT News

EU-US Partnership: "The EU is increasingly unreliable and unpredictable" - by George Friedman

European Unity?

The United States has a partnership with Europe, but it can no longer think of NATO as the mechanism by which it is related to Europe, George Friedman told EurActiv in an exclusive interview.

George Friedman the author of this report is an American political scientist and author. A former chief intelligence officer, he is the founder of Stratfor and was its financial overseer and CEO. He recently sold his shares in Stratfor and started Geopolitical Futures, a new global analysis company. 

Firstly, the US looks at Europe in the much broader context of Eurasia. So now we have a crisis that stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic. The Chinese are in crisis, Russia is in crisis, the Middle East is in terrific crisis, and now Europe is in crisis as well. So we are looking at a situation where an area with a population of 5 billion is transforming in ways we cannot anticipate.

An American looks at this not just as Europe, but as a range of problems in general. There are many American views of Europe, but my view is that the EU has failed, but there is no clear alternative. And we see the failure in the immigration issue, which we do not regard as a major issue because it is less than 0.5% of population shift, but Europe cannot make a decision on how to handle it.

This is not an unmanageable problem. You can decide not to let anyone in, and then you take measures to prevent that, or you decide to integrate them and you do certain things to make that happen. It is Europe’s inability to make a decision that is, from the American point of view, the most problematic.

It is problematic because the United States has a partnership with Europe. As important as the EU, and very much missing from this conversation, is NATO: the stresses that exist between the countries in the European Union also become present in NATO.

So for example, we have one relationship with the French, one relationship with the British, a very different relationship with the Germans and a completely different relationship with the Poles. We can no longer think of NATO as the mechanism by which we are related to Europe.

This is not a catastrophic situation for the United States, but it poses challenges to us in the Middle East, and it poses challenges with Russia, and we are looking at the Europeans as increasingly unreliable and increasingly unpredictable.

Note EU-Digest: a most interesting and revealing report, exposing the weaknesses of the EU, including: lack of loyalty among partners, disarray among member states in the decision making process, need for a strong central leadership,  ineffectiveness of NATO, and need for our own EU army. As the saying goes :"We, the EU, better fish or cut bait". 

Hope you are taking note ? - EU Citizens, EU Presidency,  EU Commission, EU Parliament,  and foremost all you 28 self-centered EU member states governments. Don't destroy this fantastic project of democracy we call the EU, which has brought us more than 60 years of  Democracy, Peace and Prosperity. We the people will hold you responsible. We can't turn the clock back. Time for action is now !
 
For the complete report click here: George Friedman: The EU is increasingly unreliable and unpredictable | EurActiv

Syria: NATO rejects Russia explanation on Turkish air space - but what is really behind this?

NATO on Tuesday rejected Moscow's explanation that its warplanes had violated alliance member Turkey's air space by mistake and said Russia was sending more ground troops to Syria and building up its naval presence.

With Russia extending its air strikes to include the ancient Syrian city of Palmyra, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan said he was losing patience with Russian violations of his country's air space.

"An attack on Turkey means an attack on NATO," Erdogan warned at a Brussels news conference.

Note EU-Digest: This all is starting to look like a prepared scenario. Act one: Netanyahu goes to Russia and has meetings with Putin : Act two: Putin goes to UN and on the sidelines has a one on one meeting with Obama.. Act three: Russia starts bombing targets in Syria. The only unknown in this scenario is President Erdogan of Turkey - but in reality he is probably being used as a sideline "prop" by the powers in play, who have all come to the conclusion that Erdogan's idea of toppling Assad is destabilizing the Middle East even further, but except for Russia,  can not say so openly.

Given the actual political developments in Turkey it also seems likely the US does not see Turkey as a reliable partner anymore unless Erdogan is toppled in the upcoming election and replaced by a more secure and less autocratic democratic regime.  


Read more: NATO rejects Russia explanation on Turkish air space | Reuters

Making NATO defunct: Is EU Army intended to reduce US influence in Europe?

An EU Defense Force? Why not.

An EU military force is being justified as protection from Russia, but it may also be a way of reducing US influence as the EU and Germany come to loggerheads with the US and NATO over Ukraine.

