The Netherlands: More than 440,000 Dutch citizens call for referendum on US influenced Ukraine-EU treaty

A Dutch citizens’ initiative to force a non-binding referendum on a far-reaching treaty between Brussels and Ukraine had gathered 446,000 signatures already  by early Sunday evening.

The campaign to hold a referendum was launched by shock blog Geenstijl, think-tank Forum voor Democratie and the Burgercomite EU association earlier this month. In 2014, the Dutch approved legislation to allow ‘advisory referendums’ on controversial topics, if supporters can gather 300,000 signatures. The Dutch parliament has already voted in favour of the treaty.

The aim of the treaty is to foster political relationships and kickstart economic integration and supporters say it shifts Ukraine away from Russia and more towards the wes

Most of the Dutch citizens who voted in favor of holding a referendum say the treaty will cost Dutch taxpayers billions of euros and that the EU’s expansion drive is having an adverse impact on democracy in the Netherlands. They also argue that the Dutch parliament no longer does what its own voters want, but are driven by US influenced Brussels’ interests.

Some of the supporters of the referendum are also saying that the present Ukraine government came to power illegally and is basically a US creation to increase their influence in Eastern Europe..

In The Hague, politicians congratulated the organisers of the lobby, RTL news reported, even though the ruling Labour party, the Christian Democrats and D66 all reiterated their support for the treaty.

The Socialists and anti-immigration PVV parties are opposed and PVV leader Geert Wilders has already said he will campaign for a ‘no’ vote. The electoral council will now check the results to make sure the signatures are genuine. Once it gives the green light for the referendum, it must be held within six months.

This means the referendum vote is likely to take place during the Dutch presidency of the EU, which starts in January 2016.

EU-Digest

EU-Digest Special Report: "What Borders Mean to Europe" - by George Friedman

The following special report " What Borders Mean to Europe - by Gearge Friedman" was published by EU-Digest. with the permission of the Global Stratford Intelligence Group .

"Europe today is a continent of borders. The second smallest continent in the world has more than 50 distinct, sovereign nation-states. Many of these are part of the European Union. At the core of the EU project is an effort to reduce the power and significance of these borders without actually abolishing them — in theory, an achievable goal. But history is not kind to theoretical solutions.

Today, Europe faces three converging crises that are ultimately about national borders, what they mean and who controls them. These crises appear distinct: Immigration from the Islamic world, the Greek economic crisis and Ukraine would seem to have little to do with each other. But in fact they all derive, in different ways, from the question of what borders mean.

Europe's borders have been the foundation both of its political morality and of its historical catastrophes.

The European Enlightenment argued against multi-national monarchies and for sovereign nation-states, which were understood to be the territories in which nations existed. Nations came to be defined as groupings of humans who shared a common history, language, values and religion — in short, a common culture into which they were born. These groups had the right of national self-determination, the authority to determine their style of government and the people who governed. Above all, these nations lived in a place, and that place had clear boundaries.

The right of national self-determination has created many distinct nations in Europe. And, as nations do, they sometimes distrust and fear one other, which occasionally leads to wars. They also have memories of betrayals and victimizations that stretch back for centuries before the nations became states. Some viewed the borders as unjust, because they placed their compatriots under foreign rule, or as insufficient to national need.

The right of self-determination led inevitably to borders, and the question of borders inevitably led to disputes among states. Between 1914 and 1945, Europeans waged a series of wars about national boundaries and about who has the right to live where. This led to one of the greatest slaughters of human history.

The memory of that carnage led to the creation of the European Union. Its founding principle was that this kind of massacre should never happen again. But the union lacked the power to abolish the nation-state — it was too fundamental to the Europeans' sense of identity. And if the nation-state survived, so did the idea of place and borders.

f the nation-state could not be abolished, however, then at least the borders could lose their significance. Thus two principles emerged after World War II: The first, predating the European Union, was that the existing borders of Europe could not be changed.

The hope was that by freezing Europe's borders, Europe could abolish war. The second principle, which came with the mature European Union, was that the bloc's internal borders both existed and did not exist. Borders were to define the boundaries of nation-states and preserved the doctrine of national self-determination, but they were not to exist insofar as the movement of goods, of labor and of capital were concerned. This was not absolute — some states were limited in some of these areas — but it was a general principle and goal. This principle is now under attack in three different ways.

The Movement of Muslims in Europe

The chaos in the Middle East has generated a flow of refugees toward Europe. This is adding to the problem that European nations have had with prior Muslim migrations that were encouraged by Europeans. As Europe recovered from World War II, it needed additional labor at low cost. Like other advanced industrial countries have done, a number of European states sought migrants, many from the Islamic world, to fill that need.

