Friday, April 24, 2015
Military Build-Up On Russia-Ukraine Border, Mideast Arms Race Surging
NATO's chief on Thursday reported a sizeable Russian military buildup on the border with Ukraine that he said would enable pro-Moscow separatists to launch a new offensive with little warning.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said Russia has substantially stepped up supplies to the rebels, as well as providing them with advanced training and equipment like drones, despite a cease-fire.
Making an accusation of their own, Russian officials said U.S. military instructors were training Ukrainian national guardsmen in urban fighting techniques in the same eastern regions where Ukrainian forces and separatists have been fighting for the past year.
In Washington, the U.S. State Department rejected the Russian claim of U.S. trainers in eastern Ukraine, saying all the activity was in western Ukraine near the border with Poland.
"We've been doing this for about 20 years now," State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters, calling the Russian statement "ridiculous."
Stoltenberg said the reported Russian moves undermine the cease-fire declared in eastern Ukraine and violate the Minsk agreements entered into by Moscow. He said more than 1,000 pieces of Russian military equipment have been moved over the past month, including tanks, artillery and air defense units.
Stoltenberg said this "gives reason for great concern" and would enable the separatists to go on the offensive again with little warning.
He said the U.S.-led defense alliance is not certain about the intentions of Moscow and the pro-Russian rebels, "but we are certain about the capabilities."
The claim from Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Gen.-Maj. Igor Konashenkov that U.S. trainers are active in disputed areas of eastern Ukraine came one day after the U.S. State Department accused Russia of deploying air-defense systems in eastern Ukraine and combined Russia-separatist forces of maintaining artillery and rocket launchers in violation of the shaky cease-fire deal.
Konashenkov denied those claims, and said U.S. military instructors are working in the vicinity of the cities of Mariupol, Artemivsk and Volnovakha.
U.S. paratroopers last week arrived in western Ukraine to train national guard units.
The Middle East is facing a burgeoning arms race which in 2015 is expected to include weapons purchases totaling $18 billion, the Guardian reported Thursday.
According to the report, based on data gathered and published by IHS Jane’s and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Western nations are selling an increasing amount of weaponry to the region’s top military buyers, which include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, United Arab Emirates and Algeria.
The arms sold include various aircraft, missiles and armored vehicles.
As the West says it seeks to foster peace and stability in the region, the report notes, it is increasingly providing the Middle East’s major players with more and more tools with which to make war.
Nations such as the US, France, Canada and the UK are pursuing such arms exports due to a combination of foreign interests — supporting Saudi Arabia’s campaign in Yemen, supporting the coalition against Islamic State — and internal economic interests. But analysts warn that the flood of weapons could have unforeseen consequences.
“(The) Saudi-led military operations in Yemen (are) the latest manifestation of Arab interventionism, a trend that has been gaining momentum in the Middle East since the uprisings of the Arab spring,” Tobias Borck, an analyst at the UK’s Royal United Services Institute told the Guardian. “Middle Eastern countries appear to be increasingly willing to use their armed forces to protect and pursue their interests in crisis zones across the region.”
Saudi Arabia is building its arsenal amid concern about a geopolitical shift in the Middle East as the United States looks for help in fighting the Islamic State group, said David Cortright, director of policy studies at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.
The biggest beneficiary of the growing Middle Eastern market was the United States, with $8.4 billion of arms shipments to the region last year, up from $6 billion in 2013. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates imported a combined $8.7 billion of defense systems last year — more than all of Western Europe.
Boosting arms purchases may be a way for some elements in the Saudi government to remind the US of its importance as an ally because defense contracts translate into jobs that are critical to many communities, Cortright said. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, all based in the US, were the three biggest arms exporters among companies last year, according to the IHS Global Defense Trade Report.
Globally, trade in military hardware rose for a sixth straight year in 2014, pushing worldwide imports to $64.4 billion from $56 billion.
The headline in Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when the newspaper served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”
The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.
But the untold story behind that story is one that involves not just the Russian president, but also a former U.S. president and a woman who would like to be the next one.
At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One.
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of U.S. government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Clinton’s wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Hillary Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Bill Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
At the time, both Rosatom and the U.S. government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.
The New York Times’ examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States. Some of the connections between Uranium One and the Clinton Foundation were unearthed by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and author of the forthcoming book “Clinton Cash.” Schweitzer provided a preview of material in the book to The Times, which scrutinized his information and built upon it with its own reporting.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer U.S. foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
U.S. political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations.
Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign individuals and businesses whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.
Uranium. Much in the news these days. Who has it? Who wants it? Who do we not want to have it?