While speaking to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker announced the time has come for the creation of a unified EU military force. Juncker used rhetoric about “defending the values of the European Union” and nuanced anti-Russian polemics to promote the creation of European army, which would convey a message to Moscow.
 
The polemics and arguments for an EU Army may be based around Russia, but the idea is really directed against the US. The underlying story here is the tensions that are developing between the US, on one side, and the EU and Germany, on the other side. This is why Germany reacted enthusiastically to the proposal, putting its support behind a joint EU armed force.

Previously, the EU military force was seriously mulled over was during the buildup to the illegal Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 when Germany, France, Belgium, and Luxembourg met to discuss it as an alternative to US-dominated NATO. The idea has been resurrected again under similar circumstances.

In 2003, the friction was over the US-led invasion of Iraq. In 2015, it is because of the mounting friction between Germany and the US over the crisis in Ukraine.

Franco-German differences with the US began to emerge after Tony Blinken, US President Barak Obama’s former Deputy National Security Advisor and current Deputy Secretary of State and the number two diplomat at the US Department of State, announced that the Pentagon was going to send arms into Ukraine at a hearing of the US Congress about his nomination, that was held on November 19, 2014.

As the Fiscal Times put it, “Washington treated Russia and the Europeans to a one-two punch when it revealed its thinking about arming Ukraine.”

Realizing that things could escalate out of control, the French and German response was to initiate a peace offence through diplomatic talks that would eventually lead to a new ceasefire agreement in Minsk, Belarus under the “Normandy Format” consisting of the representatives of France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine.

Pessimists may argue that France and Germany opted for diplomacy in February 2015, because the rebels in East Ukraine or Novorossiya, as they call it, were beating Kiev’s forces. In other words, the primary motivation of diplomacy was to save the government in Kiev from collapsing without a fair settlement in the East. This may be true to an extent, but the Franco-German pair also does not want to see Europe turned into an inferno that reduces everyone in it to ashes.

Note EU-Digest: NATO was a good thing after the second world war but seems outdated today and dragging Europeans into US military adventures outside Europe. A EU conscript military would probably also be helpful in the unification process of Europe. As long as they call it a defense force meant soly to defend the territory of the the EU I would be for it.

Read more: Making NATO defunct: Is EU Army intended to reduce US influence in Europe? — RT Op-Edge

US blows off Netherlands in ISIS fight - by Maxime Zech

The United State has deemed The Netherlands unfit to address the threat of the Islamic State (IS) in a powerful enough manner. Because of the country’s hesitation to contribute heavy weaponry, The Netherlands
will not be part of the so-called coalition of the willing, in which  nine allies are joining forces in the fight against IS, the Dutch daily Volkskrant reports. 

At the NATO summit in Wales last week, American Foreign Affairs Minister John Kerry called on nine allies to join the coalition of the willing and contribute to the armed struggle. 

According to a source, The Netherlands was very surprised not to be on the list. The coalition is now made up out of The United States, Great Britain, France, Germany,  Italy, Denmark, Turkey, Poland, Canada and Australia.

Note Almere Digest: The list who is in or out among the nations participating in the fight against ISIS keeps changing daily. Recently Turkey stated they would not participate with troops.  

Read more: US blows off Netherlands in ISIS fight - NL Times

Ukraine crisis: Nato plans (not approved by France, Germany, Spain and Italy) east European bases to counter Russia - by Ian Traynor

NAT)O says it is to deploy its forces at new bases in eastern Europe for the first time, in response to the Ukraine crisis and in an attempt to deter Vladimir Putin from causing trouble in the former Soviet Baltic republics, according to its secretary general.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the organisztions's summit in Cardiff next week would overcome divisions within the alliance and agree to new deployments on Russia's borders – a move certain to trigger a strong reaction from Moscow.

He also outlined moves to boost Ukraine's security, "modernise" its armed forces and help the country counter the threat from Russia.

Rasmussen said: "We will adopt what we call a readiness action plan with the aim to be able to act swiftly in this completely new security environment in Europe. We have something already called the Nato response force, whose purpose is to be able to be deployed rapidly if needed. Now it's our intention to develop what I would call a spearhead within that response force at very, very high readiness.