At first, the Europeans thought of the migrants as temporary residents. Over time, the Europeans conceded citizenship but created a doctrine of multiculturalism, which appeared to be a gesture of tolerance and was implicitly by mutual consent, given that some Muslims resisted assimilation. But this doctrine essentially served to exclude Muslims from full participation in the host culture even as they gained legal citizenship. But as I have said, the European idea of the nation was challenged by the notion of integrating different cultures into European societies.

Partly because of a failure to fully integrate migrants and partly because of terrorist attacks, a growing portion of European society began perceiving the Muslims already in Europe as threatening. Some countries had already discussed resurrecting internal European borders to prevent the movement not only of Muslims, but also of other Europeans seeking jobs in difficult economic times. The recent wave of refugees has raised the matter to a new level.

The refugee crisis has forced the Europeans to face a core issue. The humanitarian principles of the European Union demand that refugees be given sanctuary. And yet, another wave of refugees into Europe has threatened to exacerbate existing social and cultural imbalances in some countries; some anticipate the arrival of more Muslims with dread. Moreover, once migrants are allowed to enter Europe by any one country, the rest of the nations are incapable of preventing the refugees' movement.

Who controls Europe's external borders? Does Spain decide who enters Spain, or does the European Union decide? Whoever decides, does the idea of the free movement of labor include the principle of the free movement of refugees? If so, then EU countries have lost the ability to determine who may enter their societies and who may be excluded. For Europe, given its definition of the nation, this question is not an odd, legal one. It goes to the very heart of what a nation is, and whether the nation-state, under the principle of the right of national self-determination, is empowered to both make that decision and enforce it.

This question does not merely concern Muslims. In the 19th and 20th centuries, the Ostjuden — the Jews coming into Western Europe as they fled czarist edicts — raised the same challenge, even though they sought more vigorously to assimilate. But at that point, the notion of borders was unambiguous even if the specific decision on how to integrate the Jews was unclear. In many countries, the status of minorities from neighboring nations was a nagging question, but there were tools for handling it.

The Muslim issue is unique in Europe only to the extent that the European Union has made it unique. The bloc has tried to preserve borders while sapping them of significance, and now there is an upsurge of opposition not only to Muslim immigration, but also to the European Union's understanding of borders and free movement.

The Greek Crisis

The question of borders is also at the heart of the Greek crisis. We see two issues: one small, the other vast. The small one involves capital controls. The European Union is committed to a single European financial market within which capital flows freely. Greeks, fearing the outcome of the current crisis, have been moving large amounts of money out of Greece into foreign banks.

They remember what happened during the Cyprus crisis, when the government, capitulating to German demands in particular, froze and seized money deposited in Cypriot banks. Under EU rules, the transfer of deposits in one country of the bloc, or even outside the bloc, is generally considered legitimate. However, in the case of Cyprus, the free movement of capital across borders was halted. The same could conceivably happen in Greece.

In any event, which is the prior principle: the free movement of capital or the European Union's overarching authority to control that flow? Are Greek citizens personally liable for their government's debt — not merely through austerity policies, but also through controls imposed by the Greek government under European pressure to inhibit the movement of their money? If the answer is the latter, then borders on capital can be created temporarily.

The larger issue is the movement of goods. A significant dimension of this crisis involves free trade. Germany exports more than 50 percent of its gross domestic product. Its prosperity depends on these exports. I have argued that the inability to control the flow of German goods into Southern Europe drove the region into economic decline.

Germany's ability to control the flow of American goods into the country in the 1950s helped drive its economic recovery. The European Union permits limits on the movement of some products, particularly agricultural ones, through subsidies and quotas. In theory, free trade is beneficial to all. In practice, one country's short-term gain can vastly outweigh others' long-term gains. The ability to control the flow of goods is a tool that might slow growth but decrease pain.

The essential principle of the European Union is that of free trade, in the sense that the border cannot become a checkpoint to determine what goods may or may not enter a country and under what tariff rule. The theory is superb, save for its failure to address the synchronization of benefits. And it means that the right to self-determination no longer includes the right to control borders.

Ukraine and the 'Inviolability' of Borders

Finally, there is the Ukraine issue — which is not really about Ukraine, but about a prior principle of Europe: Borders cannot be allowed to change. The core of this rule is that altering borders leads to instability. This rule governed between 1945 and 1992.