Uranium. You may recall that it was listed, down toward the bottom, on that funny looking "Periodic Chart of the Elements" on the wall in your high school chemistry class. (It was so long ago when I went to high school, the chart in my chemistry class only had three items -- water, rocks, and dirt!)
Anyway, Iran wants some. We don't want them to have any, and, by golly, on June 30, we are going to tell them so! But in the meantime, the issue has become more complicated. As usual, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin is involved.
This week, the New York Times revealed that leaders of the US-Canadian mining industry, major donors to the Clinton Foundation, sold to the Russians a company known as Uranium One, giving the Russians control of one fifth of all the uranium mined in the US. A headline in Pravda boasted, "Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World."
Not too surprisingly, to expedite the deal, Uranium One's chairman made four donations to the Clinton Foundation totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had with the Obama White House to publicly identify all Clinton Foundation donors. In addition, shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium Onestock.
But all that was peanuts compared to the donation just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized when the Clinton Foundation received another windfall: a $31.3 milliondonation from Uranium One shareholder, Frank Giustra—a gift that had remained secret until just last month. And Mr. Giustra has more recently pledged an additional $100 million. So important is Mr. Giustra to the Clinton Foundation that a separate financial entity, the Clinton Giustra Enterprise Partnership, has been established.
Maybe now we can better understand why presidential candidate Clinton has announced that the Clinton Foundation would continue to receive foreign donations during her candidacy, and–if elected—probably through her presidency, as well!
But back to uranium. We have now sold Russia one fifth of our uranium mining capacity. But, to use a time honored phrase, "What possible difference can it make?" We can't process our own uranium anyhow. The Obama Administration closed downour only uranium enrichment plant in June of 2013.
So where do we now get our supply of enriched uranium? You guessed it. We buy it from Russia!
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.
From the New York Times article: Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company
If you looked at the U.S. economy under a microscope, what you’d see is a gigantic cancerous blob of cronyism surrounded by tech startups and huge prisons. If you zeroed in on the cancerous tumor, at the nucleus you’d see a network of crony institutions like the Federal Reserve, intelligence agencies, TBTF Wall Street banks and defense contractors. Pretty close to that, you’d probably find the Clinton Foundation. A veritable clearinghouse for cronyism masquerading as a charity.
This year has seen a great deal of investigative work on the shadiness of the Clinton Foundation, much of which has been highlighted here at Liberty Blitzkrieg. Here’s the tally so far:
Somehow the New York Times failed to mention the Ukrainian coup. I won’t hold my breath for a correction.
The path to a Russian acquisition of American uranium deposits began in 2005 in Kazakhstan, where the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra orchestrated his first big uranium deal, with Mr. Clinton at his side.
Here’s Frankie boy again.
The two men had flown aboard Mr. Giustra’s private jet to Almaty, Kazakhstan, where they dined with the authoritarian president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev.
Mr. Clinton handed the Kazakh president a propaganda coup when he expressed support for Mr. Nazarbayev’s bid to head an international elections monitoring group, undercutting American foreign policy and criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, his wife, then a senator.
Naturally, now that the Clintons have been caught, they are going to refile five years of taxes ahead of the release of Mr. Schweizer’s book. Standard operating procedure.
The Clinton campaign left it to the foundation to reply to questions about the Fernwood donations; the foundation did not provide a response.Mr. Telfer’s undisclosed donations came in addition to between $1.3 million and $5.6 million in contributions, which were reported, from a constellation of people with ties to Uranium One or UrAsia, the company that originally acquired Uranium One’s most valuable asset: the Kazakhstan mines. Without those assets, the Russians would have had no interest in the deal: “It wasn’t the goal to buy the Wyoming mines. The goal was to acquire the Kazakh assets, which are very good,” Mr. Novikov, the Rosatom spokesman, said in an interview.Amid this influx of Uranium One-connected money, Mr. Clinton was invited to speak in Moscow in June 2010, the same month Rosatom struck its deal for a majority stake in Uranium One.The $500,000 fee — among Mr. Clinton’s highest — was paid by Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank with ties to the Kremlin that has invited world leaders, including Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, to speak at its annual investor conference.
The use of Israeli military force against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be an act of “last resort,” Israel’s air force commander said Thursday, but part of his role is to ensure that the air force has “the genuine capacity to get the job done” if ordered to do so.
Major-General Amir Eshel, in his first television interview in the three years since he took command of the Israeli Air Force, told Israel’s Channel 10 news Thursday that an Iran with a nuclear capability “would have grave significance for the whole Middle East, not just for Israel.”