"In order to be able to provide such rapid reinforcements you also need some reception facilities in host nations. So it will involve the pre-positioning of supplies, of equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, headquarters. The bottom line is you will in the future see a more visible Nato presence in the east."
Poland and the three Baltic states have been alarmed at the perceived threat from Russia and have been clamouring for a stronger Nato presence in the region. They have criticised what they see as tokenism in the alliance's response so far.

But the issue of permanent Nato bases in east Europe is divisive. The French, Italians and Spanish are opposed while the Americans and British are supportive of the eastern European demands. The Germans, said a Nato official, were sitting on the fence, wary of provoking Russia.

Note EU-Digest: This kind of rhetoric and sabre rattling will only increase the problems as it will be seen as provocative by Russia. The only solution seems to be a negotiated settlement which clearly defines the borders of Russia and EU-Member States and protects all ethnic minorities.

Read more: Ukraine crisis: Nato plans east European bases to counter Russia | World news | The Guardian

Ukraine: NATO should not waiver : destroy Buk and other missile launchers in and around the border of Ukraine

"Come on NATO do what you are supposed to do"

A missile launcher allegedly used to destroy Flight MH17 has been smuggled across the Ukrainian border into Russia to cover up its role in the strike, Ukraine’s interior minister claimed Friday.

Amid mounting evidence that Russian-backed separatists were behind the disaster, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said “technical assistance” from Russia could not be ruled out.

In a pointed reference to Moscow, Samantha Power added that the perpetrators should not be “sheltered” by any UN member state.

In a day of claim and counter-claim, Ukraine’s interior minister, Arsen Avakov, said a Buk mobile launch vehicle had been moved since the destruction of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200 on Thursday, and that it was missing at least one rocket. He claimed the launcher had been tracked by Ukrainian intelligence agents as it passed by the town of Krasnodon in the Luhansk region.

A 13-second video showed a tarpaulin-covered vehicle being driven through a semi-rural location with green and white missiles still visible, but it was not possible to confirm the veracity of the claim.

Mr. Avakov wrote on Facebook: “To all appearance, this is exactly the Buk rocket complex which fired at the aircraft flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.”

Photographs also emerged purportedly showing a Buk battery being moved in a rebel-held area close to the crash site.

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, dismissed suggestions that Moscow was involved in the alleged strike. The separatists also denied involvement, claiming that they did not have a weapon capable of such an attack.

However, the separatists themselves announced last month that they had seized at least one Buk missile launcher from a Ukrainian army base in Donetsk.

Ms. Power told the UN Security Council: “We assess Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 … was likely downed by a surface-to-air missile, [likely] an SA-11 [the U.S. designation for a Buk missile], operated from a separatist location in eastern Ukraine.” She added: “We cannot rule out technical assistance from the Russians.

The perpetrators must be brought to justice, they must not be sheltered by any member state of the United Nations.”

The father in a Dutch family which had lost relatives in the Russian missile shoot down of the Malaysian Airliner above Ukraine said:   "Why doesn't NATO, which never hesitates to us drone attacks on anything they find suspicious or smell of terrorism, doesn't destroy these Buck bases in and on the border of Russia". 

"What will Russia do? Probably nothing. Mr. Putin certainly can't be that stupid to risk the third world war by striking back ? - the world owes it to the victims of the crash to do something dramatic, so the perpetrators never do this again."

EU-Digest
 

Turkey - let's get real - a far bigger and more serious problem than Crimea - by RM

 








While the world  focuses on Crimea and the comical  "tick-tac-toe" between President's Obama and Putin,  there is another geo-political  problem, which in terms of scope and strategic importance to the West, is far more critical than Crimea.

That problem is called Turkey, on the opposite side of Crimea, with the Black Sea in between .

Here we are now facing a corrupt and paranoid PM and his government, who have gone power crazy and totally out of control, taking Turkey down the road of potentially violent public disturbances and economic meltdown.

Even though, in all fairness Erdogan's accession on to Turkey's political scene more than 10 years ago "raised many eyebrows right from the start, most Turks gave him the benefit of the doubt and overlooked Erdogan's hard-line reputation, and the religious undertone of his AKParty given the apparent prosperity the country was experiencing under his leadership. 