Then, the fall of the Soviet Union transformed the internal borders of Europe dramatically, moving the Russian border eastward and northward. The Soviet collapse also created eight newly free nations that were Soviet satellites in Central and Eastern Europe and 15 new independent states — including Russia — from the constituent parts of the Soviet Union. It could be argued that the fall of the Soviet Union did not change the rule on borders, but that claim would be far-fetched. Everything changed.

Then came the "velvet divorce" of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and now there are potential divorces in the United Kingdom, Spain and Belgium.

Perhaps most importantly, the rule broke down in Yugoslavia, where a single entity split into numerous independent nations, and, among other consequences, a war over borders ensued. The conflict concluded with the separation of Kosovo from Serbia and its elevation to the status of an independent nation. Russia has used this last border change to justify redrawing the borders of Georgia and as a precedent supporting its current demand for the autonomy and control of eastern Ukraine. Similarly, the border between Azerbaijan and Armenia shifted dramatically as the result of war. (On a related note, Cyprus, divided between a Turkish-run north and a Greek-run south, was allowed into the European Union in 2004 with its deep border dispute still unsettled.)

Since the end of the Cold War, the principle of the inviolability of borders has been violated repeatedly — through the creation of new borders, through the creation of newly freed nation-states, through peaceful divisions and through violent war. The principle of stable borders held for the most part until 1991 before undergoing a series of radical shifts that sometimes settled the issue and sometimes left it unresolved.

The Europeans welcomed most of these border adjustments, and in one case — Kosovo — Europeans themselves engineered the change.

It is in this context that the Ukrainian war must be considered. Europe's contention, supported by America, is that Russia is attempting to change inviolable borders. There are many good arguments to be made against the Russians in Ukraine, which I have laid out in the past. However, the idea that the Russians are doing something unprecedented in trying to redraw Ukraine's borders is difficult to support. Europe's borders have been in flux for some time.

That is indeed a matter of concern; historically, unsettled borders in Europe are precursors to war, as we have seen in Yugoslavia, the Caucasus and now Ukraine. But it is difficult to argue that this particular action by Russia is in itself a dramatically unprecedented event in Europe. The principle of national self-determination depends on a clear understanding of a nation and the unchallenged agreement on its boundaries.

The Europeans themselves have in multiple ways established the precedent that borders are not unchallengeable.

There are two principles competing. The first is the European Union's desire that borders be utterly permeable without the nation-state losing its right to self-determination. It is difficult to see how a lack of control over borders is compatible with national self-determination. The other principle is that existing borders not be challenged. On the one hand, the union wants to diminish the importance of borders. On the other hand, it wants to make them incontestable.

Neither principle is succeeding. Within Europe, more forces are emerging that want to return control over borders to nation-states. In different ways, the Muslim immigrant crisis and the Greek crisis intersect at the question of who controls the borders. Meanwhile, the inviolability of borders has been a dead letter since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The idea of borders being archaic is meaningful only if the nation-state is archaic. There is no evidence that this is true in Europe. On the contrary, all of the pressures we see culturally and economically point to not only the persistence of the idea of nationality, but also to its dramatic increase in Europe. At the same time, there is no evidence that the challenge to borders is abating. In fact, during the past quarter of a century, the number of shifts and changes, freely or under pressure, has only increased. And each challenge of a national border, such as the one occurring in Ukraine, is a challenge to a nation's reality and sense of self.

The European Union has promised peace and prosperity. The prosperity is beyond tattered now. And peace has been intermittently disrupted — not in the European Union, but around it — since the Maastricht Treaty was signed in 1992 to create a common economic and monetary union. All of this is linked to the question of what a border represents and how seriously we take it. A border means that this is my country and not yours.

This idea has been a source of anguish in Europe and elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is a reality embedded in the human condition. Borders matter, and they matter in many different ways. The European crisis, taken as a whole, is rooted in borders. Attempting to abolish them is attractive in theory. But theory faces reality across its own border."

The above report was published by EU-Digest with the permission of the Global Stratford Intelligence Group

Ukraine: While Middle East is falling apart US now storing heavy weapons and tanks in Eastern Europe

Some 200 years ago Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz said "War is a mere continuation of politics by other means."  It still holds truth today.

And...as we all know, politics are very much influenced by the corporate lobby and interest groups.

In the case of the US, the military industrial complex plays a major role in the political decision procress.

Even though the extravagant US military budget was cut according to The Wall Street Journal over the past four years from $721 billion, to "just" $560 billion -- It still provides a huge market for the Pentagon's new weapons systems, and a lot of revenue "up for grabs" by the defense contractors.

If you look, however, at the track record  of the US military, which was sent into war by the political establishment, the results, overall have been dismal.