Asked why the air force had not been ordered to strike at Iran in the way that it destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osiraq in 1981 and, according to foreign reports, a Syrian reactor in 2007, Eshel said that Israel “has a range of tools” for grappling with threats. “The solution is through the use of a combination of these tools.”
The use of military force “is the last resort,” he said. “That decision has not yet been made.”
Nonetheless, he added, “I have to prepare a capability so that if a decision is taken, we have the genuine capacity to get the job done. That’s our role.”
The TV report, which was cleared for broadcast by Israel’s military censors, said that Israel has invested “immense resources” in preparing for a possible strike on Iran. “The Israeli Air Force has been building the capacity to attack Iran for more than a decade,” it said.
Speaking of the Russian-made S-300 air defense system, which Moscow has indicated it may supply to Iran, and which Israel has said it also fears could find its way to Syria, Eshel said its deployment would present “a significant challenge” but one that the Israeli air force could meet. “The S-300 is a very sophisticated system,” he said. “It uses long-range missiles with very impressive capabilities. But there is no challenge that cannot be cracked. It’s not a wall that blocks you and you cannot clear.” He said the air force had been “developing our capabilities — our technology and methodology” for some time to meet the challenge.
The TV report filmed Eshel in the course of a drill, preparing for a “war situation” in which the air force could carry out thousands of missile strikes per day. Eshel said the force has more than trebled some of its offensive capabilities.
The TV crew was also allowed to film in the control room of the Eitan unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, which he said could operate “in any area you can imagine” and which is reported to be be capable of reaching Iran.
Eshel said countries that deployed the S-300 might gain a false sense of “immunity from attack” which might make them prone to carrying out “provocative” and “undesirable” actions in the mistaken belief that they were protected. He did not specify which countries or what kind of actions he was referring to.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly castigated the emerging deal between world powers and Iran, warning that, far from stopping the regime’s nuclear drive, it will “pave the way” to an Iranian nuclear arsenal. Netanyahu has also stressed that Israel will “stand alone” to thwart Iran if necessary, and compared the regime in Tehran to the Nazis.
Eshel said his goal was to prevail decisively and as quickly as possible in any future conflicts. He said that had Israel struck key tower blocks in Gaza, which were reportedly used as Hamas control centers, earlier in the conflict rather than on the 47th day, the war would have ended sooner.
Referring to the Hezbollah terrorist army in south Lebanon, he warned that Hezbollah was “dragging” Lebanon toward “a very harsh war” and has deployed its military machine in the civilian “towns and villages of Lebanon.”
Homes where missiles have been deployed by Hezbollah, Eshel warned, “are essentially military bases… and we’ll hit them.
“Lebanese civilians who live in or close to those homes (where Hezbollah has emplaced missiles) have to know one thing,” he said. If conflict erupts, “they should get out as soon as they can.”
If Hezbollah, with which Israel fought a bitter war in 2006, sparks another conflict, Eshel said, “Lebanon will go through an experience whose dimensions it cannot imagine. I wouldn’t trade places with a single Lebanese.”
Also see:
TPP And Globalization
The TPP, once finalized, represents another giant step towards the form of globalization that will be an inevitable part of the coming Tribulation:
Trans Pacific Partnership Would Make U.S. Vulnerable to Terrorism and Blackmail
The United States Trade Representative – the federal agency responsible for negotiating trade treaties – has said that the details of the TPP are classified due to “national security”.
The Trade Representative is a spy crony. The NSA shares information gained from mass surveillancewith the Trade Representative.
But those national security powers aren’t being used to protect America …
A very credible inside source – with a proven track record of access, accuracy, intelligence and dedication to working for our country – tells Washington’s Blog that TPP contains provisions which would severely harm America’s national security.
Specifically, like some previous, ill-conceived treaties, TPP would allow foreign companies to buy sensitive American assets which could subject us to terror attacks or economic blackmail.
So – in addition to all of the other ways in which TPP is a horrible treaty which would destroy America – stopping TPP is a matter of national security.
The powers-that-be are pushing this week to fast track a horrible treaty which would destroy America.
The treaty is called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).
The U.S. Trade Representative – the federal agency responsible for negotiating trade treaties – has said that the details of the TPP are classified due to “national security”.
Parts of the TPP won’t be declassified for four years … even if it’s passed:
The TPP Investment Chapter … is classified and supposed to be kept secret for four years after the entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement is reached, for four years from the close of the negotiations.
Why’s the deal being kept secret? Because it would be impossible to pass if the public knew what was really in it:
Ron Kirk, until recently Mr. Obama’s top trade official, was remarkably candid about why he opposed making the text public: doing so, he suggested to Reuters, would raise such opposition that it could make the deal impossible to sign.