Then came a change, the "Genie got out of the bottle", and the AKparty and Erdogan became more and more dictatorial, eliminating all forces of opposition, including those in the powerful Turkish military, the press and many other organizations.

The situation got even worse after Erdogan  got into a "spat" with his Guru and Mentor, Muhammed Fethullah Gülen, who lives in Pennsylvania, USA, as an exile and from there also  controls a global network of schools and organizations under the banner  "Moderate and Peaceful Islam.".   

Obviously back in Pennsylvania Muhammed Fethullah Gülen, was not very happy his "pupil"  Erdogan had stopped listening to him and rumors and evidence began circulating about the billions Erdogan and his croonies in government had swindled.

Erdogan pointed his finger at his former buddy Muhammed Fethullah Gülen claiiming that it was him who had created a  parallel state within the state that wanted to topple his government. 

Unfortunately for Erdogan despite his illegitimate reshuffling of thousands of police officers and hundreds of judges and prosecutors, he nor his government were able to track down a single piece of evidence of what he called a "parallel state".

In light of all these signs of corruption, it has also become evident to many people in Turkey that the whole parallel state argument by Erdogan  was an imagined enemy that Erdogan, like Don Quixote, used in his fight against the "windmills".

But Erdogan still has quite a few cards to play. As a result of the Turkish electoral and voting system Erdogan and his party still control the Turkish parliament.  Consequently Erdogan's AKParty is approving new laws on a daily basis to consolidate and strengthen his grip on every level of the Turkish  society. 

Mr Erdogan's other major fobia is that he is totally intolerant of criticism from whatever source it comes and has not hesitated to use his powers to have anyone he considers "a threat to the Republic" thrown into jail.

Turkey now has more journalists in prison than just about any other country in the world.

Turkey ranked 154th out of 180 countries surveyed in the World Press Freedom Index released by the Reporters Without Borders Association on Feb. 12, even behind China and  war-torn nations such as Afghanistan and Iraq.  The report noted further that “the Gezi Park revolt highlighted the repressive methods used by the security forces, the increase in self-censorship and the dangers of the prime minister’s populist discourse,”

More recently, audio recordings that appear to be of Erdogan have shown how deeply he is involved in government corruption, were posted on Twitter by an anonymous account holder, just weeks before the March 30 local elections in the country.

 Even though Erdogan denied that these recordings were legitimate he apparently decided it was better to be 'safe than sorry' and just get rid of Twitter altogether.

On Thursday, March 20 Erdogan made good on his promise to wipe out Twitter in his country, and Turkish tweeters are now reporting that they are unable to access the service.

Twitter published a message on its service that same day advising users in Turkey that it was still possible to send Tweets on twitter using mobile phone text messaging. 

Erdogan has previously also called social media a "menace to society" and threatened to ban YouTube and Facebook.  Last year, at least 25 people were arrested for tweeting messages of protests against Erdogan and his government. It now also appears that Facebook is being shut down in Turkey.

Indeed, the world, and particularly the EU should wake up and "smell the roses"  about the situation in Turkey, 

Like it or not, Turkey is a powerful economic ally of the West, a member of NATO and a candidate member of the EU with a population of 81.7 million. 

In contrast Crimea and its  2.3 million people, which since 700 BC  has been changing hands many times including being part of the Cimmerians, Bulgars, Greeks, Scythians, Romans, Goths, Huns, Khazars, Kievan Rus, the Byzantine Empire, Venice, Genoa, Kipchaks, the Golden Horde, the Ottaman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, Germany, Ukraine and now Russia again. 

Crimea or Turkey - Come on EU Commission and EU-Parliament - You don't need to be Einstein to figure that one out ?

As to Crimea, let's be frank - Crimeans voted fair and square they don't want to be part of Ukraine anymore. Maybe the simple solution would be for President Obama to shake hands with President Putin, wish Crimea well, and tell  President Putin not to start messing with Ukraine in the future,  or else. 

Let's get real - its time to focus on Turkey. .

EU-Digest