Just this 21st century alone, the US, assisted by a "coalition of the willing" (some have called them willing  "lap dogs"), fought three wars, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.

What these wars had in common is that each time, the US and their "allies"  scored what they thought was a stunning victory -- they quickly also found out that victory was a brief mirage on the road to defeat.

Today's results of the disastrous US Middle East  policy, which goes way back in time, is really starting to "bear fruit",  specially when we watch the recent boatloads of Middle Eastern and North African refugees arriving on the shores of Europe.

When former US President George W. Bush announced in 2003, on the US aircraft carrier SS Abraham Lincoln, that the combat operations in Iraq were over, while he proudly stood under a  "Mission accomplished" banner, he could not have been more wrong, specially if we look at the aftermath of that war today.

As someone said at the time of the Bush victory announcement, "confidence is the feeling you have before you fully understand the situation."

And here we go again, as the US announced on Saturday, June 13, that it plans to store heavy military equipment in the Baltics and Eastern European nations to "reassure allies made uneasy by Russian intervention in Ukraine, and to deter further aggression", a senior U.S. official said.

Several questions arise? What is the EU Commission and Parliament saying about this. Are they just sitting back and letting the US steam-role them into another military escapade?

Isn't it time Europe starts to do some serious thinking about the fact that always blindly "following the leader" is maybe not the right way to go forward? Or, that the real issue at stake in Europe is the Ukraine crisis and the future of America’s role as Europe’s security guarantor.


EU-Digest

Fifa Scandal or Politics on Steroids ?: Why is the US policing a global game ?

The BBC asked in one of their recent programs - "America does not even like football, or so many people think. Why is it leading the charge against alleged Fifa corruption?"

Good question.

At dawn, Swiss police rounded up seven Fifa officials at the behest of US authorities who have conducted a massive investigation into corruption at football's governing body.
So how did a country where football is more niche than entrenched come to police the world's beautiful game?

"Too many countries are cowed by Fifa," said Alexandra Wrage, a former Fifa anti-bribery adviser who resigned in protest from the organization.

"As with international bribery more generally, the US Department of Justice has said they'll step up to investigate corruption if others won't," she said.

It is not clear what specific event - if any - prompted the US investigation. Some have pointed to the United States' failed bid in late 2010 to host the the 2022 World Cup, and suspicions that bribes were paid to encourage votes for Qatar.

Note EU-Digest:The US involvement in Fifa is questionable and looks much more like politics gone on steroids. Everyone is aware bribery in sports has been going on for years now, not only in the FIFA globally, but also in just about every sector of US sports.  Another possible point of this US contention could be that Russia will be hosting the next World Cup in 2018!  The country submitted its candidacy in early 2009 and was selected by the FIFA Executive Committee in Zurich on December 2, 2010, beating out England and joint bids from Portugal/Spain and Belgium/Netherlands. 

Who knows, the US might be wanting to turn this decision for Russia to host the 2018 world cup around by proving bribery charges favored the selection of Russia and in that way indirectly also punish Russia for the Ukraine crises.

Another aspect, and maybe the most important one, is that the commercial benefits of hosting a World cup and all the perks that come with it involves major corporate involvement and profits. 

This complicates matters even more, since corporate money these days,  more often than not,  usually controls political action.   

EU-Digest 

The Netherlands:: Last MH17 Crash Remains Arrive in Netherlands - "poor performance Dutch Government"

A flight carrying the last remains of Dutch victims killed in last year's MH17 plane crash in rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine arrived in the Netherlands on Saturday.

The Dutch air force C-130 plane landed shortly before 4.00 pm (1400 GMT) at the Eindhoven air force base carrying seven coffins, live video on Dutch news website nu.nl showed.

All 298 passengers and crew on board the Malaysia Airlines jetliner -- the majority of them Dutch -- died when the plane was shot down on July 17 last year.

Note EU-Digest: this is absolutely scandalous that it took some 10 months before all the remains of the victims were recovered,  as all the official authorities kept pointing fingers at everyone exept themselves. The main culprit, however, who should receive most of the blame for this poor performance, must be the Dutch Government, who were in charge of the recovery operation and unfortunately avoided taking any kind of firm action, including military action, at all cost . Instead they blamed Ukraine, the Russian Rebel forces, red tape etc. Bad job ! 

Read more: Last MH17 Crash Remains Arrive in Netherlands

EU: Hollande and Merkel head to Kiev, Moscow with peace plan

French President François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel are due in Kiev Thursday for talks on ending the country’s ongoing crisis before heading to Russia to present a draft peace plan on Friday.