But it’s not only being hidden from the American people … it’s being hidden even from most U.S. Congress members.
There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret … this agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.
It would also allow foreign corporations to challenge U.S. laws. It will literally override American law. As the New York Times headlines in Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S.:
Companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.
Ron Paul says that the TPP would erode national sovereignty:
While it’s falsely called a “trade agreement”, only 5 out of 29 of TPP’s chapters have anything to do with trade. And conservatives point out that even the 5 chapters on trade do not promote free trade. Bloomberg calls TPP a “corporatist power grab”, “as democratic and transparent as a one-party state,” and shrouded in “Big Brother-like secrecy”.
TPP would increase the cost of consumer loans, make prescription drugs more expensive, destroy privacy, harm food safety, let Wall Street run amok, make it illegal to favor local businesses, and – yes – literally act to destroy the sovereignty of the U.S. and the other nations which sign the bill.
A very credible inside source – with a proven track record of access, accuracy, intelligence and dedication to working for our country – tells Washington’s Blog that TPP contains provisions which would severely harm America’s national security. Specifically, like some previous, ill-conceivedtreaties, TPP would allow foreign companies to buy sensitive American assets which could subject us to terror attacks or economic blackmail.
Huffington Post quotes the New York Times and Wikileaks to explain how the dispute provisions would gut the American legal system:
The WikiLeaks analysis explains that this lets firms “sue” governments to obtain taxpayer compensation for loss of “expected future profits.”
Let that sink in for a moment: “[C]ompanies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals….” And they can collect not just for lost property or seized assets; they can collect if laws or regulations interfere with these giant companies’ ability to collect what they claim are “expected future profits.”
The Times‘ report explains that this clause also “giv[es] greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.”
To give an idea of what would happen to American law if TPP passes, just look at Equador … Its courts awarded billions against Chevron for trashing huge swaths of rainforest. But then a private arbitration panel simply ignored the country’s court system. If TPP passes, we’ll be treated like a third world country, and our American laws and courts will be ignored as well.
(Those opposed to a “one world government” or a “new world order” should oppose TPP as the big fight. Conservatives might want to read read this. Remember that one of the best definitions of fascism – the one used by Mussolini – is the “merger of state and corporate power”. TPP a giant step in that direction.)
The backers of TPP – including Obama and many in Congress – are trying to approve a “fast track” procedure this week that would prevent Congress from having any real input into the agreement, or to even have the opportunity to debate what should be in the agreement.
As President Obama continues to push the TPP trade deal, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has accused the White House of lying about the proposal’s finer points, citing sources who said "if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it."
The Obama administration has presented the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership as a 12-nation pact which would “boost US economic growth, support American jobs, and grow Made-in-America exports to some of the most dynamic and fastest growing countries in the world.”
By and the large, the American press has played along, even though the deal worries environmentalists, unions, and human rights groups.
"Concessions are being made right now to win Democratic support," Kevin O’Marah writes for Forbes, "but the bottom line is that the TPP is vital to global trade."
But at least one dissenting voice has spoken up. Writing in response to the president’s appearance on MSNBC, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out her objections to the TPP.
"The government doesn’t want you to read this massive new trade agreement. It’s top secret," Warren writes. "Why? Here’s the real answer people have given me: 'We can’t make this deal public because if the American people saw what was in it, they would be opposed to it.'"
Warren points out that while corporate interests have had ample access to the deal’s inner workings, "the doors stay locked for the regular people whose jobs are on the line."
"Before we sign on to rush through a deal like that – no amendments, no delays, no ability to block a bad bill – the American people should get to see what’s in it."
Any trade agreement can have a huge impact, especially one that involves Australia, Brunei, Canada, Vietnam, Malaysia, Japan, Chile, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, and Singapore – roughly 40% of the world’s economy.
As a senator, Warren can review aspects of the deal that the public doesn’t have access to, and as such she has also expressed concern that it could affect regulatory rules put in place to prevent a financial collapse like the 2008 crisis.
"We’ve all seen the tricks and traps that corporations hide in the fine print of contracts," she writes. "We’ve all seen the provisions they slip into legislation to rig the game in their favor. Now just imagine what they have done working behind closed door with TPP."
"If the American people would be opposed to a trade agreement if they saw it," she adds, "then that agreement should not become the law of the United States."
On Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee approved fast-track legislation which brings the TPP one step closer to actualization. Despite opposition from many Democrats, the bill passed by a vote of 20-6.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Posts