“Together with Angela Merkel we have decided to take a new initiative,” Hollande told a news conference. “We will make a new proposal to solve the conflict which will be based on Ukraine’s territorial integrity.”

He said that he and Merkel had worked together over the last several days to draft a text they hoped would be acceptable to both sides of the conflict. He added that France was not in favour of Ukraine joining NATO.

“It will not be said that France and Germany together have not tried everything, undertaken everything to preserve the peace,” the French president said.

Read more: Europe - Hollande and Merkel head to Kiev, Moscow with peace plan - France 24

Ukraine: Poland cool on Ukraine military aid - "US military aid to Ukraine not a good idea"

The EU should hold back from sending military lethal aid to Ukraine, Polish Europe Minister Rafal Trzaskowski told euronews on Wednesday, amid calls in the US to send defensive weapons to Kyiv.

“We are not we taking any military solution into account because military solutions are completely off the table because we do not want to destabilize the situation any further,” Trzaskowski said in an interview.
“We have to use of the tools that are at our disposal,” he said.

“We do not want to destabilise the situation but every state has to analyse the situation and obviously will no-one say that none of the options are possible.”

When asked by euronews why he thought the EU’s current policy of restrictive measures would change Moscow’s behaviour, Trzaskowski said: “Sanctions are just a tool for showing our determination. Obviously no one says they are going to be a wonderful solution for everything. We know it is very difficult to influence Russia’s policy.”

Poland has played a leading role in the diplomatic charge to broker an end to the Russia-Ukraine crisis, with the country’s former foreign minister Radek Sikorski crafting a deal with two EU counterparts to see ex-president Viktor Yanukoyvch step down.

Read more: Poland cool on Ukraine military aid | euronews, Europe

Sanctions: EU may consider lift of anti-Russia sanctions if Ukraine’s territorial integrity preserved

The European Union may consider the possibility of lifting its sanctions against Russia if Ukraine’s territorial integrity is preserved, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said on Friday.

“We’ll see whether there is any progress in this direction. Then we can move towards lifting the sanctions,” she told a news conference after a meeting of EU leaders in Brussels.

Merkel stressed that the EU imposed its sanctions on Russia in response to developments in Ukraine and the sanctions could be removed if the cause for imposing them was eliminated. She also said she hoped that EU countries would have a consolidated position if it was necessary to extend the sanctions.

A diplomatic source in Brussels said on Friday heads of state and government from the 28-nation European Union will consider the fulfilment of the Minsk peace agreements and the possibility of lifting the bloc’s sanctions against Russia at a summit in March 2015. “Certain sanctions against Russia may be lifted at an EU summit in Brussels in March,” the source told TASS.

French President Francois Hollande also said there was no need at present to tighten European Union sanctions against Russia. “We expect there is no reason to take new sanctions and we also are going to look how we could engage in a de-escalation,” Hollande told journalists after the meeting in Brussels.

Read more: TASS: World - EU may consider lift of anti-Russia sanctions if Ukraine’s territorial integrity preserved

EU-Digest Poll on Ukraine election by pro-Russian dissidents shows 50% consider the election legitimate

The latest EU-Digest Poll open to all its readers from the 14th of November  through the 14th of December on the political legitimacy of Ukraine's recent  pro-Russian dissident election showed  the following results.(see illustration)

On the question if the Russian Ethnic population had the right to self determination 50% of those polled said they did.

This month poll, open through January 15, 2015, focuses on torture.

Is torture an acceptable method to extract information during interrogations of suspects?

This poll question is being asked in light of a report from the US Senate Intelligence Committee on the CIA's interrogation techniques after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, which details the methods the agency used against terrorism suspects.

The report says the techniques were ineffective, a point the agency disputes.

EU-Digest

Ukraine election: Ukraine overwhelmingly elects pro-European parliament

Ukrainians have overwhelmingly voted in several pro-European parties in a landmark parliamentary election Sunday, another nudge in the former Soviet nation's drift away from Russia.

As votes are counted, President Petro Poroshenko's bloc looks set to win the most, with PM Arseny Yatsenyuk's People's Front party a close second.

Addressing Ukrainians two hours after polling ended, he thanked voters for backing a "democratic, reformist, pro-Ukrainian and pro-European majority".

"The majority of voters were in favor of the political forces that support the president's peace plan and seek a political solution to the situation in the Donbass," Poroshenko said, referring to the region of the industrialized east where government forces have been fighting separatist rebels.

The result, confirmed by other exit polls, opened up the possibility of Poroshenko, a 49-year-old confectionery magnate, continuing to work in tandem with Yatseniuk, with the latter staying as prime minister to handle sensitive talks with the West on aid for the war-shattered economy.

The People's Front of Yatseniuk, a hawk in dealings with Russia who is liked in the West for his commitment to deep reforms and stewardship of the economy, took just over 21 percent of the vote, according to the exit poll, with a third pro-Europe party from western Ukraine in third place.

Speaking later at a news conference, Poroshenko said People's Front was the "main partner" in any parliamentary coalition and talks to form the majority could begin on Monday.

EU-Digest

The Netherlands: Dutch exporters find way via Turkey to circumvent imposed Russian Sanctions

The Dutch Fruit and Vegetable publication "Fresh Plaza" reports that Russia accuses Poland of illegal re-export, so it closed its borders last week for all products from Poland.

The Eastern European country is reported to transport Polish produce under a false label as re-export to Russia. Traders from other countries are also reportedly using smuggling routes.

The Netherlands and Spain were recently mentioned in the media in connection with the smuggling. The Canadian borders are opened to Belgian pears. The agreement was reached after efforts from Belgium and the EU For other EU member states, similar trade agreements are on the table. In the Czech Republic, apple prices have gone down to 30%.

The country is mainly hit indirectly by the boycott, and gets little compensation from the EU for that reason. Growers in Lithuania refuse to destroy produce, so they are not entitled to receive compensation. As a result, growers are in danger of bankruptcy. And negotiations between Russia and Jordan and Iran are still going. Both countries want to significantly increase export of fruit and vegetables to Russia.

EU-Digest

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: West's Sanctions Against Russia Remain Relatively Porous - by Marcus Walker and Laurence Norman

The U.S. and Europe are stepping up their sanctions against Russia, but the restrictions remain partial and porous compared with other economic embargoes recently imposed by the West. Bans on buying new bonds of Russian state-owned banks, or on selling some engineering technology to Russia's oil industry, are expected to hurt parts of Russia's economy.

But the measures don't touch Russia's main business with the West: the sale of natural gas and oil to Europe.

That makes the sanctions regime fundamentally different from the sweeping Western embargo that has blocked Iran from selling any oil or gas to its traditional customers in the European Union.

"The EU's core business with Russia has been left untouched," said Stefan Lehne, a scholar at Carnegie Europe, a nonpartisan Brussels think tank. Mr. Lehne said the EU is likely to adopt further sanctions against Russia, including tighter financial-sector restrictions, but that energy supplies won't be touched. "If you really restrict Russian energy exports, then you hurt the EU as much as Russia." EU leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel have said the sanctions can be scaled back if Moscow becomes more cooperative in the Ukraine conflict—or scaled up if it continues to support pro-Russia rebels there.

But few in Europe can imagine a boycott of Russian gas, which flowed West continuously even at the height of Cold War enmity. Many countries across the Continent have no way of replacing Russian gas quickly or affordably.

A sanctions regime that targets secondary economic ties such as banking, specialized engineering and weapons highlights the limits of the EU's room for maneuver. Despite doubts about the ability of the new measures to change the Kremlin's mind, experience shows international sanctions tend to escalate as the affected country finds ways to evade them. That leads to efforts to plug loopholes and tighten them.

And in this particular conflict, political and military events are intensifying rather than defusing the underlying conflict. "The Ukrainian military is showing greater capability, so Russia has to step back or double down" in supporting the rebels, said Robert Kahn, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington.

"So far, the signs are it's likely to double down." Sanctions can be effective when accompanied by a workable political strategy to resolve a conflict through negotiations, but sometimes the EU adopts sanctions "out of a sense that something must be done," said Mr. Lehne at Carnegie Europe. "It's possible that this will be one of the effective cases, but it's not guaranteed," he said.

Read more: West's Sanctions Against Russia Remain Relatively Porous - WSJ

Ukraine: Dutch sending unarmed police to Ukraine crash site - by Mike Corder

The Netherlands is sending 40 unarmed military police to eastern Ukraine as part of a ramped-up effort to find the last victims of the downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 still at the wreckage site, Prime Minister Mark Rutte announced late Thursday.

He also is sending forensic investigators to the site to try to piece together exactly what happened when the plane was shot down a week ago, killing all 298 people on board.
U.S. officials say the Boeing 777 was probably shot down by a missile from territory held by pro-Russian rebels, likely by accident.

Rutte said the military police will help the investigators.

"They are really looking like the forensic experts," he said. "They will be extra hands and eyes to look for remaining remains and personal belongings."

His comments Thursday came hours after two military planes carrying 74 coffins landed at a military base in the Netherlands. A day earlier, the two military transport planes — one Dutch and one Australian — brought back the first 40 coffins and more flights were planned for Friday.

Thousands of people have turned out to watch the convoys of hearses drive from the Eindhoven Air Base to a military barracks in the central city of Hilversum, where the remains will be identified by an international team of experts.

The Netherlands has been given the lead in the investigation into what exactly happened to Flight 17 and is taking charge of efforts to identify the dead. This nation of 17 million was the hardest hit, with 194 of its citizens on board the plane.

Read more: Dutch sending unarmed police to Ukraine crash site - US News

Netherlands: Majority of Dutch population polled want the Netherlands to severe diplomatic relations with Russia

In a recent Dutch poll 58 percent of the people polled said the government should severe diplomatic relations with Russia regardless of the economic consequences .

Another 26 % said major sanctions should be imposed on Russia and 16% wern't sure what to do.

Comparing the percentage of the total Netherlands population with that of the US and the number of Dutch casualties as a result of this Russian missile shoot down of the Malaysian aircraft, the Netherlands suffered a greater loss of livespercentage wise than the US did in 9/11.

EU-Digest

Ukraine: Dutch investigators say remains of bodies from Aircraft downed and held by pro-Russian rebels not refrigerated

Dutch investigators inspected bodies recovered from downed passenger airliner MH17 which had been loaded onto a train under rebel control not far from the crash site, an AFP reporter said. Each of the train wagons carrying the corpses was opened and examined by two men wearing masks and headlights.

The stench from the wagon was overpowering and, contrary to claims that the carriages were refrigerated, there was little sign that the remains in black body bags were being chilled.

Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said Monday that the Netherlands should head up the investigation into downed flight MH17 and that Kiev was ready to "send all bodies to Amsterdam". "We are ready for the Netherlands to take upon itself the coordination of the international investigation as the country that suffered the most," Yatsenyuk said.

Another 21 bodies have been found in the east Ukraine village where Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 17 crashed last week. All 298 people aboard were killed. Local rescue workers had piled 21 black body bags by the side of the road in Hrabove early on Monday, adds the Associated Press report. It was unclear how quickly they would be transported to refrigerated railcars in the nearby town of Torez, where the other bodies are being held.

The United Nations Security Council is expected to consider a resolution demanding that pro-Russian separatists provide "full and unrestricted access" to the crash site of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 that was

The document, proposed by Australia and co-sponsored by countries like France, also calls on all actors in the region to fully cooperate in an international probe of the incident. It demands that all military activities, including by armed groups, be "immediately ceased in the immediate area surrounding the crash site to allow for security and safety of the international investigation."

US Secretary of State John Kerry laid out "extraordinary circumstantial evidence" on Sunday that Ukrainian pro-Russian rebels were behind the downing of a Malaysian jet hit by weapons obtained from Russia. US intelligence suggests that a sophisticated SA11 missile system was used to bring down flight MH17 on Thursday as it flew at some 33,000 feet over Ukraine en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur,

Kerry said. A total of 298 people on board were killed in the disaster that has shocked the world. "It's pretty clear that this is a system that was transferred from Russia in the hands of separatists," Kerry told CNN as he blitzed the Sunday television talk shows. "We know with confidence, with confidence, that the Ukrainians did not have such a system anywhere near the vicinity at that point in time.

So it obviously points a very clear finger at the separatists." The top US diplomat also slammed "grotesque" scenes at the crash site where he said rebels were hampering the investigation and the proper removal of the bodies.

Overall situation so far is chaotic with no real coordinated efforts by the West to take charge of the recovery activities and accident investigation or defensive measures to eliminate the possibility of future missile attacks from the separatist and their Russian allies.

 EU-Digest

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
 

The Netherlands: 154 Dutch citizens die in Malaysian Airlines crash at Ukraine Russian border as their flight from Holland to Malysia gets shot down by Russian missile

U.S. officials have confirmed to several media outlets that the Malaysia Airlines passenger plane that crashed near the Ukraine-Russia border Thursday was shot down by a surface-to-air missile.

The origin of the missile remained unclear and both government officials and pro-Russia separatists fighting in the region denied responsibility.

The number of fatalities in the crash was not immediately clear.

There were 295 people on board, 280 passengers and 15 crew members. Ukrainian authorities told U.S. Embassy officials that everyone on the plane was "believed dead" and that the aircraft debris was scatted over a 10-mile swath of land, ABC News reported.

Malaysia Airlines released a partial list, published by the Washington Post, of the nationalities for 233 of the plane's 280 passengers: 154 Dutch, 27 Australian, 23 Malaysian, 11 Indonesian, 6 British, 4 German, 4 Belgian, 3 Filipino and one Canadian. The airline said it did not yet know the nationalities of the remaining passengers yet.

Every member of the 15-person crew was Malaysian, the airline said.

An aide to Ukraine's interior minister quoted by Interfax said the total number of dead in the crash was more than 300 and included 23 U.S. citizens.

Note: the number of Dutch casualties has now risen to 194

Read more: Malaysia Airlines plane carrying 295 people shot down in missile strike near Ukraine-Russia border: U.S. official - Yahoo News

EU Unity: U.K. Loses Big Vote On The Future Of Europe — Now What? - by Marilyn Geewax

The European Union made history Friday by bringing three of Russia's neighbors — Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova — under its economic tent.

The of trade agreements will push European influence deep into a region that Russia would like to dominate. In light of recent Russian aggression in Ukraine, that's a big deal.

But in Brussels, Belgium, generated a second major headline later in the day.

Leaders of the European Union's 28 member states voted on the next president of the European Commission, which serves as the EU's executive branch.

The president sets the policy agenda, enforces rules and represents Europe abroad — so it's the most powerful position in the EU. Friday's vote ended up 26-2 in favor of Jean-Claude Juncker, a former prime minister of Luxembourg.

But the outcome matters because the losing votes belonged to the United Kingdom and Hungary. And they were deeply, totally, seriously opposed to Juncker — so much so that his victory could trigger an eventual reconfiguring of the EU in ways not favorable to the U.S.

U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron sees Juncker as a political fixer, a crony-type politician with a reputation for drinking too much and defending the EU bureaucracy too vigorously. And the U.K. and Hungary fear that Juncker wants to take away too many powers from sovereign states.

The 26 leaders who voted for Juncker insist that , they had to nominate the Luxembourger, who will now go on to get rubber-stamp approval from the European Parliament in mid-July.

After the vote, Cameron called the outcome "a serious mistake" and promised to . He said pushing reforms would involve "a long, tough fight."

EU-Digest

Is EU Foreign Policy Weak or clever ?: A promise barely noticed- Charlemagne

America's retreat from the woes of the world is worrying its friends in the Middle East. Jihadists are surging through Iraq; Syria uses chemical weapons without retribution; and the latest American attempt to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has failed. Is it time for Europe to help fill the vacuum?

Europeans always dream of exerting global influence commensurate with their economic weight. The Middle East’s problems have a way of washing up on Europe’s shores, be it boat people landing on the Mediterranean coast, or terrorists returning after being hardened by jihad in one or other civil war. And yet Europeans are struggling to be heard.

Take this week’s visit to Israel by José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission. He expanded on what, in another time or place, would be a big promise: if and when the Israelis and Palestinians make peace, the EU stands ready to offer economic integration akin to that enjoyed by Norway and Switzerland. In Ukraine the power of a similar offer precipitated a civil war and geopolitical contest with Russia; in the Holy Land, though, the promise of “special privileged partnerships” was barely noticed. It is striking, that, separately, Israel chose not to vote in March on a UN motion sponsored by the West to condemn Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

If America elicits less respect from Israel these days, Europe is the object of much scorn. Europe is remembered as a Jewish graveyard and, latterly, is regarded as an economic basket-case. Even collectively, it packs far less military punch than America. The French- and British-led intervention that toppled Muammar Qaddafi in Libya has left a violent mess.

The European Union’s 28 member-states are divided between big, small, old and new members and, when it comes to Israel, between the guilt-ridden (Germany) and the disapproving (Sweden).

As with much else, EU foreign-policy positions are finely balanced compromises, so even important moves are lost in woolly formulations. Seeking to keep Israeli-Palestinian peace talks alive after John Kerry, the American secretary of state, declared a “pause” in his mediation, Mr Barroso said the hiatus was “untenable in the long run”; peace with the Palestinians was in Israel’s best security interest.

America is of paramount importance to Israel’s security. But Europe makes several vital contributions. Its sanctions on Iran helped bring the mullahs to the negotiating table; its money keeps the Palestinian Authority alive as a negotiating partner for Israel; and Europe is central in managing the Syrian refugee crisis.

To be heard, Europeans need to speak clearly about what a two-state solution means: the end of Israeli occupation of land captured in 1967 (with agreed land swaps and a deal on Jerusalem), but also the end of further Palestinian claims on the Jewish state created in 1948. Palestinian refugees will, overwhelmingly, return to the new state of Palestine, not their old homes in Israel.

Read more:Charlemagne: A promise barely noticed | The Economis